What makes a good reviewer?

[DSkip]

Is it their ability to ‘sell’ a product? Absolute transparency? Technical prowess? Golden ears? Product discovery?

When you read (or watch) a review, what is it about the content that makes you want to come back and take in more of that creator’s work?

 

[stehno]

Is it their ability to ‘sell’ a product? Absolute transparency? Technical prowess? Golden ears? Product discovery?

When you read (or watch) a review, what is it about the content that makes you want to come back and take in more of that creator’s work?

First and foremost possessing the ability to discern / interpret what they hear and conveying what they hear to the reader. Then comparing that product's performance to other products.

Anything else is really just a smoke screen including their diving into all the technicla babble. But these days it all seems back-asswards.

Excellent question.

 

[andromedaaudio]

A similar question would be “what makes a good pimp?”

My answer would be a person that can promote their goods without doing too much damage to said goods or their customers. Audio reviewers are in the business to promote the goods they like, as there are no bad reviews.

And as Big Daddy Cane said: “pimping ain't easy.”

Oh man thats funny jeffrey

 

[sbnx]

1. They have memorized the audiophile thesaurus
2. Related to #1 They can say in 1000 words what could be said in 100 well chosen words.
3. They can say a product doesn't sound so great in such a way that the reader has to read between the lines to get the message.

 

[andromedaaudio]

A good reviewer is the one who can actually win the analogue versus digital debate , or the state of the art digital debate .
I realize its a near impossible task , it seems climbing everest is easier .

 

[ack]

Honesty, independence, significant knowledge of the industry and products, good understanding of equipment, great understanding of music and sound; and hopefully how to correlate sound with measurements

 

[PeterA]

Honesty, independence, significant knowledge of the industry and products, good understanding of equipment, great understanding of music and sound; and hopefully how to correlate sound with measurements

Great list, Ack. Slightly broader than honesty, I would say is integrity. This implies to me a quality beyond oneself. Independence is vital, especially when we know there are outside influences and pressures.

I also think the ability to communicate - concisely, and clearly - in a way that conveys meaning and holds the reader's attention. The skillset is broad and experience matters. It might be easier if reviewers specialized in general areas and even perhaps within price tiers.

For instance, a music or recording reviewer would not need to know everything about the system. A cartridge reviewer would not need to know much about streaming. If reviewers were more specialized, they could probably be more comprehensive. Fremer has figured that out and has a reputation for some of these reasons. I am more interested in reading what Fremer thinks about tonearms or cartridges than I am in reading about his thoughts on amplification, speakers or digital. I think reviewers should be known for an area of specialty.

Some of the members here are influential because of their specialized knowledge and experience. Vintage turntables, ddk is your guy. Vinyl recordings: Zerostar General. Zu and rim drive: SpiritofMusic. We seek them out for specific insights in their chosen areas of expertise.

 

[Elliot G.]

a person who writes critical appraisals of books, plays, movies, etc., for publication. That is straight from the dictionary!!!!!
IMHO this is what it should be nothing more and nothing less.
Most reviews are not reviews but rather reports BIG DIFFERENCE

 

[cjfrbw]

Your best audio critic is your own two ears? The rest is proxy voyeurism, curiosity, speculation, envy and poetry.

I think it is better to send out known audiophiles that you trust. Too much commercial diplomacy and politics in the industry.

 

[sbnx]

This thread is similar to the one about being an audio dealer. My response was related to what traits make a good reviewer from the eyes of the hiring magazine/website. Many of the others are from the perspective of the one reading the reviewer's opinion.

 

[the sound of Tao]

I’d suggest being a good reviewer would be a hard gig.

Articulating not just the context but also the experience of sound involves a high degree of synthesis, to then go to write on the experience of music and to the heart of musical connection is fine if you’re just identifying that connection is a good one but much harder to then communicate in what ways.

Add to that a perhaps current base mistrust that many seem to have about the industry and the fact that audiophiles are by nature (bad news coming guys) completely unworkable perfectionists who can expect everyone to share their particular lore for what makes a good system... and then we start to see the layers of complexity to then being considered good at this.

I can be lightly/comically/scathing about dysfunctional writing only because I also struggle with my own issues to do with maintaining concentration when things get obscure but we all come at this with our own compendium of mind sets about what is valuable and true in audio.

De-regulation of the publishing industry hasn’t been all roses either and developing ethics outside of the structure of a guild also creates its own challenges.

We are in a sea of change and media and e-publishing isn’t an easy gig to be viable in. We should give latitude but also press for better standards. A good reviewer understands that not everyone shares their perceptual set. They perhaps can communicate the experience and understand that music is a high function of the human condition and that not every pretty sound translates to wholeness. They should have a mature moral compass and the flexibility to understand how to communicate in a way that is both expressive, authentic and fair. As should we all.

They should ideally have broad experience and be grounded deeply in both music and technology. They should hopefully understand that everything is about context and temper their language before they go to either extremes of criticism.

They should not be engaged in hubris or love of fame and adulation, they should avoid thinking that being commercially successful should be the only essential driver in their actions. But being real and viable and having longevity is also about understanding how to work commercially but also to not just reach for the low hanging fruit.

