Why are audio reviews so consistently positive?

[DaveC]

Make 'different' products for different markets: put the same product into a bit fancier chassis for the 'crazy' market, name it differently, and sell it at 3 x the price for the 'normal' market. Claim the products are different by also tampering with the cosmetics of components and layout inside. Keep the markets strictly apart for new purchases. What happens to cross-contamination of second hand purchases is not your problem.

That's a lot of work and carries some risk, I'm thinking the msrp needs to be what it needs to be to sell in certain markets, in other markets there might be an "actual sale price" that isn't written down anywhere... IDK, it's a strange world these days...

 

[stehno]

Are most audio products (the vast majority) impeccable, or almost too perfect to be true?

In my limited experience I would speculate that some-to-many products are well-designed or designed well-enough to potentially be superior performers. Potentially being the keyword here. But I would also contend that every last component design is far from complete from a performance-only perspective. As John Curl admitted as much in another forum, "All of my designs and all others' designs contain at least one serious but unknown flaw that could not be measured." Paraphrased. At least in this instance Curl was right on the money.

Note: For reference on Curl's use of "serious but unknown flaw" I would reference Robert Harley of TAS who said in the TAS 2009 Mar/Apr issue, "I believe that something catastrophic occurs at the recording mic's diaphragm that prevents much of the music from reaching the recording." Catastrophic being the keyword here and in at least this instance Harley was also right on the money.

Here is supposedly a credible engineer and supposedly a credible reviewer/editor held in high regard by some-to-many and both are making similar admissions about industry performance - and it ain't good.

How do their statements compare with other mfg'er and reviewers performance claims or even the many performance claims within this very forum? If there is little or no consistency, we've got an industry-wide problem. And I would suggest that if we ignore such contradictions, that implies to me that some-to-many either don't know what they're talking about or are not being intellectually honest. For example, what do we think when one speaker mfg'er who claims his speakers are, "indistinguishable from the live performance."? Or when the editor of a mag claims another speaker is "Musically perfect. ... Across the board."?

Professional audio reviewers are all very conscientious and dedicated to their important work.
We don't question their integrity, their serious work of art as public servants in the name of true audio information.

Well, that's one take I suppose.

So, are most audio products all that good? Very rarely are we reading about flaws and negative attributes.
One same audio product reviewed positively by a reviewer usually received positive accolades by other reviewers as well.
Are they all from the same family of golden ears?

The bottom line is, high-end audio is a business to many. The good-humor man drives the ice cream truck not for his love of ice cream.

Oh yes, we had few discussions in the past fifty years or so about this. But this is the year 2017 now, and with some new developments on the audio technology front.

What significant new performance-oriented developments are you speaking of?

Why do you think is that, today?

Aside from playback systems in general being just a tad more musical each year, why do you think 2017 is really any different than the previous 30 years?

Share what you know, your thoughts, frankly in all honesty in the open.
....
What are your takes? I remember DaveyF started a similar thread a while back, last year.

We've discussed in this forum various topics like, well-trained ears, how our better playback systems rank when compared to live music, etc. I've sat thru evaluations with numerous reviewers and read enough reviews, and taken into consideration their systems, their takes on technologies and improvements, their condemnations on other things, etc, that I think it far safer to assume the vast majority of reviewers are no more talented or knowledgeable than the average enthusiast. Maybe even worse. But there's always the very few who stand out from the rest.

Just like any industry, there seems to be a very small percentage of reviewers that are worth their weight. As such, that generally puts them head and shoulders above the average reviewer.

In fact, I find the industry leaders to be among the worst or least talented and least reliable except perhaps from a pure marketing talent perspective. And while some may hold these supposed leaders in high esteem, others might think, "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a platypus." or "The emperor has no clothes.", while others may simply muse, "sell-out."

Bottom line. I suspect for many a mag and/or professional, it's just business and they adopt the lingo and go thru the motions. Positive reviews generate revenue and keep the small industry flame alive while keeping those deepest engaged from having to cut back on the lifestyle they've grown accustom to. Negative reviews provide little benefit to anybody - well, except perhaps to give the rag/reviewer the occasional opportunity to demonstrate an "objective" appearance to an unsuspecting audience.

But there's another aspect for which very few cling to - including me and it all boils down to this. That from a truly musical performance perspective high-end audio remains very much in its infancy stages. No matter how impressive a playback system or listening room may seem.

