Audio reviews: too many analogies, never simple, but most of all, never clear.

How about a simple "thumbs up/thumbs down approach ala' Siskel and Ebert?

Actually I always enjoyed Art Dudley's reviews and I usually was never interested in the component. 

I am the last word in hi end audio as its my money.

Otherwise I can somewhat agree. I recall one review that was mostly about the bottle of Whisky used while the listening was conducted!

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

Perhaps the reviewers get paid per word.  Or perhaps it has to be a certain length.  I have found the reviews at 6 Moons have so much extra fluff in them, you need to read between the lines. 

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.

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.

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...

I wrote reviews for a living for close to forty years and, yes, like a bunch of you I just can’t help but lose my emotional equilibrium when a review doesn’t meet my august criteria. Trouble is, whenever I turn up the steereo to mellow out, my wife bangs on the door with a sledgehammer.

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.

Audio reviews chew more than they bite off.  Their taste in music is prosaic at best.

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.

The less the reviewer talks about the component, the less they like it. They may not come out and bash the component, but read between the lines....

I draw the line at reviews of speakers with no mention of amp used or characteristics of the listening room.   That’s useless. 

I draw the line at reviews of speakers with no mention of amp used or characteristics of the listening room. Reviewing parts of systems without context is useless and tells me this person’s  opinion is not well founded. Otherwise to each his own.

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.

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 

One thing I’ve learned is to always magnify their adjectives. If they say a little warm, they mean colored. A little rolled off; dark and lacking detail. A little bright; searing. Lacking some transparency; brick wall.

Well I'll be, noromance that is worth a listing in the Glossary of Audiophile Terminology! Well done!

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.

Yes, true. clever art of Beating around the bush. never committal to serving truth to reader, never surgical reality.

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.

I agree with your self-assessment teajay. I find your reviews helpful and entertaining, and I am also glad that you are also writing for Six Moons because the format at Home Theatre Review doesn't allow for longer more in-depth reviews.  

Hey roxy54,

Thanks for your kind words regarding my reviews.  Just want to inform you I now write for Clement Perry's the Stereo Times website.

teajay is the exception that proves the rule. 

Six Moons and Stereo Times are two of the better review sites. 

Very interesting thread.

Recently I decided to buy a mid end wireless can. I got interested in the beyerdynamic amiron.

Read What-hifi: "Catastofic loss of bass". 3 stars, the absolute minimum they ever give

Techradar " The best-sounding wireless headphones you can buy"

Hifitrends "Breathtaking!" product of the year 2019

Do these people even listen to what they are reviewing ? Most of the stuff I read is so bland that clearly they just copy the product announcement. When they take a firm stand, very rarely, it's often so unreliable. 

You don't get anything, you don't learn anything from those reviews.

In the end I ignore them. I buy from Amazon whenever I can, sorry local shops, so that I can easily return whatever I don't like.

I read the independent forums, many are opinionated but at leas most are honest uninterested opinions.

BTW while I have you here would anyone suggest a great wireless pair of cans . . . .

Most reviews are so biased.

 If the manufacturer pays enough to the tabloid, in adds, or any reason.,  they get a good review.

 With the tell all words.....  guitars floating in mid air,  live sound, playing in my room live.
 Floating air sound, comparing amps to amps 10X they’re price point, 
   I’m at a loss, all these reviewers are so full of poop, 
 let your ears be the judge.

dont believe these paid schlubs.

 If the manufacturer pays enough to the tabloid, in adds, or any reason.,  they get a good review.

Everywhere is a financial interest in the background. They live from it.
There is one golden rule:
Never a negative review!
And in Highest High End there is another golden rule:
Reference 
(for the next 6 months, then a new one pops up ...)

check out the "music" they use for their judgement.... always different ones...mainly horrible to listen to ... they get it for free from the sellers in the hope that some readers will buy it...

it is like "flavor of the month"...

Hunter S Thompson changed journalism. He made it me centric. Unfortunately, the vast majority of journalism haS followed that narcissistic path without a fraction of his talent.

I helped raise money for Hunter S. Thompson’s bid for sheriff of Pitkin County, Colorado. But I spent all the money on cheap wine. He was running on the Power to the People ticket. ✊ I’m not hot doggin’ ya.

I thought Millercarbon's 5/2 post was a parody of the bad reviews the OP was describing.  As such I thought it was quite good.  But apparently he is serious about the NY Times and the decline of western civilization.  Here's the Wikipedia page for The New York Time Manual of Style and Usage.  It's basically an alternative to the Associate Press, The Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker and the Washington Post who have their own style guides.

Don't take audio reviews seriously, they are purely for entertainment purposes.

If you are really clear on what your sonic preferences are and start by only reading the part of the reviews dealing with that, they can be invaluable.  Obviously you need to read a number of reviews.

My but it's funny how just about any topic can get peoples' dander up.  Do you get paid for your work?  So do reviewers, deal with it, they are not the Great Satan.  

This is what you get with capitalism, it's not so bad.  Learn how to read critically, or go read 5 star Amazon reviews instead.

Professional reviews never pan a product because they don't review a component that is crap.  They return it and decline to review it, it's a professional courtesy.  

