What is a reviewer?

[PYP]

Perhaps the answer regarding what makes a good reviewer is that the reviewer agrees with me

Meaning, if you purchased a piece of equipment and the reviewer hears it like you do, then you might follow his reviews later. I found that with Hans Beekhuyzen. After I had the Grimm MU1 streamer for a while, a friend sent me his review of the MU1 (I had no idea who he was). Spot on, I thought. Later, he reviewed and purchased the Grimm MU2 (streamer/DAC). Time for an in-home demo, I thought. That worked out well, as did his recommendations for footers and a passive ethernet filter for the Grimm equipment.

I also enjoy many of the hobbyist comments here and on AS. Folks are experimenting and it is interesting to read how they find their way (just as I do -- a continuing process). Of course, we are all listening to a system and those systems are vastly different, therefore it is sensible that one cannot easily generalize. The best reviews are the ones that discuss trade-offs and recognize the difficulties encountered.

 

[Amir]

After Five years (2002->2007) I convinced there is no good audio magazine in this industry :

Audio Critique

I would like to share my idea about Right/Trusted Audio Critique in the High End Audio because Most Magazines need a better understanding of Audio Reviewing. I ask this question because me (when I was young) and my friends have spent many many times/efforts/money according to (and trusting)...

www.whatsbestforum.com

You can also ask David @ddk about it, he has lots of experience in audio.

 

[Kingrex]

All this chit chat about what. Not a single person has touched on what is the intent of the outlet the reviewer published the piece on. Maybe the surface has superficially been touched on. But no one has directly confronted the subject.of what TAS, Stereophile, Youtube etc are getting from the content posted on it. That is the ultimate determinant of what a review is all about. Its not about what Tima or Jays Audiolab post.

 

[Audiohertz2]

After Five years (2002->2007) I convinced there is no good audio magazine in this industry :

Audio Critique

I would like to share my idea about Right/Trusted Audio Critique in the High End Audio because Most Magazines need a better understanding of Audio Reviewing. I ask this question because me (when I was young) and my friends have spent many many times/efforts/money according to (and trusting)...

www.whatsbestforum.com

You can also ask David @ddk about it, he has lots of experience in audio.

Stick with the ones who measure , you get both subjective and objective point of views ...!

 

[Argonaut]

i see zero concern. nothing nefarious. just a guy who reviewed gear, liked it, and never looked back.

a 9 year old review,

Well … the forum search engine only goes back shy of four years … Do we see other magazine reviewers reflecting such a prodigious post history incessantly mentioning one particular manufacturers products that that have reviewed , in the past , on WBF or on other forna ?

I merely view the facts through a somewhat less opaque lens than you !

 

[PeterA]

What is a reviewer? Qualifications? Purpose? responsibilities? are they critics? reporters? journalists? marketers? cheerleaders? influencers?
What should there place in the Industry be and how do we get there?
Limits? rules?
What are your opinions?

I read in so many threads comments about all the "reviewers" maybe a place to actually discuss it will be useful

I touched on this topic by starting this thread: https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/how-to-write-a-great-review.38253/

In my opinion, fellow member here, Tima, wrote an excellent review of a cartridge. Link: https://positive-feedback.com/reviews/hardware-reviews/aidas-mammoth-cartridge/

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Well … the forum search engine only goes back shy of four years … Do we see other magazine reviewers reflecting such a prodigious post history incessantly mentioning one particular manufacturers products that that have reviewed , in the past , on WBF or on other forna ?

I merely view the facts through a somewhat less opaque lens than you !

i think you are barking up the wrong tree. Tim is not pulling any wool over anyone's eyes. and that's the point......is there anything that might be not truthful or lead to the wrong impression? i say no.

i don't always agree with his particular slant on things, and i'm not personally aligned with him as such. but he is a straight shooter and serious contributor to the hobby who has done many helpful things.

gentleman reviewers, those who's work life is different than reviewing mainly, many times become active forum participants. i see no conflict there. reviewers who are also dealers or manufacturers? that is completely different. you gotta choose.

 

[Ron Resnick]

i see zero concern. nothing nefarious. just a guy who reviewed gear, liked it, and never looked back.

a 9 year old review, in 2 locations. backed up by brand ownership since then. a case for real commitment. it simply adds weight to the original text. no different from Fremer and darTZeel. both reviewers could easily switch at accommodation prices, and sell them off, but so far have not.