Again in my limited experience, I suspect most products sound more alike than different (but not identical). Usually regardless of price. Case-in-point. I discovered about a year ago that a co-worker's brother is a high-end amp designer. And the last few years his prized designs have become highly touted 6-figure components and my co-worker informed me how his brother thinks the 6-figure components sounded quite similar to the low 5-figure components he had been designing. Moreover, supposedly the amp-designing brother also is unimpressed with the overall performance levels of today's better systems. Regrettable but for which I thought he should be commended for his intellectual honesty (at least to his brother), but surely the amp designer would not convey such thoughts openly to the industry.

The product or system's performance sounding more alike than different thing could or should easily be confirmed next time you visit a dealer or a high-end audio show where the vast majority of even the better systems sound far more alike than they do different and there's good reason for that. And where at times one almost needs a stethoscope to discern the often times subtle differences. And that's not intended to be a positive statement either.

 

[Lee]

A few reasons.

1. High end community is small. Much business risk to posting negative audio reviews.

2. Too many good and interesting products to focus on poor performers. Some have a view to let consumers use number or quality of reviews as a proxy on quality...or to at least eliminate some names from the short list.

3. Manufacturers and publishers are symbiotic. Some publishers will send back a poor performer so to give the manufacturer a chance to do better.

4. Concerning all of the above, economic pressure. High end audio has a dying customer base. Best to build up the industry so that everyone wins.

How to help the customer get better gear? Use reviews to refine to a short list then audition, if permitted, the components under consideration in your own system.

 

[Lee]

I have a story...but I shouldn't mention any names.

A well known electronics manufacturer at RMAF years back decided to do a big room with some well-regarded flagship speakers. This manufacturer uses good designers, their gear sounds excellent, and often offers very good value for $. More importantly, the people who work there are very friendly and generally well loved by the audio press.

At this particular show, the sound in the room was so atrocious, I heard several reviewers remark on it in hushed tones. Two reviewers I know hated the sound...after the usual 3-4 months the show reports started appearing and the room was mentioned positively which shocked me. I mean this room was an absolute disaster that would not keep up with my damaged emotivas I gave to my wife. It created an alternate universe level of bad EQ. It was honestly quite comical after a while.

The conclusion was that while the electronics were quite good in other systems in other rooms, the speakers (from another mfr of course) were a disaster despite their stupid 100K+ price tag.

I don't think it was a proud moment for the industry. The audio press should be able to drop kick the room sound when it is this bad. Frankly, there needed to be some serious shaming.

But it's human nature not to be too harsh when you can negatively impact the lives of the people in the room.

But do we work for the audio manufacturers or the consumers? My view is we have to focus on the consumer. If they get a bad experience, they may leave the hobby forever and that hurts everyone. It also hurts the show if we visit $200-400K rooms and hear terrible sound. It's like driving a Ferrari that is slower than my V-6 Lexus.

RMAF two years ago had the Focal Grand Utopias paired with the flagship VAC gear in one ballroom and, next door, much more expensive Soulution gear. The VAC system was magical. The Soulution room was horrible. Completely lifeless. Bad experience for the audience and even worse for Soulution whose $70-90K gear lost some reputation. Just not what you want for crazy expensive ultra-luxury products.

Well I've probably said too much. Had a few martinis tonight.

 

[Lee]

We've discussed in this forum various topics like, well-trained ears, how our better playback systems rank when compared to live music, etc. I've sat thru evaluations with numerous reviewers and read enough reviews, and taken into consideration their systems, their takes on technologies and improvements, their condemnations on other things, etc, that I think it far safer to assume the vast majority of reviewers are no more talented or knowledgeable than the average enthusiast. Maybe even worse. But there's always the very few who stand out from the rest.

I have to take a little bit of issue with this part of the quote. I actually think reviewers are more knowledgeable than the average enthusiast for the following reasons:

1. Access to the manufacturer allows deeper insights into what the differences in technological approaches are. Example, understanding via firm interviews how the filters work in Chord Electronics and how that helps the DACs from Chord sound so good. Want to learn about why Audeze was able to shrink planar tech into an IEM? Have a call with their CEO, Sankar.

2. Exposure to a wide variety of products. Since starting reviewing, I have gotten in all sorts of personal audio and two channel gear. I've learned a boat load from listening to various gear and understanding how certain circuits and different approaches sound and how system synergy is important.

3. Show coverage and audio designers. Covering audio shows is a tough and low paying experience. But it has some advantages to a reviewer. Press credentials allow access to company founders and other management which often leads to exposure or knowledge on which designers they employ. Want to understand DACs better? Spend an hour at dinner with Ted Smith who does the DirectStream products. Want to learn about reviewer biases and how to avoid them? Talk to one of many ex-reviewers who may be doing PR or other marketing for the industry.

