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

10 systems should be enough. That's what I did to assess the amps currently under review.  

There are a lot of things that most reviewers miss when evaluating a component.
Most critical are how components interact with others down and up stream. Also I find it totally ridiculous when a reviewer gives a component a bad review based on only one set of components used within the review. Reviewers should have at a minimum, at least one other system to evaluate the same component to see if there was a miss-match between components that caused them to reach a negative opinion for that component. Where the numbers ( specs ) do mean something is the interaction between components of different impedances and design principles.

1-Any professional reviews are, by definition, ones that have no manufacturer or publisher pressure to like the product ( in exchange for buying it cheaply etc) and/or don’t sugarcoat any problems with it. In a professionally run publication, the mere existence of advertising doesn’t alter this at all. A quick example being in my newspaper reporter days, due to the large amount of advertising bought by the local auto dealers, any article written criticizing them or their products would likely never run. This clearly was a breach of the trust the community had in the paper.

2-Further, the lack of reviews for a brand may not be what they seem - ie they don’t advertise so they don’t get covered - the truth is that if a brand doesn’t provide review samples, the only alternative is to have reviews written by those who’ve liked the product enough to buy it - hardly an objective source of criticism.

3-That said, there are publishers and reviewers that enjoy being in a position to get equipment cheaply, or even free, and are subsequently less than objective in their reviews. There are also reviewers that fancy themselves to be more like Hemingway than necessary, wasting, as the OP said, time and review space. The late Art Dudley was generally good at mixing just the right amount of storytelling with his opinions, creating very entertaining reviews imho. Others don’t do it as well.

Any publisher/editor worthy of the title should solicit reader opinions and act accordingly when his (or her) readers point out that the reviews aren’t providing enough (or any) pertinent information. We aren’t buying the magazines just to see the ads.

Well, not so much with Art now-sigh-a lovely man

+1 douglas_shroeder

Too broad a brush here--you learn who to trust and what is fluff.  Reputable reviewers like Fremer (& Dudley!!) can say what they want for as long as they want before getting down to business--i can always fast forward to conclusioin and Atkinson

I agree that audio reviews can be frustratingly long-winded these days, but I love it when a reviewer uses analogies from outside the audio world to better describe what he/she is hearing.  I want the review to be subjective.  Bring on those food and wine comparoes!  On the other hand, yeah, I appreciate it when reviewers engage in musical chairs as they substitute other components in the chain as they attempt to describe what the component under review brings to the table.   But you don't have to cross every "i" and dot every "t."  My poor eyes begin to blur.

Miller Carbon
Thank you for your initial post on this topic. I thought perhaps I was the only one that skipped trashy paragraphs in a review and fast forward to the listening tests. I also bypass the reviewers musical choices used in testing. Any comparisons to related equipment is welcome so are the conclusions
References to "Orange Man" (always negative) tells me something about the reviewer.

I’m pretty sure all audio reviewers and audio e magazines have to have some motivation to review things and write and publish reviews. These guys aren’t independently wealthy, you know. Well, actually some of them are.

I know what the OP is complaining about.

 I don't always have any interest in whatever maunderings the reviewer indulges in (like the late Mr. Dudley and those frickin' bunnies), but reviewing audio must be a fairly dry pursuit and saying the same things over and over a mind numbing activity, so I endure the prologues and check them for any interest level on my part, then ignoring the ones that don't do it for me.

Easy to skip to the conclusion page and see what the outcome is.

And to the OP who said " What does wine have to do with audio transparency, nothing!" - I have found after very extensive personal investigation that sufficient wine may result in a very significant deterioration in the level of audio transparency perceived by the listener!  ;-)

Regarding 6 Moons, if the manufacturer does not advertise on their site, then the manufacturer has to pay 6 Moons for a review of said equipment.  I find that to be very distasteful and do not trust that site for that reason.  I also don’t want 5 paragraphs in the review telling me it was a sunny day with the sun glistening on the Eiffel Tower or other such nonsense.  The only thing I do like about 6 Moons are the pictures of the interior of the amps, speakers etc.  That is Audio porn of the highest quality.  So I pretty much look at the pictures and now ignore their reviews. 

Got links? Or maybe quotes. I like to see things first hand. Those statements by 6M dude seem a little preposterous. On the other hand he can run his company any way he wants to. 

geoffkait

If your comment was directed at me:  Items 1,2,3 are directly from posts by the owner of 6m, in the Audio Asylum forum.  Item 4 is from a post by the owner of 6m in several web sites.