There was an antidote for lousy sounding products, it was called auditioning it for yourself at the local dealer.  But we all drove them out of business by buying Chinese knock offs online, so now we're stuck with trying to return it if we don't like it.  At least we saved a buck on that pirated speaker cable.

"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..."

I am not sure about audio journalism, but in some areas people get paid by the amount of material.

Along with that, the magazine has to fill pages with something so a "column" needs to be a page, two, or three long. If they wrote only relevant things, whole magazine would be two pages text and 84 pages advertisement.

More than all of that, how much is there really to write in a review of an audio product? How do you describe "better" or "worse" to someone far away reading in her/his armchair? Assuming there are reviews that do say something is not good, and I have not seen one in a while.

I would like to know how many in this group are dealers.  I think they should require all dealers to identify themselves so we can determine the bias.

My nephew used to write for Audiophile Magazine.  His equipment was practically given to him after reviewing their gear.  I think in many cases we can accept their reviews with a grain of salt.

I agree with @hiendmmoe on this. When I'm researching for a new piece of gear, I have a tendency to see how long is the review. I know that's stupid but that's just how I am. If it looks like its War & Peace part II, I tend to just scan it and get to the good parts or ignore it. I want to read a 'real world' review of the gear. I don't have time for silly analogies.

You hit the nail on the head,please,people ,get to the point!

Reminds me of what (I believe) James Michener once said, "I takes me 100 pages just to say hello."

Tee jay:. Can I ask you a question? Why is it that the vast majority of reviewers use classical music as the basis of reviews? Is it really that essential? Is this representative of their subscribers?  if you're going to go that route why just listen to piano music which is so difficult to reproduce accurately?   

I can't think of too many audio equipment reviewers that I agreed with.  Much like the ten thousand wine reviewers out there.  First, you can't figure out what the heck they are talking about and second, you never know if they are being influenced some way on their review.  

However, I, for one, actually do like and appreciate the technical side of equipment reviewing.  I for one do want to know how it's made, what's in it, the circuitry and circuit design, etc.  It gives me an indication as to where the technical side of the industry is.

I'm a fairly intelligent and educated person and if it takes some time for the reviewer to get to the point, then I know they are being paid by the word.  If they don't discuss the technical design/construction part of a piece of equipment, then it tells me something about that person also.

Contrary to what many feel, this is technical and engineering. R&D, implementation, listening, adjusting, redesigning, etc.  I want to read about how the designer got there also.  they didn't just snap their fingers and viola, a brand new amp appeared.

But using phrases that tell me absolutely nothing, without explaining what the phrasing actually means (to that person), don't help.

Also, I agree with some here.  If the reviewer is reviewing an amp or speakers and don't describe the room, and the other equipment, it really doesn't help me much.

enjoy

Hey russellrcncom,

Great question.  Classical, acoustic jazz, piano, and vocals that are well recorded are excellent for getting a "take" on how a piece of gear renders timbres/tonality, spatial dimensions, micro-details, image density, decays and the very subjective domain of sounding natural/musical vs. analytical/electrical.

Historically, some of the best recordings, with a few exceptions regarding pop, rock&roll,and blues, have been classical and jazz music.  I use ten recordings at first to get a take on a piece of gear I'm reviewing.  My all time favorite tenor sax player is the late great tenor sax player Johnny Griffin, who I had the pleasure to hear in-person more the 50 times in jazz clubs in Chicago.  So, I have a live "baseline" regarding what he sounded like in real time.  I see how close does the of piece of gear in for review create the illusion of what I heard in person.  I then go on using all kinds of genres of music to fill out my assessment of that equipment's performance in the context of my two reviewing systems.

Well, yes, there is the snob factor.  By the same token, though, compared with other genres there is a far better chance that the music is made with instruments that are entirely acoustic, and that the recording is done with no electronic sleight-of-hand in a room with a genuine acoustic signature.  In other words, a recording of classical music has a better chance of laying bare the true sound of the components.

+1!

I draw the line at reviews of speakers with no mention of amp used or characteristics of the listening room. Reviewing parts of systems without context is useless and tells me this person’s  opinion is not well founded. Otherwise to each his own.

I’ve learned to just go to the conclusion and take it with a grain of salt. They never give you information that truly matters like: room size, cables, and associated equipment. If they do it’s never clear.

Hey Teajay,
Want to answer my question that I and others have asked several times publically about the Tekton Ulf (the speaker you own that you raved about) vs the NSMT you reviewed. Seemed like it would be an OBVIOUS comparison in the review and now you still won't answer it. Wonder why that is? 

Hey mofojo,

You tickle my funny bone with this question! I purchased both speakers after reviewing them and use them in my different systems. Which do you like better a Porsche or Ferrari sports car? Oh, I’m sure you believe I have an underhanded and nefarious reason to not answer your question in the past. My position is they are both superlative world class reference level transducers with very reasonable prices for what you get compared to much more expensive speakers that they out perform. If you read my reviews regarding the details you can get a perspective of each models strengths and differences. Their is no "BEST" speaker, there’s lots of great speakers and it boils down to your room acoustics, synergy in your system driving them, and personal taste. For example, the Model 100 is physically a much smaller speaker then the giant Ulfs, and has a built in amp which powers an adjustable bass coupler 10 inch driver. Therefore, it will perform better in a much smaller space then Ulfs can.