What is a reviewer?

[tima]

i'd much rather have casual/anecdotal feedback from someone who i know has the proper references and tools than reviews without those references.

I think I understand what you mean in terms of your preference but I'm unclear about what you are saying. What are these "proper references and tools"?

 

[hopkins]

My wife and I mostly go to ballet and dance. First you have the quality of the choreography, then the technical and artistic skills (which are quite different) of the dancers. We try and avoid reviews because they can induce bias. Last Saturday was the opening night of the Royal Ballet season, so no reviews, we got served Alice in Wonderland, a 3-act ballet from about 10 years ago. Our conclusion was that it would have been great if they scrapped the 2nd act completely. The corps de ballet, for whom the 2nd act was largely contrived, were technically well below their usual impeccable standard. This happens at the start of the season as they are often not match fit. So when the reviews came out, one said the 2nd act should be scrapped, another said it was their favourite part of the whole thing.

Lesson One There's no accounting for taste.

Last year we saw New York City Ballet, a top US company, with some very good dancers. They had massive hype in the press. At the interval the gentleman next me was commenting on how good they were, especially one of the stars, I think it was Megan Fairchild. I said I thought she was terrible, she looked like she had a stomach muscle injury, she could barely jump and hold her position. My wife had gone outside and found her leaning against a wall, throwing up. She actually apologised on twitter after the show, saying she had food poisoning and probably should not have performed.

Lesson Two Some people just can't blank out the hype, and will believe it, come what may, even if demonstrably false

My wife was a ballet and contemporary dancer, in Europe and the USA, so she can spot every technical aspect of dance. I've no training, but I've been to maybe 2,000 shows, so I have a pretty good idea about what's good or bad and when things are or are not working or go wrong. I don't need to read critics and I can tell their favouritism or bias.

Lesson Three If you're an amateur, how ever much experience you have, you're still an amateur. It will never make up for technical, professional knowledge.

I'm not sure whether technical knowledge is really required to appreciate art. Baryschnikov famously speaks of Fred Astaire's perfection.

That perfection is instantly recognizable to the untrained eye, and to the millions who have watched him on film. His perfection is in evidence even in the simplest moves. How can we even start to explain it? What matters are differences in execution of such a small order - millimeters and fractions of a second.

And in slow motion!

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I think I understand what you mean in terms of your preference but I'm unclear about what you are saying. What are these "proper references and tools"?

proper references and tools = mature systems and higher level gear and media references.

what does 'mature systems' mean? sorted out and the details and room done with care. a subjective thing.
what does 'higher level gear' mean? i guess it's 'good enough' to not hold back the target review item. beyond question subjectively.
what does 'media references' mean? with digital these days it's the hardware, with analog the pressings.

unlikely a thrown together brick and mortar brand set up....but maybe ok. so depends. helps if they have already reviewed similar level gear known to me that gives them that reference.

i mean that reviewers without apparent mature systems and higher level gear and media references known to me but with reviewing and writing skills, are not as valuable to me as hobbyist's less focused and curated responses but backed up by known mature systems and media references. and then i can mostly even ask questions too.

reviewers with modest gear can write great reviews. relevance to me comes from references. most hifi gear sounds pretty good. but how well does that reviewer know just how good it is? i read plenty of well done reviews and at the end wonder how it might actually compare to stuff i know? which leaves me hanging. through no fault of the reviewer. he/she has done what they could do. OTOH with other reviewers i know where i'm at.

reviews of some product types have actual objective measurements. time. repair/failure data. stress tests. numbers. so review methodology is primary. with hifi it's mostly always 'compared to what subjective reference with what source and media' and then ability to communicate that result.....as well as sufficient knowledge to make sure the item is properly set up and used.

postings/notes/personal communications with known fellow audiophiles are just hard to beat. it takes high level reviewers with top tools to equal or surpass them for usefulness.

 

[ssfas]

I'm not sure whether technical knowledge is really required to appreciate art. Baryschnikov famously speaks of Fred Astaire's perfection.

That perfection is instantly recognizable to the untrained eye, and to the millions who have watched him on film. His perfection is in evidence even in the simplest moves. How can we even start to explain it? What matters are differences in execution of such a small order - millimeters and fractions of a second.

And in slow motion!

So take for example this pas de deux. There is a lift at 1:17 that is extremely difficult to get right and sometimes you can see the tension before it happens. The inexperienced eye would probably not have any idea, not least because they don't know what's coming. An experienced eye knows when it's done well, but there are probably fine details that even those experienced might miss.