 

[NorthStar]

I have read some of the main lines from the last ten posts or so; some excellent comments in there.

Without going too deep:

1. Some lines of mine are humorous disguised as serious. There's a fine balance to be find, and like I to discover it in others, takes time sometimes.
I apologize for my less than clear style @ times. Example: When I said that we don't question the integrity of pro audio reviewers. It is not entirely true.

2. I agree; it's the customers who is always right. It's who should always come first. It is his money that audio dealers are after.
We hurt no one, no one gets hurt. If I decide to make a living as an audio manufacturer/dealer, I'm in the audio sales business.
And with any business comes risks.
We don't mix friendship with business? It's part of the business?
I have many stories of lives destroyed, wars were created, conflicts were never resolved, human values took the way of the dodo, our planet taken major hits.
We live in a consumer world; everything is for sale...posters of revolution, films of imagination, ideas, theories, galaxies, spaceships, aliens, brain, emotions.

We're inside a forum of audiophiles, of audio addicts, of music poets, of musical emotions, of high resolution audio downloads, of the record LP album revival, of tape machines reconditioning, of vintage horn speakers, of electrostatic loudspeakers, of ultra high end analog intercontinental connections, of high wire act speaking wires, of music formats from all species, of classical cars to match our classical music and colored lifestyle, of dynamic experience of life and beyond, of well dressed ballet opera attendees, ...brief we're inside a forum of universal world's culture people. ...With everything best and good that comes with it. Only outside is better, but there is no better place than the one we pick to share with.

Today is today, working slowly for a better tomorrow. Last night, yesterday I watched a movie on Blu-ray 3D.

I loved it! It is way way over underrated. I just mention it now here in reference to time...today, tomorrow and yesterday; that's all.
Because in this audio love affair business addiction music affliction and infliction, time is our best ally.
...Be here in the now with the music playing and all the emotions going through our body and soul. Billy's still with me right now; I can hear the echoes resonating in the heart of all people, of all heroes, of all of us, of all audiofiles with a heart of steel and chrome bars and gold dreams.

 

[morricab]

In my limited experience I would speculate that some-to-many products are well-designed or designed well-enough to potentially be superior performers. Potentially being the keyword here. But I would also contend that every last component design is far from complete from a performance-only perspective. As John Curl admitted as much in another forum, "All of my designs and all others' designs contain at least one serious but unknown flaw that could not be measured." Paraphrased. At least in this instance Curl was right on the money.

Note: For reference on Curl's use of "serious but unknown flaw" I would reference Robert Harley of TAS who said in the TAS 2009 Mar/Apr issue, "I believe that something catastrophic occurs at the recording mic's diaphragm that prevents much of the music from reaching the recording." Catastrophic being the keyword here and in at least this instance Harley was also right on the money.

Here is supposedly a credible engineer and supposedly a credible reviewer/editor held in high regard by some-to-many and both are making similar admissions about industry performance - and it ain't good.

How do their statements compare with other mfg'er and reviewers performance claims or even the many performance claims within this very forum? If there is little or no consistency, we've got an industry-wide problem. And I would suggest that if we ignore such contradictions, that implies to me that some-to-many either don't know what they're talking about or are not being intellectually honest. For example, what do we think when one speaker mfg'er who claims his speakers are, "indistinguishable from the live performance."? Or when the editor of a mag claims another speaker is "Musically perfect. ... Across the board."?





Well, that's one take I suppose.



The bottom line is, high-end audio is a business to many. The good-humor man drives the ice cream truck not for his love of ice cream.



What significant new performance-oriented developments are you speaking of?



Aside from playback systems in general being just a tad more musical each year, why do you think 2017 is really any different than the previous 30 years?





We've discussed in this forum various topics like, well-trained ears, how our better playback systems rank when compared to live music, etc. I've sat thru evaluations with numerous reviewers and read enough reviews, and taken into consideration their systems, their takes on technologies and improvements, their condemnations on other things, etc, that I think it far safer to assume the vast majority of reviewers are no more talented or knowledgeable than the average enthusiast. Maybe even worse. But there's always the very few who stand out from the rest.

Just like any industry, there seems to be a very small percentage of reviewers that are worth their weight. As such, that generally puts them head and shoulders above the average reviewer.

In fact, I find the industry leaders to be among the worst or least talented and least reliable except perhaps from a pure marketing talent perspective. And while some may hold these supposed leaders in high esteem, others might think, "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a platypus." or "The emperor has no clothes.", while others may simply muse, "sell-out."