If not directed at me, then I took to narrow a view of your post and I apologize.

Reviewers' personal lives, morality and principles by which they conduct their life and reviewing, work habits in conjunction with communication with manufacturers, dealers and other industry members, writing style, etc. all vary from person to person. 

Imo, it is disingenuous, or ignorant, to paint all reviewers with such a broad brush as, "they all get paid," and "they get free gear given to them after the review," or similar. It is on the level of bikers at a bar talking about surgeons, as if they know what it is like to be a surgeon. I also held some of the biases and disrespect of reviewers prior to becoming one. It certainly has been eye-opening in several respects. The stories I could tell! Such assertions have been addressed before by myself and others; the print magazines have put out articles on the reviewing process. Nevertheless, we have constant regurgitation of misnomers and slanderous accusations. 

I certainly will not speak for other reviewers, but here are some facts about my activities:
I have put in 1,000+ hours related to reviewing (communication with industry members, shipping receiving and sending, system setup, listening note taking, writing and editing - I thoroughly edit all my articles prior to submission, such that normally there is little if any editing done to the article by the Editor), all unpaid. 
I have spent the equivalent of many of your systems' cost out of pocket to attend shows, then written unpaid show reports. 
I have never harbored gear after the review if the manufacturer wishes it to be returned. I have requested longer term loan of some pieces that are used ongoing in reviews, but I never consider them to become mine with time. 
I contact manufacturers over the years to thank them for continued use of any gear/cables, and remind them that I do not consider it to have become mine. 

As regards reviewing style, it takes more work to make an article that is informative and entertaining. We are not all going to agree on the proportion of each in a review that satisfies. If you don't like the reviewer, don't read them. I am more wordy than most, but I also put in excessive time to develop owner added insights that will enhance the ownership of the product. That is not required in reviewing, but I do so as a favor to the community. 

Now, regarding being unpaid and putting in enough time to make it a part time job; I'm no idiot. I gain benefits for my writing skills being honed through reviewing and have potential for industry accommodation if I purchase. I also have purchased many pieces of gear - I am buying one this week, as the manufacturer requested it to be returned, but I will possibly need it in the future as systems are reconfigured so much (it's an integrated amp with flexibility. I also am blessed to have a rotating selection of gear moving through my room. 

As far as ripping on reviewers as having a thing for the gear, SO WHAT? That's thinly veiled arrogance, as though it's a problem to love the gear and build systems. I am a System Builder, I love the gear as much as the music, and NO ONE can tell me I do audiophilia wrong. I build lots of systems and I do more reviews than most; I enjoy it and look for the adventure of discovery of system sound. 

I want ZERO participation in the industry politics, and I have ZERO involvement with the management and money of the magazine. That is true for most reviewers. I don't give a rip what other magazines do, and what other reviewers do, but there is no payola in my life. I attempt to maintain very high principles in my reviewing activity. So, I would appreciate it if the blanket statements were qualified, at least allowing for the potential for principled reviewers. 

There is no other reviewer with such a set of criteria. Every one is unique, as should be expected. I offered this as an example of what I believe are many decent people involved with reviewing who do not deserve to be maligned. If you think they don't know what they are doing in describing gear, you don't know much about system building, or reviewing. 

Finally, thank you to those who have read my work and responded with encouraging comments. It gives me great satisfaction when my work is parlayed into a benefit for the audiophile.  :)

Journalists tend to think they are writers of novels. They are enamored with their own "creative writing 101" skills.  

I suggest taking what you find by searching the web with a grain of salt, dude.

Unfortunately the state of HiFi reviewing (and other hobbyist reviews) is corrupt.  Too many competing agendas, too much manipulation, bribes and so on.   I began to take offense when too many political views were included in audio component reviews.  I sent a few letters into publications asking a simple question:  How do the political views of the reviewer improve my understanding of the quality of the component under review ?    You can substitute aesthetic/dining/travel etc preferences for "political views".   Some editors did not respond, the rest responded with basically the same answer: "free speech" .  No one gave a direct answer.  Oh Well.

I have read audio publications for a long time.   I like some reviewers and tolerate others.  My experience is to read reviews over time to understand the preferences (biases ?) of the reviewer.  A gross example would be a tube and vinyl friendly reviewer now addressing a class D amp driven by digital streaming.  Will the resulting review be accurate and does the reviewer have enough experience to determine the absolute quality of the components under review ?    Reading the review in the abstract you would not know, but if you are familiar with the reviewer and their style then you can easily pull relevant information and leave the filler behind.