To help audiences learn and understand some of the technical aspects, the Royal Ballet hold "Insights", where the dancers and staff rehearse and explain segments of the dance to an audience. We've been to quite a few of these. They are about 60 to 90 minutes long. They are all posted online, as well as many other rehearsal videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO_Ne7dmu1k&list=PLFEuShFvJzByxd1LYnEG2HsLf8fOqgQz0&index=13

These Insights are similar to masterclasses often held by leading classical musicians. I've been to some of those as well.

There is an increasing realisation that to attract audiences they have to be engaged to understand the product better. Less point in reading reviews after the event.

 

[ssfas]

This is just totally personal preference, of course, but I actually find it annoying when a review is lengthened by elements like this which I can look up easily and instantly on the manufacturer's website. (I apply this preference to my Masters & Makers interviews myself: I almost never ask a question the answer to which can be found easily by a viewer on the designer's website.)


Unless the reviewer has actually heard such comparable and/or competing products and compared them to the component under review -- or at least some indirect listening experience with such components at a dealer or a show or something -- I find a mere, cold listing of competing components to be another section of review text I don't want to waste time reading.


I don't know exactly what you mean by "flowery language." (If you had said avoid turgid language I would have known exactly what and which reviewer you were talking about!)


The natural humor Michael Fremer sprinkles in his reviews is one of the reasons I love reading his work! On the other hand for some reason Jason Serinus' attempts at humor usually fall flat with me.

I think this "cult of reviewer" is a particularly American thing. I used to read reviews to find out about products that I might be interested in, so I wanted to know their specifications, size, cost, availability etc. For example, if it's sold online and delivered from Singapore, or has a 3-month lead time, I'm not interested.

I would expect an experienced reviewer to have significant experience of comparable products in the same or similar system/room context. People reading reviews to buy a product will have other options in mind, and if the reviewer can opine on that, then great!

Fremer is flowery. James Michael Hughes, Raphael Todes and Goldensound are not. Flowery might be excessive words that could be cut out without losing anything from the review. For the few Fremer reviews I've read, that might be 50%.

Humour was not something I'd experienced in an audio review until I read some published the USA, perhaps 10 years ago. I don't see the point. Rather than read a 1 hour review with bad jokes, I'd rather read a 15 minutes review and watch an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm (which is funny). If Larry David wrote audio reviews, I might have to reconsider.

The subjective side is something I largely detached from a long time ago. If I can play the recording referred to and hear what is being described, that's good, and more likely since I started streaming Qobuz around 2012. A list of Fremer vinyl rarities serves no purpose to me at all.

I thought Goldensound was really good, I read and listened to his review, bought the product, and in retrospect I agree with what he said.

 

[hopkins]

So take for example this pas de deux. There is a lift at 1:17 that is extremely difficult to get right and sometimes you can see the tension before it happens. The inexperienced eye would probably not have any idea, not least because they don't know what's coming. An experienced eye knows when it's done well, but there are probably fine details that even those experienced might miss.

To help audiences learn and understand some of the technical aspects, the Royal Ballet hold "Insights", where the dancers and staff rehearse and explain segments of the dance to an audience. We've been to quite a few of these. They are about 60 to 90 minutes long. They are all posted online, as well as many other rehearsal videos.

These Insights are similar to masterclasses often held by leading classical musicians. I've been to some of those as well.

There is an increasing realisation that to attract audiences they have to be engaged to understand the product better. Less point in reading reviews after the event.

An inexperienced eye may not be able to identify the technical aspects, and their difficulty, but I would argue that they will still be able to acknowledge flawless execution of those techniques when they see it.

Here is a good illustration:

The explanation of the technical aspects of the performance are interesting, but do they really change our appreciation of the performance? I don't know. Technique has to serve a purpose.

As for the question of attracting audiences, and "educating" them, that is a really tough one, which applies to all art forms. We can be inspired by passionate reviewers. Perhaps at the end of the day it less about what they say (though of course it can be very interesting) and more about their ability to single out exceptional performances within the vast mediocrity that surrounds us! So at the end of the day, a good reviewer is one with good taste

 

[Ron Resnick]

What matters are differences in execution of such a small order - millimeters and fractions of a second.

It is interesting you put it this way. I apologize to the membership for this tangent, but I think you, at least, will find this factoid interesting.

John Mueller, the professor at the University of Rochester who taught me national security policy and who is a good friend of mine to this day, has a second vocation: he is the world's leading academic expert on the dance of Fred Astaire. John published Astaire Dancing – The Musical Films in 1985, a "now-standard reference work that was honored by the Dance Perspectives Foundation as 'the most distinguished book length manuscript in the history of dance.'" See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mueller

In this giant book John publishes sections of film from Astaire's movies, and analyzes Astaire's dance movements literally frame by frame.

