teajay is the exception that proves the rule.
Six Moons and Stereo Times are two of the better review sites.
Six Moons and Stereo Times are two of the better review sites.
Audio reviews: too many analogies, never simple, but most of all, never clear.
How many reviews have you read were it takes at least 2 paragraphs for the the reviewer to actually give
hint this article is actually audio related or even gives mention to what he or she’s reviewing. Get to the subject matter. Leave out your less than perfect dramatic writing skills and lets start hearing about the actual review. I’d rather hear about comparisons between audio components than analogies between wine and taste related to transparency and how that gives rise to what they are getting ready say. What does wine have to do with audio transparency, nothing! Also they have a tendency to talk more about recordings that I’m sure 99% of the readers of the article have never heard of, or would ever listen to.
And when you looking for some sign of what they actually think of the components they’re reviewing they never give you a straight answer; it’s always something that leaves, at least for myself, asking, well where’s the answer.
hint this article is actually audio related or even gives mention to what he or she’s reviewing. Get to the subject matter. Leave out your less than perfect dramatic writing skills and lets start hearing about the actual review. I’d rather hear about comparisons between audio components than analogies between wine and taste related to transparency and how that gives rise to what they are getting ready say. What does wine have to do with audio transparency, nothing! Also they have a tendency to talk more about recordings that I’m sure 99% of the readers of the article have never heard of, or would ever listen to.
And when you looking for some sign of what they actually think of the components they’re reviewing they never give you a straight answer; it’s always something that leaves, at least for myself, asking, well where’s the answer.
76 responses Add your response
I have written professionally for three different websites ( Hometheaterreview/Six Moons/Stereo Times) over the last ten years. I can honestly state the following: 1) I have never been asked to write a positive review because of the need not to offend a current advertiser. 2) Even being a relatively unknown reviewer I have had some companies offer me payola to write a positive review, if you trust me you know I did not accept it, if you don’t trust me, you don’t. 3) I rarely have to write a negative review because I get to select gear that meets my personal taste to a point that I would want to own it. Put it this way, if I’m a food critic, and based on past experience I know I don’t care for the food from a specific restaurant, why would I want to waste my time/effort going to eat somewhere I don’t enjoy the culinary offerings. 4) As I explain to everyone who will listen if you discover that your personal taste matches mine and what I’m looking for in my system’s overall presentation matches what you are seeking, I can be helpful to you in the information I provide in my reviews. Therefore, I have always clearly stated in my writing the priorities in these matters. I discovered very early on that the movie critics Siskel and Ebert had very different personal tastes/priorities regarding what they endorsed in the movies they reviewed. It turned out the great majority of time Ebert’s taste matched my own, and if Siskel loved a movie I often did not. Therefore, I mainly read the reviews of fellow reviewers that match my personal taste to gain helpful information about a piece of gear. One example, Dick Olsher, who writes clear to the point reviews that I gain credible information from based on the above assumptions. And yet, I still tell everyone, use your own ear’s not mine. There have been historically pictures of my acoustic space and different system setups and complete listings of my gear in my reviews. This, hopefully addresses key questions in my reviewing experience regarding my past "baselines", the effect of my acoustic space on the system, and my overall system(s) synergy. When I have seen the pictures of some of the highest regarded reviewers listening spaces I’m horrified at the clutter/mess that can effect the performance of their systems and jamming big hulking speakers into tiny acoustic spaces right on the front walls and into the corners! Yet, they claim that they can realistically hear dramatic differences in spatial dimensions. OK, if they say so. 5) I just was having a conversation this afternoon, not knowing about this interesting thread, that I dislike the reviews that spend so much time on irrelevant crap like: their political views, what they eat for breakfast, their taste in wines, their emotional mood or state of mind, what freaking is happening in their neighborhood, etc. Also introductions that go on and on trying to be witty and clever that are highly boring and not so clever. Also, the use of metaphors, analogies, and abstract obtuse language that I scratch my head over and ask my self what are they trying to freaking say! OK, hold my reviewing feet to the fire, if you want. I know mindfully I try to write clear and succinct pieces. I have often stated my personal preferences/tastes that I’m looking for in a piece of gear in the context of my system and acoustic space. I try to use language that clearly conveys the sonic attributes of the gear being reviewed which hopefully helps the reader get a take on what it sounds like. And, I don’t waste time on irrelevant horse-crap about my moods, what I’m drinking these days, or personal struggles when I sit down to enjoy music. |
Let me tell you guys what I know about reviewers. If you're obsessed with audio you can be a reviewer. If your appetite for new gear far exceeds your ability to purchase said gear and you are able to learn a few terms and string them together not totally ungrammatically you can be a reviewer. There's a very few exceptions for guys like Fremer who earned their money the old fashioned way and then later on figured out that if they were clever about it they could make enough to cut back and not have to do any real actual work. But by and large its guys who have a monkey on their back and will do anything for the next fix. I could give you one I personally know as a beautiful example but see no reason to ruin his good thing or impugn the rag he writes for, as they may have other reviewers who don't deserve to be slandered by association. Just please take my word for it, reviews are always to some extent bought and paid for. Except for mine. I am the one uncorruptible exception. My hearing has been tested and confirmed perfect by kenjit. GK has audited my system and it is proven to contain no wires. Or speakers. This heavily cabernet-influenced segue in no way detracts from the compliment paid noromance, which does indeed belong in the Glossary of Audiophile Terminology. |
