Ralph already reported that the earlier post was an inadvertent mis-statement of his view.
Unbelievable how you two love to stir the pot.
Last edited:
Why negative reviews can be unethical and misleading: 10audio.com
- Thread starter Atmasphere
- Start date
Unbelievable how you two love to stir the pot.
They follow the AES48 standard.
One is positive and the other negative, hence they largely cancel out.
Thats the inevitable risk of audioforum participation .
Pointing those out is considered a trophy by members on audioforums, it happens.... but rarely
.
1 it is hard to be totally correct in every post and go mistake free for a long period of time
2. there are people willing to dig up the past in other venues to point out your inconsistencies.
you know that already.
Don't try - most "thinking" peoples' opinions - ideas - beliefs change over time & don't waste your time with those that don't...
So - what that demonstrates that you are open to change - if something better comes along that is clearly better than what you've done/had before - embrace it with open arms...
Yep - sure do - its been a long painful road to get where I am today...
I think you are talking past each other. I completely agree that all people who think deeply will change their opinions over time as more information becomes available and they are open to challenging their own beliefs. What Tima is pointing out is that people without such flexibility will point out others changes in positions as a “ gotcha” in an intentional effort to undermine their credibility. Regrettably the vast majority of people are not regularly testing their own assumptions in order to progress but constantly look for evidence that supports their long held beliefs so that they may live comfortably without the disruption of intellectual vigor. If you constantly change whose campfire do you sit at?
CHANGE is necessary for growth - it is a sign of maturity
This is a sign of immaturity.
As kids we often compared ourselves to others, but as adults, it’s best to get out of this habit.
Comparisons easily leads to feelings of inferiority or superiority- both a distortion of reality.
The mature person lifts and encourages others, even to positions/circumstances above their position. The immature person “gotcha” puts/see someone else down, they feel “relatively” better about themselves.
Not sure if it is a maturity issue but some refuse to grow.
Some live by:
“It’s/they’re wrong until proven right” or
“It’s/I’m right until proven wrong”
both based on their individual judgment often clouded by a stubbornness most often based on fear of admitting to be wrong - their linked self-esteem takes a hit.
These types of people will always be around. Recognizing them would help deal with them “objectively” which is much better than taking it personally
Unequivocally hard disagree. If anything it's the endless glowing reviews of every piece of gear that gets released that needs more skepticism. All one needs to do is apply an ounce of logic to the situation. Which situation is more likely for financial interests to align between manufacturers and reviewers and for corruption to occur? It certainly isn't through negative reviews.
This is giving the same energy as manufactures trying to sue reviewers for negative reviews. I have never used Atmasphere gear, but this post isn't instilling any confidence in the products.
I think you may not have thought this through.
I explained some of why I take my position earlier. In case its not clear, what can happen (as happened to me as a direct result of not taking out a 6 month ad contract) is you can wind up with a bad review, one that can take down the business. This is why Audio Alchemy folded years ago. Its why Gryphon didn't have US distribution for many years. Yet both made good products fairly priced.
So if you have a lot of money invested in a business and through no fault of the product you get a bad review because of an underpinning dishonesty (such as you can't afford a 6 month ad campaign), that can be pretty painful if that money is lost simply on that account. Are you saying that's OK?
There seems to be apples to oranges going on.
There’s a big difference between:
1) A non-partial review
2) Dishonesty in a review
3) “Potential” dishonesty in a review
1) A non-partial review: seller/mfr A wants reviewer B to increase marketing/sales/revenue knowing that reviewer B will report their findings positive or negative. Seller A must agree to this risk, or else he’s expecting B to be less than objectively truthful if negative which serves A but not B or his audience us - agree that complete honesty serves most is best.
If negative review, it would be a “optional” curtesy to give the A a chance to correct, but B is NOT obligated unless agreed upon in original agreement/deal. Also “tactfulness” is also optional.
2) Dishonesty in a review - only “potentially” benefits B, screws A and public - never a good option. B can lose credibility
3) “Potential” dishonesty in a review - true, but most reviewers value their reputation as a counter balance - bad for everyone. I get that in our small niche high-end audio market a negative review can have a major impact on a seller/mfr business financially. However, tying the hands of reviewers aka restricting honesty is not a good idea.