 

[Ron Resnick]

The subjective side is something I largely detached from a long time ago.

This is why we are talking past each other.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Fremer is flowery.

Michael Fremer is one of the reviewers whom I would've described as grounded, substantive and not flowery.

 

[hopkins]

It is interesting you put it this way. I apologize to the membership for this tangent, but I think you, at least, will find this factoid interesting.

John Mueller, the professor at the University of Rochester who taught me national security policy and who is a good friend of mine to this day, has a second vocation: he is the world's leading academic expert on the dance of Fred Astaire. John published Astaire Dancing – The Musical Films in 1985, a "now-standard reference work that was honored by the Dance Perspectives Foundation as 'the most distinguished book length manuscript in the history of dance.'" See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mueller

In this giant book John publishes sections of film from Astaire's movies, and analyzes Astaire's dance movements literally frame by frame.

Thanks. I just ordered it (second hand copy found at a reasonable price on Amazon), after browsing through the contents on the Internet Archive.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Fremer is flowery. James Michael Hughes, Raphael Todes and Goldensound are not. Flowery might be excessive words that could be cut out without losing anything from the review. For the few Fremer reviews I've read, that might be 50%.

but Fremer is in a completely different league of references and tools. and history. his views carry much more weight and significance.

those others are competent, accurate and effective reviewers. but are not very relevant and prepared for gear that i relate to. and they don't review it. so this objective competence means little to me. of course; that is just me.

flowery style and humor can be viewed lots of different ways, but without tools, references and subject matter i care about.....matter little. if any of those guys reviewed gear i had an interest in based on what they have reviewed so far, i would not be confident that their views would hold up. whereas Fremer's likely would. OTOH if they had more higher end experience, then their competent approach would be much more valuable......to me.

references, references, references.

just my 2 cents. YMMV.

 

[ssfas]

Michael Fremer is one of the reviewers whom I would've described as grounded, substantive and not flowery.

I've found some of his record reviews useful, but thought his audio reviews a waste of my time.

Hi-end is an American concept that I think was invented by an American magazine editor. Whatever you want to call premium hifi, the dealers I know home deliver loan equipment, or will host a pre-booked demonstration, besides doing group demonstrations. They do this for less premium hifi as well. It seems to be an effective way of selling low-volume hifi. I think Covid made a big difference as dealers became more open to shipping out loan equipment. I've had several loan items shipped to me long-distance. This reduces reliance on reviews.

A magazine like WhatHifi may require brief, matter-of-fact reviews, because readers use their reviews to make purchases. WhatHifi may be more dependent on reader subscriptions. You then have HifiNews, which has much more premium audio content. They hosted the London Audio Show last week. The vast majority of space was taken by premium audio distributors. There were hardly any manufacturers. This suggests distributors largely fund the magazine. As it happens, hardly anyone turned up, probably because people who buy that kind of hifi don't need to go to an audio show near Heathrow Airport when they can go to a private listening session in Central London. So the reviews seem to be dull, informative infomercials and overwhelmingly positive. Exactly what their sponsors want.

HiFiNews was the last audio magazine I subscribed to. I used to like the music reviews, they tended to cover a broad range of good releases. They then started including every last release from Octave Records, a part of PS Audio, whose distributor Signature Systems seems to be a main sponsor. The reviewers at times really had to stretch credibility to stay positive about some of these releases, a few of which I'd downloaded. (One was such pulp that I actually deleted the download files.) That was it for me and I cancelled.

I have two subscriptions, Gramophone (40+ years) and Jazzwise. Music reviews are largely subjective, but I've always found these magazines' reviews useful and informative, without fear or favour. Gramophone has a 4-page audio section very well produced and focused for the magazine readership.

 

[Kingrex]

proper references and tools = mature systems and higher level gear and media references.

what does 'mature systems' mean? sorted out and the details and room done with care. a subjective thing.
what does 'higher level gear' mean? i guess it's 'good enough' to not hold back the target review item. beyond question subjectively.
what does 'media references' mean? with digital these days it's the hardware, with analog the pressings.

unlikely a thrown together brick and mortar brand set up....but maybe ok. so depends. helps if they have already reviewed similar level gear known to me that gives them that reference.

i mean that reviewers without apparent mature systems and higher level gear and media references known to me but with reviewing and writing skills, are not as valuable to me as hobbyist's less focused and curated responses but backed up by known mature systems and media references. and then i can mostly even ask questions too.