Most of all they should realise their value and their constraints and reflect upon meaning and purpose.

Yes, tough gig... and also more typically high expectations from another member of the audiophile community.

 

[morricab]

Is it their ability to ‘sell’ a product? Absolute transparency? Technical prowess? Golden ears? Product discovery?

When you read (or watch) a review, what is it about the content that makes you want to come back and take in more of that creator’s work?

Their ability to truly hear, not only differences between gear, but a correct value judgement on the relative merits towards what is fundamentally closer to music. Then the ability to describe what they hear in language that allows an easy mental picture of what they are hearing.

 

[thedudeabides]

A similar question would be “what makes a good pimp?” My answer would be a person that can promote their goods without doing too much damage to said goods or their customers. Audio reviewers are in the business to promote the goods they like, as there are no bad reviews.

Not true with Michael Fremer. I've read numerous reviews by him that were far less than complimentary.

 

[thedudeabides]

Why don't you simply admit that your all encompassing generalization (like most of its ilk) is simply not true. Pimp is a very derogatory, insulting word.

 

[cjfrbw]

Why don't you simply admit that your all encompassing generalization (like most of its ilk) is simply not true. Pimp is a very derogatory, insulting word.

Maybe 'purveyor of dreams'?

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . Audio reviewers are in the business to promote the goods they like, as there are no bad reviews.

. . .”

This may be true for some reviewers. But it is not true of Michael Fremer of Stereophile or Don Saltzman of The Absolute Sound or of Tim Aucremann or Danny Kaey of Positive Feedback or of Matej Isak of Mono and Stereo.

Sometimes you have to understand the sequence of the reviews and the evolution of their opinions and comments, and sometimes you have to read between the lines a bit, but these reviewers are intellectually honest.

I agree that it gets confusing in the sense that reviewers tend to gravitate naturally to products that they think they will like. From the manufacturers' side a manufacturer will seek to place a product with a reviewer he believes, based on the reviewer's declared historical preferences and prior reviews, will be likely to enjoy the component. It is thus no surprise that the great majority of reviews are positive. Another factor is that while not every product is excellent, most top-of-the-line products are excellent, and whether a particular reviewer -- or an individual audiophile -- loves a product or not is more a matter of subjective preference and of system-matching than anything else.

I agree that certain reviewers for certain magazines publish predictably positive reviews in return for advertising revenues. These reviewers rarely conduct the difficult and time-consuming comparative reviews which Michael and Don conduct.

There is also, with respect to certain reviewers, a history of known "pay for play," and a history of long term "loans" and other practices which I find unethical. Michael and Don except, possibly, for cables, buy all of the components they possess.

 

[Ron Resnick]

First and foremost possessing the ability to discern / interpret what they hear and conveying what they hear to the reader. Then comparing that product's performance to other products.

. . .

+1

 

[bonzo75]

What do reviewers need? I think Golden ears is overrated. Everyone has similar ears (there can be some awfully bad ones), but generally, the average ear is more than enough. So when someone goes to a show and claims he heard the whole set up and his golden ears identified the source of distortion is an amp, he is lying or suckers himself into thinking he has golden ears.

What a reviewer needs, in no particular order, is:
1. Exposure - His reviews will get better with exposure if he currently has very low exposure, but once it gets to a certain point (and all reviewers have sufficient gear exposure) the benefits decline within the same genre. Then the reviewer needs exposures across genre. For example Stereophile, TAS, and many of the American mags have a lot of exposure across big cones and big amps, but seems to have negligible on the low watt efficiency spectrum like 6 moons does.

2. Interest: He needs to be interested and keen on finding out the differences. You often see a lot of people on this forum willing to post a lot, but their real interest in finding out about gear is zero - their conclusion of liking their own stuff is known well in advance. They will never make good reviewers because they are less interested in reviewing and just in posting.

3. Not be emotional about gear. Just like traders should not be emotional about their positions so that they don't sit forever on loss making ones, reviewers should not be emotional about gear. Stubbornness to principle is one of the easiest ways to screw up your ability to review something.

4. Set up skills - Listening skills and set up skills are two different things. Listening is the easier part. But if a professional reviewer is getting loads of new gear at home, setting it up and optimizing it takes months especially as there is no shared learning. How is the reviewer then listening to it at its best? I think this is where Fremer excels with analog from what I understand, and why his reviews are that good, and why many others suck.

5. Resources - Without resources he cannot investigate the component from different angles to set it up properly

6. Intellectual honesty - What one hears, what one processes as thoughts, and how one transcribes those thoughts so that the other people can understand what he is thinking is very important. Some people write to write (Roy Gregory), while some write what they have investigated and heard.

 

[andromedaaudio]

For me a good reviewer is that the story that was written has to be entertaining in the first place
For the rest its mostly their personal preference which is highlighted , so basically useless to me but it can be usefull to others
There are some reviewers who kinda think like me , for example Marc Mickelson who reviewed components i really like .
For the rest i think there are many knowledgeable reviewers out there with a honest genuine opinion , it just needs to stay open minded / flexible

 

[tima]

This may be true for some reviewers. But it is not true of Michael Fremer of Stereophile or Don Saltzman of The Absolute Sound or of Tim Aucremann or Danny Kaey of Positive Feedback or of Matej Isak of Mono and Stereo.