I subscribed to stereophile for about 40 years. Each year I wrote a letter suggesting that their reviewers have an audiologist perform a hearing test and publish the results. I never received a response, not even a, “You again, give it a rest.” Their ability or inability to hear well is more important to me than many factors used to establish credentials |
I enjoy the reviewer talking about the music they are listening to, I've discovered some excellent recordings that way that I can actually afford . Agree that most of the equipment reviewed costs way to much, heck I'd be paying a grandchild's college tuition or shopping luxury vehicles if I had that to blow. |
couldn't agree more with millercarbon and hiendmmoe. The reviewers are often self-indulgent to a fault (similar to the media where now they,re the news rather than what they're reporting). I subscribe to the two mainstream audiophile publications as they,re relatively inexpensive (TAS and stereophile) but I,m usually disappointed by the choice of components being reviewed. 75% of the components reviewed represent stuff I can't buy in this lifetime ( or any other). The other 15% - 20% are budget components which are there as tokens and little more to keep people from constantly complaining about exclusively reviewing exorbitant components. Virtually nothing in the middle ground. What about taking a different tact and instead of reviewing amps costing 6 figures only review it ifs providing a exceptional sonic breakthrough that has to be heard to be believed. This would eliminate 90 to 95% of the mega buck components but it would be so much better for the average audiophile. |
Miller Carbon, I do believe I just learned something about journalism by reading your post. Thank you for that, it explains a lot about the current state of affairs in the poor excuse for journalism that exists today. I am sick and tired of ideologies and agendas being pushed instead of the truth. For the subject at hand, sometimes I enjoy the scenic route, as long as they get to the point eventually. Other times I want "just the facts, ma'm", and I scan through to the bottom line. Sometimes I can tell when the reviewer is damning with faint praise. Sometimes I can't find much value in the review, but I always want some measurements, putting the item on the test bench. But when it comes to reviews, I just can't get that worked up about it. |
I am so glad that you started this thread hiendmmoe! I discovered a reviewer on enjoythemusic.com; Jules Coleman, who is absolutely over the top with just what you are talking about. I guarantee that you will not believe how long it takes him to start talking about the product; in this case Sonus Faber speakers. He runs on about boring nonsense that is nothing that you don’t already know, and when he finally gets to the review, that’s bad too! It is hard to believe that the editors would accept his reviews...and there are more than one. www.enjoythemusic.com/superioraudio/equipment/0420/Sonus_Faber_Il_Cremonese_Floorstanding_Loudspeake... |
IMO, you have to know how to "interpret" these articles. I appreciate when a reviewer tells you up front what gear is being used. I like John Darko and Herb Reichert a lot. They are easy for me to understand. I also like Clement Perry at Stereo Times. The worst for me is 6 Moons....talk about pompous and verbose....I can’t read any of their stuff anymore. In the past, I’ve read entire articles and wasn’t sure what the heck was said. Their publisher is the worst of the lot. |
There's actually an art to writing. It's lost on many who are used to text speak, don't read books, and are otherwise conditioned to expect "instant information" (and instant gratification) by YouTube, Google, etc. Whether that's "good" or "bad", I'll leave that to others to ponder. Just writing this makes me feel old. Having said that, a lot of reviews leave me wanting for more and/or wishing they'd get to the point. Sometimes I'm interested in the first few paragraphs of the review that talk about the design and implementation of the technology being covered. Other times I skip ahead to the listening impressions, and sometimes I go right to the conclusion. Most reviews are structured in a way that you can do that pretty easily. It's also important to take into consideration that most of the publications are sponsored by many of the companies whose products are being reviewed, so there's almost no way that the review can be completely unbiased. There are those rare occasions where you see a product get a negative review, or where one or two distinct flaws are highlighted, but more often than not we're offered "it doesn't do ________ as well as some, but...". I only read reviews in-depth when it's for an item I'm considering purchasing, and then I look for specific comments about sound quality and functionality that matter to me as well as comparisons to other products that I'm familiar with. I also try to read between the lines where something may be glossed over or they're being polite. At the end of the day, we all hear things differently and have different frames of reference. We all have inherent biases as well. |
Welcome to the decline of journalism, hiendmmoe. The time respecting approach you’re wanting used to be the norm. First sentence lays out the theme. First paragraph fleshes it out. Subsequent paragraphs follow a structure. Like this. The New York Times style book is the industry standard. The Times has an ideology to push, and its an ideology that cannot win on its own merits but only with the help of a manipulative narrative. Over time this narrative style of writing has corrupted the whole of journalism, to the point where its impossible to read a Stereophile review without Orange Man Bad slipping in there somewhere. Or wine. Take your pick of irrelevant culture comments, virtue signaling segues. What I do to save time is scan right past all the fluff, which in my book most of the tech talk is just as bad, and skip to the listening impressions. Then while reading those I skip past any reference to music I don’t own. All I care about are the listening impressions. What did the reviewer hear? How does he describe it? If its not what I’m looking for, or even if it is but he hasn’t demonstrated an ability to adequately describe it, then I am gone. Done. Its amazing how well this works. All my gear has been bought this way for years now, and I don’t think it ever has failed me. My turntable, arm, cartridge, phono stage, interconnect, amp, speaker cables, and DBA were all bought this way. Its a shame what they have done to journalism. Oh well. We gotta roll with it. Adapt. Darwin. I Ching. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6NxWID2r6E |