Bottom line. I suspect for many a mag and/or professional, it's just business and they adopt the lingo and go thru the motions. Positive reviews generate revenue and keep the small industry flame alive while keeping those deepest engaged from having to cut back on the lifestyle they've grown accustom to. Negative reviews provide little benefit to anybody - well, except perhaps to give the rag/reviewer the occasional opportunity to demonstrate an "objective" appearance to an unsuspecting audience.

But there's another aspect for which very few cling to - including me and it all boils down to this. That from a truly musical performance perspective high-end audio remains very much in its infancy stages. No matter how impressive a playback system or listening room may seem.

Again in my limited experience, I suspect most products sound more alike than different (but not identical). Usually regardless of price. Case-in-point. I discovered about a year ago that a co-worker's brother is a high-end amp designer. And the last few years his prized designs have become highly touted 6-figure components and my co-worker informed me how his brother thinks the 6-figure components sounded quite similar to the low 5-figure components he had been designing. Moreover, supposedly the amp-designing brother also is unimpressed with the overall performance levels of today's better systems. Regrettable but for which I thought he should be commended for his intellectual honesty (at least to his brother), but surely the amp designer would not convey such thoughts openly to the industry.

The product or system's performance sounding more alike than different thing could or should easily be confirmed next time you visit a dealer or a high-end audio show where the vast majority of even the better systems sound far more alike than they do different and there's good reason for that. And where at times one almost needs a stethoscope to discern the often times subtle differences. And that's not intended to be a positive statement either.

I would definitely agree that marketing talent trumps most other skills when it comes to being an "industry leader" in something. This is why it is so hard to separate the psychology from the facts.

 

[853guy]

In my limited experience I would speculate that some-to-many products are well-designed or designed well-enough to potentially be superior performers. Potentially being the keyword here. But I would also contend that every last component design is far from complete from a performance-only perspective. As John Curl admitted as much in another forum, "All of my designs and all others' designs contain at least one serious but unknown flaw that could not be measured." Paraphrased. At least in this instance Curl was right on the money.

Note: For reference on Curl's use of "serious but unknown flaw" I would reference Robert Harley of TAS who said in the TAS 2009 Mar/Apr issue, "I believe that something catastrophic occurs at the recording mic's diaphragm that prevents much of the music from reaching the recording." Catastrophic being the keyword here and in at least this instance Harley was also right on the money.

Here is supposedly a credible engineer and supposedly a credible reviewer/editor held in high regard by some-to-many and both are making similar admissions about industry performance - and it ain't good.

How do their statements compare with other mfg'er and reviewers performance claims or even the many performance claims within this very forum? If there is little or no consistency, we've got an industry-wide problem. And I would suggest that if we ignore such contradictions, that implies to me that some-to-many either don't know what they're talking about or are not being intellectually honest. For example, what do we think when one speaker mfg'er who claims his speakers are, "indistinguishable from the live performance."? Or when the editor of a mag claims another speaker is "Musically perfect. ... Across the board."?

(…)

In fact, I find the industry leaders to be among the worst or least talented and least reliable except perhaps from a pure marketing talent perspective. And while some may hold these supposed leaders in high esteem, others might think, "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a platypus." or "The emperor has no clothes.", while others may simply muse, "sell-out."

Bottom line. I suspect for many a mag and/or professional, it's just business and they adopt the lingo and go thru the motions. Positive reviews generate revenue and keep the small industry flame alive while keeping those deepest engaged from having to cut back on the lifestyle they've grown accustom to. Negative reviews provide little benefit to anybody - well, except perhaps to give the rag/reviewer the occasional opportunity to demonstrate an "objective" appearance to an unsuspecting audience.

But there's another aspect for which very few cling to - including me and it all boils down to this. That from a truly musical performance perspective high-end audio remains very much in its infancy stages. No matter how impressive a playback system or listening room may seem.

Again in my limited experience, I suspect most products sound more alike than different (but not identical). Usually regardless of price. Case-in-point. I discovered about a year ago that a co-worker's brother is a high-end amp designer. And the last few years his prized designs have become highly touted 6-figure components and my co-worker informed me how his brother thinks the 6-figure components sounded quite similar to the low 5-figure components he had been designing. Moreover, supposedly the amp-designing brother also is unimpressed with the overall performance levels of today's better systems. Regrettable but for which I thought he should be commended for his intellectual honesty (at least to his brother), but surely the amp designer would not convey such thoughts openly to the industry.