There’s a big difference between:
1) A non-partial review
2) Dishonesty in a review
3) “Potential” dishonesty in a review
1) A non-partial review: seller/mfr A wants reviewer B to increase marketing/sales/revenue knowing that reviewer B will report their findings positive or negative. Seller A must agree to this risk, or else he’s expecting B to be less than objectively truthful if negative which serves A but not B or his audience us - agree that complete honesty serves most is best.
If negative review, it would be a “optional” curtesy to give the A a chance to correct, but B is NOT obligated unless agreed upon in original agreement/deal. Also “tactfulness” is also optional.
2) Dishonesty in a review - only “potentially” benefits B, screws A and public - never a good option. B can lose credibility
3) “Potential” dishonesty in a review - true, but most reviewers value their reputation as a counter balance - bad for everyone. I get that in our small niche high-end audio market a negative review can have a major impact on a seller/mfr business financially. However, tying the hands of reviewers aka restricting honesty is not a good idea.
A bad review can take down the business. This is why audio reviewers who do not like a product they review should return it without comments. Why? Because (i) audio is such a subjective business (ii) so many parameters can influence the outcome of a review. IMHO, there are no longer "badly" designed audio products. But there are many "philosophies" which result in dramatically different sonic presentations: de coloribus non disputandum est!
The important matter is: does certain equipment draw the listener into the music? does it appeal to the heart rather than to the mind? does it reach the parts other equipment does not reach? I will give 3 examples:
1. I did not warm to D'Agostino power amps during a demo featuring Transparent cables and Wilson Alexias; I suspect the power management and supports failed, rather than the amps (see below). I did not investigate further.
2. I have an expensive hifi system based on ACapella horn speakers; yet, at a recent show, I smiled when listening to humble french Revival loudspeakers: they spoke to my heart.
3. Roy Gregory recently reviewed the excellent Nordost QB10 power distribution block on gy8.eu. When I installed the QB10 in my system a few months ago, before reading the review, it was a game changer for my digital dCS Vivaldi Apex 3-piece suite. Until then, digital never "cut it" when compared with my Clearaudio vinyl setup. After installing the QB10, the gap narrowed substantially. In his review, Roy suggested removing the rubber discs from under the feet of the QB10. I reluctantly did so as the modification is non-reversible. The sound improvement was "explosive"! Waow! A very useful review indeed. And it begs the question.
What is a reviewer actually listening to? His support (room treatment, racks, bases) system? His power management system? His cables loom? I call these the "hifi infrastructure". Ideally, a reviewer should have two reference systems, with a mid-price infrastructure for budget to mid-price equipment, and a high-end infrastructure for high-end equipment. IMHO, infrastructure is the best investment in hifi - especially when bought with confidence 2nd hand - and should never be less than 50% of the cost of a total system. More often than not, we listen to how a piece of equipment responds to our specific infrastructure, rather than to the equipment itself! And this is particularly relevant when listening to digital. Vinyl is much more forgiving, which might explain some of its resurgent popularity.
PS: I fortunately need no room treatment as my listening room, with a tiled floor partially covered with carpets, is open at the back, giving way to a large dining room. And yes, there is a slight asymmetry as one side wall is brick for 1/4 of its length, the other a glass window bay along all its length, covered by a net curtain. I prefer living with this slight - audible - asymmetry rather than spoiling the area with "unaesthetic" room treatment. Compromises.
Attachments
And then what ?
You end up with some Brew which is neither sweet nor sour.
I never read the stuff as i dont take it serious anymore .
Its all written to ..... please .
Nothing wrong with a bad review as long as the reviewer explains why he thinks so respectfully and in full detail .
Businesses shut down on a daily bases , thats the risk an entrepreneur takes.
( People give way to much credit for reviews , go hear stuff for yourself if you want something that SUITS YOU
)Or are people just too lazy in general and wanna order from a magazine )
Last edited:
I tried to explain why reviews are utterly subjective and dependent on parameters that reviewers rarely take into account. I gave an example: reviewers should have two "hifi infrastructure" setups. One for low to mid-price, and one for high-end (simply because a high-end infrastructure can cost north of usd 100k). I do not know of a reviewer who listens to equipment on the "appropriate" infrastructure.