. . .

as i wrote; there is no right and wrong with reviews; there is just context. to me the opposite of this is the influencer/reviewer who buys used high level gear, writes/talks about it, then sells it and moves on to the next piece. what is real in that situation? and what is just surface? click bait. entertainment. . . .
over time hard to hide what is actually happening. how do review systems evolve? what are the reviewers actually doing? facts are facts.

+1

 

[Ron Resnick]

Here is another way to "separate signal from noise."

1) Focus on and track the components a reviewer actually buys. (The fact that purchases occur at accommodation pricing is irrelevant, as it is still a level playing among prospective competing components.)

2) Go back and read the reviews in which the actually purchased components are mentioned, and read the reviews going forward which mention the purchased components. Once you understand a reviewer's preferences and read a group of his/her reviews you will be able to triangulate on sonic differences between components through the prism of that reviewer's preferences.

I truly believe that materially valuable information can be uncovered this way. Yes, a lot of reviews are vacuous and fluffy. I personally find extremely probative what a reviewer does with his/her own money.

PS: This signal-to-noise filter does not work in the context of long-term loans.

 

[Argonaut]

i don't always agree with his particular slant on things, and i'm not personally aligned with him as such. but he is a straight shooter and serious contributor to the hobby who has done many helpful things.

gentleman reviewers, those who's work life is different than reviewing mainly, many times become active forum participants. i see no conflict there. reviewers who are also dealers or manufacturers? that is completely different. you gotta choose.

What part of … I see these things through a different prism ! are you not getting ?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

What part of … I see these things through a different prism ! are you not getting ?

i respect that you see things differently. if i doubled down one post too many for you i understand and point taken.

 

[ssfas]

For me, a perfect review would
— Describe what the product does
– Describe how it does it, with some detail on the technology employed
– Test the machine on the workbench to confirm whether or not the published performance measurements are accurate and, if any critical measurements are not provided, provide them.
– Explain what complementary products the item being tested would work with, cartridges with arms, amplifiers with speakers etcetera
– provide some subjective listening observations that are musically meaningful and repeatable.
– Provide full details of specifications, pricing, distribution, relevant websites.
– provide a range of comparable and/or competing products.
– avoid any flowery language, attempts at humour etcetera.

I’ve yet to see a review that meets all these criteria. How, some exponents to do some of them exceptionally were John Borwick, Jimmy Hughes and Raphael Todes. John Borwick was a very serious engineer and world class recording engineer, who trained a generation at the BBC and wrote the seminal book on the subject. He was the technical editor at Gramophone for about 30 years. Jimmy combines profound technical knowledge of hi-fi (and cameras, he held a senior role at Leica UK) and an encyclopedic knowledge of recorded classical music, as well as living above a leading concert hall. He has an ability to explain things both in writing and verbally with brilliant clarity and economy. I mention Raphael because he is one of the few professional classical musicians I know of who writes reviews and is extremely good at describing what is good and bad about reproduced acoustic sound. He also uses two or three different systems, in particular speakers, which is particularly useful.

Most reviews these days seem to be infomercials, so I hardly read any and I no longer have any paid subscriptions.

 

[tima]

For me, a perfect review would
— Describe what the product does
– Describe how it does it, with some detail on the technology employed
– Test the machine on the workbench to confirm whether or not the published performance measurements are accurate and, if any critical measurements are not provided, provide them.
– Explain what complementary products the item being tested would work with, cartridges with arms, amplifiers with speakers etcetera
– provide some subjective listening observations that are musically meaningful and repeatable.
– Provide full details of specifications, pricing, distribution, relevant websites.
– provide a range of comparable and/or competing products.
– avoid any flowery language, attempts at humour etcetera.

What would you be willing to pay for that?

 

[tima]

i think you are barking up the wrong tree. Tim is not pulling any wool over anyone's eyes. and that's the point......is there anything that might be not truthful or lead to the wrong impression? i say no.

i don't always agree with his particular slant on things, and i'm not personally aligned with him as such. but he is a straight shooter and serious contributor to the hobby who has done many helpful things.

Thank you Mike.

Since moving over to Positive Feedback I've had the luxury of choosing the components that I cover. Typically a manufacturer approaches me to write about their product after reading some of my reviews. If it interests me, I'll take it on. And it is not unusual for that interest to hinge on the component being of a sort that, as a challenge, I want to learn about it myself, such as field-coil loudspeakers or the internal design of direct drive turntables or an OTL preamplifier. It has been fascinating to learn about record cleaning technology. I have one in the hopper now with a technology that is entirely new to me.