The product or system's performance sounding more alike than different thing could or should easily be confirmed next time you visit a dealer or a high-end audio show where the vast majority of even the better systems sound far more alike than they do different and there's good reason for that. And where at times one almost needs a stethoscope to discern the often times subtle differences. And that's not intended to be a positive statement either.

Hi Stehno,

Just two quick points re the bolded statements above…

Firstly, of the two, which do you consider the less-demanding electro-mechanically speaking: 1) Recording the sound of an orchestra via two half-inch or 1.25 inch microphone capsules and converting it to an electrical signal, or; 2) converting an electrical signal into the sound of an orchestra via the same two half-inch or 1.25 inch microphone capsules?

Secondly, when dealing with any industry that makes claims for performance, diminishing returns is a given. That is, for a given level of incremental progress, the amount of investment required is asymmetrically proportional - smaller and smaller increments usually come with higher and higher levels of investment. We can argue what constitutes performance relative to value, but to dismiss the investment needed to make incremental gains because they are not directly proportional is to misunderstand the nature of all asymmetrical industries, defined as they are by those asymmetries.

 

[stehno]

Hi Stehno,

Just two quick points re the bolded statements above…

Firstly, of the two, which do you consider the less-demanding electro-mechanically speaking: 1) Recording the sound of an orchestra via two half-inch or 1.25 inch microphone capsules and converting it to an electrical signal, or; 2) converting an electrical signal into the sound of an orchestra via the same two half-inch or 1.25 inch microphone capsules?

Secondly, when dealing with any industry that makes claims for performance, diminishing returns is a given. That is, for a given level of incremental progress, the amount of investment required is asymmetrically proportional - smaller and smaller increments usually come with higher and higher levels of investment. We can argue what constitutes performance relative to value, but to dismiss the investment needed to make incremental gains because they are not directly proportional is to misunderstand the nature of all asymmetrical industries, defined as they are by those asymmetries.

853guy, sorry but your responses and questions are irrelevant and hence off-topic to any of the points I strived to make.

 

[853guy]

853guy, sorry but your responses and questions are irrelevant and hence off-topic to any of the points I strived to make.

Hi Stehno,

It's a free world, so whether you choose not to discuss those points because you consider them irrelevant and off-topic, or because you prefer to make sweeping generalizations of the products the industry produces and the motivations of those producing them - while selectively cherry picking data points to bolster your argument - it's of no consequence to me. Be well, and have a great weekend.

853guy

 

[stehno]

Hi Stehno,

It's a free world, so whether you choose not to discuss those points because you consider them irrelevant and off-topic, or because you prefer to make sweeping generalizations of the products the industry produces and the motivations of those producing them - while selectively cherry picking data points to bolster your argument - it's of no consequence to me. Be well, and have a great weekend.

853guy

Silly goose.

 

[853guy]

Silly goose.

"You do not say 'big silly goose'!"
Randy Marsh, South Park Season Five, Episode Two

How do their statements compare with other mfg'er and reviewers performance claims or even the many performance claims within this very forum? If there is little or no consistency, we've got an industry-wide problem. And I would suggest that if we ignore such contradictions, that implies to me that some-to-many either don't know what they're talking about or are not being intellectually honest. For example, what do we think when one speaker mfg'er who claims his speakers are, "indistinguishable from the live performance."? Or when the editor of a mag claims another speaker is "Musically perfect. ... Across the board."?

Or when a rack manufacturer claims "No other product, system or innovation or any combination thereof can come even remotely close to the performance of even a humble playback system utilizing the XXX"?

Again, have great weekend, Stehno.

853guy

 

[stehno]

"You do not say 'big silly goose'!"
Randy Marsh, South Park Season Five, Episode Two



Or when a rack manufacturer claims "No other product, system or innovation or any combination thereof can come even remotely close to the performance of even a humble playback system utilizing the XXX"?

Again, have great weekend, Stehno.

853guy

C'mon, 853guy, please don't hold me to that old claim that was made back when my technology was much closer to its infancy.

Regardless, why do you speak as though you lack any discernment or distinction between my claims (for which you know nothing of) and the implication of Atkinson's claims (for which you also seem to know nothing of)?

BTW, silly goose, I'm starting to suspect you don't really want me to have a great weekend.

 

[NorthStar]

Lol, consistently funny. :b ...We're all having a great weekend, we're all wishing everyone a great weekend; it's Saturday Night Live!
Don't miss tonight's show...SNL.
_____+__