reviewers with modest gear can write great reviews. relevance to me comes from references. most hifi gear sounds pretty good. but how well does that reviewer know just how good it is? i read plenty of well done reviews and at the end wonder how it might actually compare to stuff i know? which leaves me hanging. through no fault of the reviewer. he/she has done what they could do. OTOH with other reviewers i know where i'm at.

reviews of some product types have actual objective measurements. time. repair/failure data. stress tests. numbers. so review methodology is primary. with hifi it's mostly always 'compared to what subjective reference with what source and media' and then ability to communicate that result.....as well as sufficient knowledge to make sure the item is properly set up and used.

postings/notes/personal communications with known fellow audiophiles are just hard to beat. it takes high level reviewers with top tools to equal or surpass them for usefulness.

What about Steve Guttenberg?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

What about Steve Guttenberg?

mostly an entertainer. social commenter. not a source of actual hifi information for me. in the distant past he was a serious reviewer.

 

[ssfas]

but Fremer is in a completely different league of references and tools. and history. his views carry much more weight and significance.

those others are competent, accurate and effective reviewers. but are not very relevant and prepared for gear that i relate to. and they don't review it. so this objective competence means little to me. of course; that is just me.

flowery style and humor can be viewed lots of different ways, but without tools, references and subject matter i care about.....matter little. if any of those guys reviewed gear i had an interest in based on what they have reviewed so far, i would not be confident that their views would hold up. whereas Fremer's likely would. OTOH if they had more higher end experience, then their competent approach would be much more valuable......to me.

references, references, references.

just my 2 cents. YMMV.

It's a bit like supercar magazines. Reviews of products read by millions, purchased by dozens. I suspect there might be more published reviews (including syndicated) of Wilson XVX than units sold.

Maybe lots of people here buy the audio equivalent of supercars.

I doubt many supercar owners buy a new car from a review. We were staying in a country hotel in Italy a few weeks ago, not far from Maranello. Either side of our Fiat 500 rental were two German registered Ferraris, about $700,000 each. The owners were travelling with their sons (one son each, you only get two seats) to the factory for an upgrade. That's how it works. We visited the factory once and they explained that many people come down for a bespoke factory sale.

Maybe premium hifi reviews are primarily about entertainment value and brand recognition, and the likes of Fremer meet those objectives far better than magazines that publish reviews intended to be a buying resource.

Jeremy Clarkson, a well known car reviewer, used to be a client. He is known for being highly entertaining, if not controversial. (His programme Top Gear is the most financially successful syndicated programme in BBC history). His letterhead, when we wrote letters, was "Jeremy Clarkson - Journalist". He was very proud of the fact that he was a properly trained and experienced journalist before an entertainer. He is a brilliant journalist, and Top Gear for years was a consumer programme before it became an entertainment programme.

So I suppose JC is as good an example as any for a reviewer, someone who can produce sellable copy appropriate for the market the publisher serves.

 

[PeterA]

proper references and tools = mature systems and higher level gear and media references.

what does 'mature systems' mean? sorted out and the details and room done with care. a subjective thing.
what does 'higher level gear' mean? i guess it's 'good enough' to not hold back the target review item. beyond question subjectively.
what does 'media references' mean? with digital these days it's the hardware, with analog the pressings.

unlikely a thrown together brick and mortar brand set up....but maybe ok. so depends. helps if they have already reviewed similar level gear known to me that gives them that reference.

i mean that reviewers without apparent mature systems and higher level gear and media references known to me but with reviewing and writing skills, are not as valuable to me as hobbyist's less focused and curated responses but backed up by known mature systems and media references. and then i can mostly even ask questions too.

reviewers with modest gear can write great reviews. relevance to me comes from references. most hifi gear sounds pretty good. but how well does that reviewer know just how good it is? i read plenty of well done reviews and at the end wonder how it might actually compare to stuff i know? which leaves me hanging. through no fault of the reviewer. he/she has done what they could do. OTOH with other reviewers i know where i'm at.

reviews of some product types have actual objective measurements. time. repair/failure data. stress tests. numbers. so review methodology is primary. with hifi it's mostly always 'compared to what subjective reference with what source and media' and then ability to communicate that result.....as well as sufficient knowledge to make sure the item is properly set up and used.

postings/notes/personal communications with known fellow audiophiles are just hard to beat. it takes high level reviewers with top tools to equal or surpass them for usefulness.

Mike, all of this seems reasonable enough, but what surprises me with your:

"proper references and tools = mature systems and higher level gear and media references."

is the complete exclusion of what I consider to be the most important reference - LIVE MUSIC.