Several comments referenced 6Moons.   Well they are potentially among the worst offenders.  1) the owner is on record as stating that unless a component blows up in testing, or has completely incomprehensible ergonomics, it will not receive a negative review.  2) unless the reviewer is an audio designer/engineer, or has demonstrated professional expertise in the area of design under review, then the reviewer is not qualified to give a negative review 3) the power of the press is substantial.  A negative review can put a company out of business thus he (the owner of 6m) does not want to be responsible for ending someone's business- hence a negative review will not be published  4) they are pay to play:  want a review- buy an ad on the site.    ALL of the above can be confirmed through web search.   Hey- at least they are honest !

This is a great thread for me! Lots of good info in here for me to take to the next time I do a review.  Thank You!

I posted my first review a few days ago after working on the written portion for 2 weeks. Its actually much harder than I thought. It started out with too much fluff, silly analogies and stupid jokes.  I continually whittled it down and did my best to just get to the point. Editing it was another difficult task.

After working on it for days to try to make it perfect, I decided to go ahead and post it. Of course I start off with a misspelling right in the title; Daaaang it!!! Then I also of course forget to post my link to pictures and description of associated equipment; Double Daaaang it!!  I did post a link to the written review as well as a link to pictures in the Speakers section but....

Oh well, theres always next time to do better. In my defense, I snapped my tibia and fibula clean through, last week, a la Anderson Silva and am hopped up on oxy 🥵

that's fine. Plenty are.
It is a bit low in hindsight, I was going to put sub $5000 but who am I to judge?
I would wager that there are more interested in that price point than say $20,000 and up.
To each his own.

For myself, I am not really interested in reading about equipment that is 2K or less.  

yep, sometimes I get to the end of a review and wonder if he/she liked it or not.
Australian Hi-Fi magazine continues to be a good informative read. A nice balance of technical, listening and lab measurements.
Descriptions of their listening rooms and other equipment used to evaluate are always included along with the type or style of music listened to.At the end of the review they always have a few dot points of what they thought was great and also a few not so greats.
My only bugbear is that they don't focus enough on sub $2000 gear and in that, they are not alone.
That Jules Coleman review of the Sonus Faber speakers is just ridiculous! Thanks for alerting me to someone to avoid.

Where to start! I was part owner of 3 stereo salons from 1970 to 2008.
This teajay guy is absolutely correct. Much stuff back at the start was really god awful. All of it was hyped in periodical reviews but the bar then was not too high.
Now , we have a different world. One that states that is perfectly ok to have to spend 20k for speakers, 35K for electronics, 10 K for cabling, 6k for conditioning, 5k for a stylus and if this is all you have to do with your money, more power to ya.
Truth of the matter is what you spend 5k on today, rivals what cost 40k of yesteryear as far as clarity, timbre, emotion and all the rest as it pertains to reproduction.

As far as audio equipment reviews, that’s like someone telling you what wine tastes best. Do you really think it pertinent for someone to tell you what should taste good to you?

Stereo stuff is absolutely no different. Taste, taste, taste of the reviewer is the most important aspect of the review and NOT the equipment.

There are people who like Chef Boyrdee better than home made spaghetti and sauce. Imagine if such a person wrote food reviews.
Imagine the same thing about audio reviews. Without knowing the whys of the reviewer's likes and preferences , most reviews become dead worthless.

This is so sad, none of you know what a good audio review should be.

I good review should be like fresh hummus on an everything bagel, like the sand you discover in your shoes after vacation.  Like the ex-girlfriend who shows up and gives you pets you didn't ask for.
Now you know how to tell the difference.

@teajay was that sax unamplified or run thru the PA ? Spending time on the road and in the studio, I would only very very rarely use the same microphone....

I do appreciate the structure and thought that goes into your reviews

Doubt the Pulitzer or the “ Noble “ will go to anyone who is unable to construct a cogent and complete sentence, even with the magic Hurricane steering Sharpie. Same thought applies to his followers.

Interesting comments - at lest some of them.  I always liked Fremers' reviews.  Always felt he reported what he heard, explained what he heard very well, and was honest.  After meeting him many years ago and hearing his system, then I felt I understood what he wrote much better as I could now hear what he was hearing.  Plus he is a very good person.

Happy Listening.

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.

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? 

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.

+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.

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.

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.

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

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?   

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

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

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.

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 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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 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"...

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.

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 . . . .