The existence of a business should not be subject to the whims of a single review. I am an entrepreneur and would never allow any of my businesses to be dependent on such randomness. If the "alleged reviewer corruption" is to end, reviewers should not wield the power to shut down businesses. A reviewer does not like a product? He returns it without fuss. A reviewer likes a product? He informs the consumer. That consumer then visits an audio dealer carrying the brand, and in the process, will listen to many alternatives. We seem to lose sight of the fact that Hifi is a hobby for enjoyment, both for the manufacturer and for his client.
Trust your ears. Enjoy your listening.
Hi Jack,
Thanks for explaining in depth your thoughts. Certainly some good points are made.
In the end though I look at this rather simply: if only positive "reviews" are allowed, then what's the point? Aren't they simply advertising pieces at that point if we're not allowed to talk about what we don't like? Doesn't the "reviews" at that point have zero credibility?
I totally agree with you this is a 100% subjective field. That's why I think it's silly to put ANY value in ANY opinion whether it be a person on a forum or a review without listening for yourself. An extension of the logic written above - that a bad review can kill a business - then logically carries over to forums and no person should be allowed to post a negative post on a forum about a piece of gear. Right?
Companies can't have it both ways - they can't send it out for a subjective review but want it canceled if that subjectivity isn't in their favor.
I'm not saying I'm right. Just my personal opinion that if a company enters a subjective hobby and has gear reviewers in any capacity, then they are fair game for positive and negative review.
Opa!
I loved your YouTube video. We raise the same issues. Hifi is a beautiful, harmless hobby that brings incredibly moving experiences to our living rooms. The overwhelming majority of HiFi-gear manufacturers are gifted and skilled artisans, both in the field of electronics and the creation of beautiful objects. They deserve our support, and sometimes our money. And the beauty of the hobby is that it covers so many very different approaches to sound, what I call "perspectives".
This sometimes means that some care must be taken when matching equipment. And it always means that the equipment should be properly supported by what I call the "infrastructure".
From experience I know that everything digital requires colossal efforts regarding the infrastructure, much, much more than is the case for analogue. Perhaps clocks and sampling rates live uncomfortably with our environment which is saturated with RFI and other vibrations and resonances? I can easily imagine a class D amplifier succumbing to such a hostile environment. That does not necessarily mean that the amplifier is inadequate. Perhaps the infrastructure fell short? I experienced the same thing with my digital setup. It took me years to make it "listenable to my ears". Lately, peeling off thin rubber discs from under my Nordost QB10 distribution block had a vast beneficial on the audio presentation of my digital setup, less so on that of my vinyl one. I was shocked. And yes, I can now proclaim my digital setup "listenable", after a long road of incremental infrastructure tweaks, whilst the basic digital equipment has remained unchanged since... 2016 (I recently upgraded the dCS Vivaldi DAC to "Apex" level).
Regards from Voula, Attica.
If ever you are in the neighbourhood, come have a listen! And thereafter, mezze with raki on the beach (or ouzo if you like that stuff)!
If a single bad review can destroy a company, it was not much of a company to begin with, good riddance !
Most of the reviewer I've dealt with have scruples, care a lot about their work and that they do it to the best of their ability.
Most reviews I see usually have some nit picks. I don't think we've ever gotten one that didn't have a few. Nothing is going to be perfect and even if it were, you can't please everyone. The issue here isn't so much that every review must be positive and no negative review can ever be entertained, its about the fact that quite often there is an unseen agenda around negative reviews, whereas the positive reviews are there to promote the product from the manufacturer's point of view and to produce content from the publisher's point of view; that's not an unseen agenda.
I should point out that if an organization gets in the habit of bad reviews, they stand a good chance of being avoided by manufacturers that don't want to get burned. That simple fact helps promote decorum; doing things out of respect.
What works best is win win for all parties involved- manufacturer, reviewer, publisher and ultimately a happy, satisfied customer.
The best manufacturers, reviewers and publications strive for that outcome. A lot of them do it out of passion rather than monetary gain.
If someone is doing their work out of passion for the sport and they invested everything they had to make the wheels go around, such a thing could destroy a brilliant product and/or career.
It might also depend on who did the review. If its a powerful force in the industry then your statement isn't true. Audio Alchemy made some brilliant digital products; back when clock stability was a problem for good sounding digital; they made an outboard reclocking device that really helped digital along. But they didn't go in for an ad campaign and so got taken out by a magazine that wanted to show 'hard hitting journalism'. I'd been warned by others in the industry that that organization usually targeted smaller companies as 'sacrificial lambs' because they didn't have the money to fight back.
Similar threads