I was experimenting a couple of weeks ago with a spare preamp. It sounded good but not great compared to my primary preamp. I then went to the BSO and heard Samuel Barber's Adagio for Strings. I went hope, found the LP and played it the next day. There it was, plain as day. The phase sounded off. This preamp has a phase switch. I turned it to 180 degree phase and that solved the issue. I then realized that my primary preamp inverts phase, and this one does not. So I reversed the speaker cables and switched back to 0 degree phase on the preamp, and I can now hear what that preamp can sound like.

This was a direct result of my reference to live music to know what something should sound like. Live music is the basis against which to judge the performance of a system or a component. For me, a reviewer must have this grounding as a minimum requirement to be able to write an effective review that adds value for the reader. A willingness, priority, and ability to describe what he hears from a component or system ,and how it relates to the sound and experience of a real performance, is essential to a successful subjective review.

Last night I heard Mahler's 8th Symphony at the BSO. I have not heard a system that can give me that experience. Whether or not it can come close, and in what ways, is what I want to read from a reviewer.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

It's a bit like supercar magazines. Reviews of products read by millions, purchased by dozens. I suspect there might be more published reviews (including syndicated) of Wilson XVX than units sold.

that's not true. but there are not thousands of speakers sold at that price point either. highest end 2 channel hifi is a fairly small group. OTOH there are millions of Headphone users who care about great music reproduction performance. so the intent is there but the means or space commitment maybe not as much.

Maybe lots of people here buy the audio equivalent of supercars.

I doubt many supercar owners buy a new car from a review. We were staying in a country hotel in Italy a few weeks ago, not far from Maranello. Either side of our Fiat 500 rental were two German registered Ferraris, about $700,000 each. The owners were travelling with their sons (one son each, you only get two seats) to the factory for an upgrade. That's how it works. We visited the factory once and they explained that many people come down for a bespoke factory sale.

Maybe premium hifi reviews are primarily about entertainment value and brand recognition, and the likes of Fremer meet those objectives far better than magazines that publish reviews intended to be a buying resource.

I don’t think super cars and higher end hifi are very comparable….as you suggest. Higher end hifi is (1) not only not just a dream or fantasy, but (2) for some pathways to it are quite real world since vintage and DIY can boost performance, and (3) people can actually live with that highest performance hifi daily in their lives. And sure it can cost big dollars, but that can be mitigated by the system building process over time (multiple decades) and so is something that can be a long term journey. Pieces of which can be carefully assembled.

It’s not like you are writing a 7 figure check. hifi is just not the same.

and very high performance systems can be assembled in various forms and rooms with careful choices and so cost and performance is not any exact relevance. although there is a some relevance to it.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike, all of this seems reasonable enough, but what surprises me with your:

"proper references and tools = mature systems and higher level gear and media references."

is the complete exclusion of what I consider to be the most important reference - LIVE MUSIC.

I was experimenting a couple of weeks ago with a spare preamp. It sounded good but not great compared to my primary preamp. I then went to the BSO and heard Samuel Barber's Adagio for Strings. I went hope, found the LP and played it the next day. There it was, plain as day. The phase sounded off. This preamp has a phase switch. I turned it to 180 degree phase and that solved the issue. I then realized that my primary preamp inverts phase, and this one does not. So I reversed the speaker cables and switched back to 0 degree phase on the preamp, and I can now hear what that preamp can sound like.

This was a direct result of my reference to live music to know what something should sound like. Live music is the basis against which to judge the performance of a system or a component. For me, a reviewer must have this grounding as a minimum requirement to be able to write an effective review that adds value for the reader. A willingness, priority, and ability to describe what he hears from a component or system ,and how it relates to the sound and experience of a real performance, is essential to a successful subjective review.

Last night I heard Mahler's 8th Symphony at the BSO. I have not heard a system that can give me that experience. Whether or not it can come close, and in what ways, is what I want to read from a reviewer.

fair enough under references. we all listen to live music, but some use it consciously more than others. but we still need to have other media references too.

 

[Kingrex]

is the complete exclusion of what I consider to be the most important reference - LIVE MUSIC.

I would guess most people with a stereo that cost $20K or more don't listen to classical or jazz. So live music to them is a whole lot different than live music to you. I am making an assumption that live to you is a symphony or something as such. Live to most people is a club atmosphere or stadium. Not the same.

 

[PeterA]

I would guess most people with a stereo that cost $20K or more don't listen to classical or jazz. So live music to them is a whole lot different than live music to you. I am making an assumption that live to you is a symphony or something as such. Live to most people is a club atmosphere or stadium. Not the same.

The comment was about live music as a reference being important for the reviewer. I made no mention of genre.