Sometimes you have to understand the sequence of the reviews and the evolution of their opinions and comments, and sometimes you have to read between the lines a bit, but these reviewers are intellectually honest.

Thank you Ron. I very much appreciate inclusion in your list!

I was staying away from commenting in this thread. Being a reviewer for going on 16 years, now I'll chime in with my perspective. I held back mostly because I didn't think it appropriate to comment on the OP's title question: "What makes a good reviewer?" because it asks about a person, maybe a hypothetical person. I'm disinclined to talk about reviewer personalities, though I admit to not following that maxim one-hundred percent. I am pleased to see some of my fellow WBF denizens answer in the abstract, although it's natural to comment on real life examples.

"What makes a good reviewer?" Apart from whatever we each mean by "good", a good reviewer is one who writes good reviews. There is no standardized list or set of industry guidelines covering the qualities of a good reviewer or a good review, although several comments here mention characteristics to which all of us (most) can agree.

A good review undergoes an edit, typically by an experienced editor. Prior to publication, a good review is checked for technical accuracy by the manufacture - the vast majority know they have no say outside this area. (And they don't.) Perhaps from a writer's perspective, the good review is one that is read - the best reviews read repeatedly.

Rather than post my own comprehensive list (believe me, I've had plenty of time to think about it) I'll tell you a little bit of what I try to do in my own reviews. Feel free to comment.

As I've said before I believe audiophile reviews are fundamentally expository writing and the root of expository is 'to expose.' It is a virtue to craft clear straightforward prose and anything that gets in the way of exposition is embelishment. Alas, I'm not Hemingway. Perhaps the harshest criticism I level against myself is my writing is (sometimes) baroque with convoluted sentences. But I do work at that. A good review is respectful of language, grammar and spelling.

A good review should be helpful to the reader. In addition to a basic product description you can find on the product Web site, I believe a good review should provide information about a product that may not be found elsewhere or is otherwise arcane. This is not easy. Often it involves a deep dive into the product, considerable research about relevant technologies, and interaction with the manufacture, trying to coax information from them. Most manufactures believe customers are not curious about technologies or not capable of appreciating technical detail. Also, most manufactures are very very leery of revealing anything they gauge proprietary, or might be copied, stolen, or be of a competitive advantage to another maker of a similar product. Those latter things do happen, more frequently than you might imagine and it is easy to understand manufacture disclosure reluctance. The industry is highly competitive. A good reviewer does more than scratch a product's surface and needs to be sensitive to manufacture concerns, strictly honoring NDAs. With diligence it is possible to ferret out product information that would not get published unless the reviewer took the time and energy to do so. I think it incumbent on a reviewer to do this. (And it sets a formal review apart from the 'drop by the showroom for a listen' type reviews.)

A good review includes the review context - the other equipment used in the system on which the review is based. A good review includes an account of product use, includes options the product offers and choices the reviewer made when using the product. This needs be somewhat balanced because describing every option or choice can make for tedious prose. A good review of an electronic component should use the power cords that came with it - that's the product. If there are problems or idiosyncracies with product usage, describe them.

A good review takes its time. After doing reviews over the years I am absolutely committed to the notion that a quick A/B/A product comparison has very limited value. I grant that some readers claim they cannot make a decision about a product without flipping a switch between it and some alternative. But a good review is not about that - it's not about choosing one product versus another. I believe one needs to live with a product for some time (more than a month) to understand and maybe appreciate its character - it doesn't matter how much experience you think you have.

A good review needs sonic descriptions of pieces of music the reviewer knows well. I agree with Stehno 100% when he said of a good reviewer: "possessing the ability to discern / interpret what they hear and conveying what they hear to the reader." Someone mentioned correlating what one hears with measurement - I don't do that; at best it is speculative. Infrequently do I claim to hear this or that and say it is because a product has some feature set. My approach to sonic description may be different from many reviews. I describe what I hear and experience playing a piece of music with the review product in my system; I don't describe the product, I describe the music, what I hear listening to it. Infrequently do I claim what I hear is because of something a single product claims to do. I'm listening to an entire system. There may be affinities or not among components. That usually is difficult to assess on a physical basis. (Maybe with cartridges, tonearms or a phonostage.) Only when obvious synergy obtains with one component and not another will I mention it.

Whenever possible a good review should include a sonic compare/contrast of the review product with a similar product in a similar price range. Most of my reviews do that but it is not always possible. One may not have anything similar to the review product or not have something in the same price range. I don't have the luxury of a backroom stocked with alternatives, so in my case I typically use what is in my system at the time. It's nearly impossible to borrow another manufacturer's component for the sole purpose of comparing it to the competition. (It's a reason you don't find many comparisons of equipment racks.) But where possible a good review does a sonic-level compare/contrast with an alternative that the reviewer has spent time with.

I could go on, as well as include my approach to reviewing albums. This is already way long. Thank you for reading about my review process to this point.