That makes for a pretty significant investment of my time and effort and I need to be keen about the task to accept it. On the forums I will talk about what I learn and know and if I am enthusiastic about a product I will talk about it enthusiastically. And I will not talk about products that I do not know or have not experienced and I will not tell people what to buy. I see no conflict between being faithful to a proper review process and forum participation.

 

[Argonaut]

Oh Please ………………………………

 

[Ron Resnick]

I see no conflict between being faithful to a proper review process and forum participation.

+1

 

[ssfas]

What would you be willing to pay for that?

It’s not a matter of paying. I don’t not pay the $10 p.a. for Stereophile to save $10, but to save the time wasted browsing it.

Here is Jimmy’s latest review, of a $600 turntable. He’s a bit of a turntable expert, especially the LP12, and wrote the definitive guide on how to set it up. This review demonstrates his clarity and efficiency.

Pro-Ject Debut EVO 2 Turntable Review

Pro-Ject Debut EVO 2 Turntable Review

www.stereonet.com

Before moving to a Garrard this year, my previous turntable was reviewed by Jimmy.

http://claro.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/CHOICE.pdf

I’d heard about it from someone, I liked what Jimmy said, so I went to see him and discussed it with him, then spoke to the manufacturer Peter Curran and bought it directly from him. By then I’d got a very good idea about performance, design, manufacturing quality, serviceability and value. I only took it out of my system after 10 years for aesthetic reasons.

The only product I own instigated by a review was a Holo May DAC. It was a measurements-based review on Goldensound. They are not sold direct in the UK. I had arranged a demo in Amsterdam, as luck would have it one turned up for sale locally and I was able to arrange a home demo and bought it.

The other products I use I found out about by speaking to manufacturers direct (I almost always do this), dealers and home loans. Several dealers near me do regular manufacturer demonstrations, which over the years gave me an idea about their approach.

I almost never buy anything new to the market. For me it has to have several years of market approval. Here’s an example of a review by Raphael Todes of a speaker he’s used for decades, the review ticks most boxes.

Bowers & Wilkins 802 D4 Floorstanding Loudspeaker Review

Bowers & Wilkins 802 D4 Floorstanding Loudspeaker Review

www.stereonet.com

If I was interested, I’d call him and ask to go and have a listen. As I sold him a perfect pair of ESL63, he owes me one.

 

[tima]

It’s not a matter of paying. I don’t not pay the $10 p.a. for Stereophile to save $10, but to save the time wasted browsing it.

Okay.

All I"m saying is that to achieve what you describe as a "perfect review" (below) will require considerable time and expertise and I believe that won't happen for free. You might get some of this from a Martin Collums HiFiCritic subscription (which takes no advertising), although I believe he closed his magazine a year or so ago.

"For me, a perfect review would
— Describe what the product does
– Describe how it does it, with some detail on the technology employed
– Test the machine on the workbench to confirm whether or not the published performance measurements are accurate and, if any critical measurements are not provided, provide them.
– Explain what complementary products the item being tested would work with, cartridges with arms, amplifiers with speakers etcetera
– provide some subjective listening observations that are musically meaningful and repeatable.
– Provide full details of specifications, pricing, distribution, relevant websites.
– provide a range of comparable and/or competing products.
– avoid any flowery language, attempts at humour etcetera. "

 

[morricab]

You could ask the same about book, movie or music critics. Some of them have actually worked in some way in that industry and therefore have a deeper than average knowledge on the subject. However, the key attribute a reviewer must have is critical thinking skills and enough background education on the subject at hand to make meaningful constructive criticism and ability to critically compare the item under test to similar items of a similar or above (or below) class. This also means a lot of exposure to gear...I mean a lot of exposure and thinking critically about what does and doesn't work and with what it goes with and what it might not go with.

This is why just being able to write well, while also important to convey the impressions generated, is far from sufficient to be a good reviewer. I think a lot of reviewers come from a journalism background and well...that just makes for flowery writing with very little insight or understanding. Might make for good ad copy but not a serious critique of seriously expensive gear.

Critical thinking and ability to compare what one hears in one thing with another thing (or things) is crucial to having meaningful reviews that potential customers can actually use.

 

[bonzo75]

You could ask the same about book, movie or music critics.

It's not the same at all, because accessibility to those is easy and volumes are high, so lots of checks and balances. There is no exclusivity to watching a movie and writing a review about it and comparing IMDB user ratings of tens of thousands. On the other hand, how many reviewers and users have heard AF0? Or any average priced TT? 1 professional reviewer, definitely 2, an completely sway things.