What is a reviewer?

[John T]

The industry needs neutral and concise points of view. Unfortunately this is seldom or never the case. Incentives cover a wide swatch of territory; "In every journey there are as many objectives missed as there are objectives gained" Arnold Toynbee...

 

[JackD201]

Absorb what is useful, discard what is useless and add what is specifically your own. Bruce Lee

 

[treitz3]

Amen to that, Jack.

Glad to see you are still around. Hope all is well with you and yours.

Tom

 

[Rt66indierock]

You cant change people , if people think there are no conflict of interests in audio publications they are just plain dumb.

I get in a lot of trouble for saying audiophiles are dumb.

 

[andromedaaudio]

I get in a lot of trouble for saying audiophiles are dumb.

lol , dont you have the first amendment in the US ??

 

[Elliot G.]

I get in a lot of trouble for saying audiophiles are dumb.

It seems stating your theories and rumors as facts has already done that.
That corvette story is total BS

 

[Rt66indierock]

That’s a fair question and deserves an answer. Additionally check out Tracking Angle article about darTZell controversy. It only mentions ‘rumors’ and whole statement from darTZell side. Why he doesn’t mention what the ‘rumors’ claim? Why he doesn’t mention anything from one side (RG) labelling it as rumor while he’s putting every word of darTZell side? Is it inline with impartial, fair journalism?

Maybe talking with me is different than what he writes? I did go after him about liking MQA and twice we’ve had a game of one upmanship over destroyed master tapes. He promotes stuff in the industry and I’m okay with that.

 

[mtemur]

Maybe talking with me is different than what he writes? I did go after him about liking MQA and twice we’ve had a game of one upmanship over destroyed master tapes. He promotes stuff in the industry and I’m okay with that.

I’m just asking—I don’t have the answers—but in my opinion, sharing perspectives from both sides of a controversy is fairer and helps readers better understand the situation. It’s also reasonable to ask for proof of any accusations.

 

[JackD201]

Amen to that, Jack.

Glad to see you are still around. Hope all is well with you and yours.

Tom

Thanks Tom. All is good hope it is the same for you The green ink days seem so long ago LOL

I always like that quote more than the water one hahahahaha

 

[Rt66indierock]

It seems stating your theories and rumors as facts has already done that.
That corvette story is total BS

Elliot, what did that paragon of honesty Jonathan Valin (I’m as honest as Denver man can be) write in his article about TAS’s fortieth anniversary?

“Second, the business of running the magazine, both financially and editorially, was sometimes willfully mishandled. “

Let’s hear your version of what willfully mishandling the finances the magazine was in the nineties.

 

[Rt66indierock]

I’m just asking—I don’t have the answers—but in my opinion, sharing perspectives from both sides of a controversy is fairer and helps readers better understand the situation. It’s also reasonable to ask for proof of any accusations.

On Saturday December 31, 2016, I wrote 426 words that changed high-end audio when I posted them on Computer Audiophile January 2, 2017.

I’ve been completely open about my agenda. Two items one nearly complete and the other further along than most here would like.

 

[Elliot G.]

Elliot, what did that paragon of honesty Jonathan Valin (I’m as honest as Denver man can be) write in his article about TAS’s fortieth anniversary?

“Second, the business of running the magazine, both financially and editorially, was sometimes willfully mishandled. “

Let’s hear your version of what willfully mishandling the finances the magazine was in the nineties.

Harry Pearson is dead and can’t defend himself . That’s my statement! I think you are very disrespectful towards him and others . That’s my version. Innuendo and unverifiable facts with unverified opinions is just rumor mongering . This subject and your treatment of such is IMO totally out of bounds and that’s my comment!

 

[PeterA]

So since we have kind of beaten this to death I wanted to see what the readership feels anout this
who do you rate as the best audio reviewer that is still doing it/or not
1- Robert Harley
2- Jon Valin
3- David Robinson
4- Roy Gregory
5- Tom Martin
6- Michael Fremer
7- Jacob Heilbrun
8- Alan Taffel
9- Robert Greene
10). Andre Jennings
11).John Atkinson
12), Harry Pearson
13). Gordon Holt
14) -any others that I can't think of off the top of my head as a write in vote

Lets see what the survey says - Please just the name not an essay!!

14. Tim A. Here is one example of why I think so: https://positive-feedback.com/reviews/hardware-reviews/aidas-mammoth-cartridge/

 

[Al M.]

On Saturday December 31, 2016, I wrote 426 words that changed high-end audio when I posted them on Computer Audiophile January 2, 2017.

Yes, you played a major role in killing MQA. Thank you for that!

 

[the sound of Tao]

I've been writing audio reviews for publication for the past 20 years. I"ve covered both equipment and music. Based on my experience I'll speak to the ad hominem questions first.

Reviewers are hired by publications or editors according to whatever qualifications the publication chooses to adopt. I've written for three publications. None of those had specific qualifications and I believe there are no general or industry wide tests or qualifications for being a reviewer. Each publication has its own set of rules and protocols a reviewer must follow.

If you think there should be formal qualifications to be a reviewer, you can clamor on the internet but to get something like that to happen you really need to direct your views to a specific publication -- an employer. There is no industry-wide organization or council that sets rules for the audio industry.

I was doing rudimentary alpha and beta testing for a friend who worked for a major industry manufacturer and who had been a reviewer for Soundstage. That casual work involved listening to products being considered for production and giving feedback to my friend who passed them to the manufacturer. Both the manufacturer and my friemd found helpful the descriptions that I wrote. It was fun. For over a year my friend encouraged me to write for publication. I kept taking a pass on that but finally he and and someone at Soundstage convinced me to try my hand. If success associates to continued employment, then I've been successful.

As to what counts as 'employment', that means continued publication of one's writing. Unless you are a columnist or in the editorial hierarchy there is little monetary compensation for a reviewer. Reviewers are paid so the publication can own the rights to a review. I can't remember being paid more than $150 for a review. Given the amount of time and work required for a conscientious review, it is clear to me that I'm not doing it for the money.

Being a reviewer for an established publication places you as a participant in the industry. Members include manufacturers, distributors, retailers and the media. It is an unwritten acceptance that as an industry participant a reviewer accrues entitlement to industry accomodation pricing, just like any other member. That is some percentage cost below MSRP as determined by the manufacturer or distributor. This, in my opinion, is the primary compensation a reviewer receives. There are rules governing accomodation purchases set by the manufacture and/or the publication. For example: a reviewer needs to get permission from his publisher to make a purchase. The reviewer is barred from reselling an accomodation purchase for some period, usually 2-3 years.

As to titles or descriptions ("are they critics? reporters? journalists? marketers? cheerleaders? influencers?") -- you tell me. From your list, the closest for me, is reporter.

Tima gave a great background on some of the issues of audio reviewer payment circumstances here earlier.

It’d be great to have more clear separation of payment and price accommodation for reviews but if subscribers won’t pay for audio reviews upfront then we’ll probably end up paying for it in other ways in terms of issues in an unmanaged less transparent industry overall.

Maybe a bigger issue is how does this mixed financial gain and open to all trained or untrained reviewer model impact on quality and professionalism within the industry?

Obviously there are some highly experienced reviewers out there who bring their own standards and skills to it but ultimately without industry standards or industry setting requirements for themselves quality is highly variable and the overall direction of the audio reviewing industry remains largely unmanaged.

 

[stehno]

So since we have kind of beaten this to death I wanted to see what the readership feels anout this
who do you rate as the best audio reviewer that is still doing it/or not
1- Robert Harley
2- Jon Valin
3- David Robinson
4- Roy Gregory
5- Tom Martin
6- Michael Fremer
7- Jacob Heilbrun
8- Alan Taffel
9- Robert Greene
10). Andre Jennings
11).John Atkinson
12), Harry Pearson
13). Gordon Holt
14) -any others that I can't think of off the top of my head as a write in vote

Lets see what the survey says - Please just the name not an essay!!

That's a rather sketchy / questionable list if I ever saw one.

IMO, first and foremost, any reviewer worth their weight ought to have listening skills at least somewhat above reproach otherwise it's a waste of everybody's time, right? But even a reviewer's excellent listening skills alone can be severely compromised if not accompanied with a positive set of morals and ethics.

That said, the two reviewers at the top of my list include...

1. Garrett Hongo who at some point was with SoundStage. I've sat with Hongo on several lengthy listening sessions. Best ears / listening skills I've ever encountered and by a very wide margin. Just incredible. Never read a single review of his but with those listening skills, I'd pay close attention to most anything he had to say critically about a system or piece of gear.

2. Peter Moncrieff of International Audio Review (IAR). Moncrieff is probably retired now. Never met him but have read a number of reviews of products I've owned and he was spot on every time. Presumably Moncrieff had listening skills like Hongo. Moreover, Moncrieff pulled no punches about what he heard and was sorely disliked by many mfg'ers and reps because of his brutal honesty. Rumor has it that mfg'ers, distributors, and other reviewers would sit around the campfire telling scary Peter Moncrieff stories.

 

[Elliot G.]

It’s just a list to start a conversation that I pulled off the top of my head. It’s not a list that recommends or acknowledges anyone. it’s just a list .
Your two reviewers proves one of my theories. First that people like what they agree with and that is a very small sample size and very personal. Your first reviewer is a bit sketchy in that you never read his work and personally I never heard of him.
That is why the thread started to get viewpoints on what I believe is a very sketchy subject

 

[Scott Naylor]

14. Tim A. Here is one example of why I think so: https://positive-feedback.com/reviews/hardware-reviews/aidas-mammoth-cartridge/

You've posted this now THREE times. Maybe ask Ron to make it a sticky?

 

[tima]

You've posted this now THREE times. Maybe ask Ron to make it a sticky?

Fascinating that you keep track of Peter's postings and use that data to make a snarky post. You usually leave a sad emoji, but here you left a post. What bothers you to the point of causing you to go after @PeterA? Is it Peter, my review? I don't understand. Would you be more comfortable putting us on ignore? It's an option.

 

[Lee]

Tima gave a great background on some of the issues of audio reviewer payment circumstances here earlier.

It’d be great to have more clear separation of payment and price accommodation for reviews but if subscribers won’t pay for audio reviews upfront then we’ll probably end up paying for it in other ways in terms of issues in an unmanaged less transparent industry overall.

Maybe a bigger issue is how does this mixed financial gain and open to all trained or untrained reviewer model impact on quality and professionalism within the industry?

Obviously there are some highly experienced reviewers out there who bring their own standards and skills to it but ultimately without industry standards or industry setting requirements for themselves quality is highly variable and the overall direction of the audio reviewing industry remains largely unmanaged.

This is unrealistic. The industry is too small to have the economics to train reviewers. Profit margins are small. Maybe you could form an industry pool with contributions to pay for overhead. But the industry has failed at least twice that I know of to work together on industry initiatives.

I could argue that the current system works. The reader can judge through writing what reviewers they trust. One can tell by their experience and content.