Does anyone on AG truly care anymore about objectivity & sincerity of Magazine reviews?

I don't base my decisions purely on these reviews, but I have nothing against reading articles and reviews of products I might be interested in, and I also research many other sources as well, like videos, forums, other publications, etc. Hopefully I can find a place to audition prospective gear, too. 

Reading professional reviews are an important activity in keeping up with the high end and preparing for my next upgrade cycle. As often as I can I then listen to the equipment reviewed and compare what was written about how the component sounds in the review versus the real world. I don’t pay much attention to construction and measurements. In this way I can adjust the weight / handicap I give the descriptions given by the specific authors and or the publication over time. Reading in between the lines can give you great insite into trends and equipment you have not heard.

Magazines/webzines are just an arm of the advertising department nowadays.

I picked the right reviewer like Reichert and Robert Harley, Teajay . With 3 of them you get good ideas. But it’s better to listen as well.

Is this YG review an interesting newish low (or at least right down there)? No new midrange driver (& the original an eternally unchanged, mundane, aluminum one decades old) at this stratospheric, price point when all competitors have radically improved theirs more then once, is galling to me.  It's not Bose granted but corrupt all the same. At least to me & I suspect more then a few others.

How many times are you going to rehash your issue with the YG midrange driver? Nobody else shared your indignation the last two times so you are going to try a different angle at it. Do you think that YG is going to change their driver because you are here complaining about it? Do you think people want buy their speakers because you don't like them? 

john1

... It's not Bose granted but corrupt all the same ...

I don't see anything "corrupt" here at all.

Perhaps they really like that driver in their designs?

People can say or write whatever they want for whatever reason.  Just saying. 

I’ve been reading and enjoying reviews from various high end audio magazines such as The Absolute Sound, Stereophile and other on-line sources for over 30 years, always under the realization that my own ears will ultimately be the deciding factor when its buying time and not anyone else’s opinion.

Being an ex Audio dealer at Audio shows I heard horror stories from truly great smaller companies  with these Big Audio magazines say give up $50k 

you willbe very popular and well respected ,many didnot have this kind of cash 20 years. Back , and gave maybe 1/3 rd. Decent review 

the full page ads or minimal 1/2 page for a year they get  much more coverage on average . Even onl8ne $700 a month for an ad ,that’s a lot for a small company just 

1 online magazine  TAS ,stereophile double that , way too much politics .

 Reviews good for a observation , your ears by far the best reviewer. 
I now helping out a bit with Denafrips ,they made a Big mistake putting out review samples after the New Gen15 products came out now reviews not until 

mid nov ,a very good product and value ,not to well versed in marketing though, since Alvin went on his own venture loaded with reviews , that’s smart marketing.

You never see a bad review of any equipment, but with good reviewers you can usually read between the lines.

Whether we like it or not there is an ongoing decline in quality audio retailers, so reviews can provide a guide and perhaps help you whittle down to 2 or 3 products, but ultimately you must let your own ears decide.

No!

There probably has NEVER been any "objectivity or sincerity" in ANY print magazine reviews. We were all just a bunch of naive kids in the 1970s and 1980s reading these magazines and Cream and Rolling Stone. Well, we aren’t so freaking naive anymore.

I mean they aren’t exactly going to bite the hand that feeds them. Free or discounted gear, being wined and dined, all-expense paid trips to see new gear, etc. Whether you believe in so-called "climate change" or not, can you trust government employed scientists who depend on getting grant money for their meal tickets to tell the truth or make up conclusions to please the politicians steering funding their way?

Anyway, audio reviews basically are sales and marketing departments these days. Maybe they always were. The only good thing about them is that you get a chance to see the gear and know what the latest thing is that we are supposed to part with our hard-earned money to buy. Every new thing is always touted as being the best thing since sliced bread...every single time. Boring.

@moonwatcher Interesting jump from journalists to scientists. Stopped reading there. By the way, the term "climate change" was coined by George Bush the second.

How 'bout it - you believe in Bush-called "climate change" now? 

YG Acoustics makes great speakers. Just listen to them even if they received a great review. 

It's harder to accept accolades from someone who has chosen not to own a pair, more so when that isn't explained.

As to hearing them, that is difficult when there are relatively few dealers. They do not appear to sell in the quantities of their competitors.  Their chief sales Director for decades, Dick Diamond left for Vivid Audio a couple of years ago, that also has aluminum drivers but a radically better midrange.  What is extraordinary are the videos he does for their main US Distributor, GTT audio (also distributor & retailer of Vivid - you can't make this stuff up) where he says in a video (while standing beside GTT owner Bill Parish) that he has never been so moved & engaged by the music, now that he's joined Vivid. Parish has announced how Vivids are flying out the door but has been silent on YG sales.

I certainly agree they should be compared to other speakers before buying.

I have been in this hobby since the late ‘70s to see the transition from the school of thought that anything that measures well has excellent SQ, and anything that measures the same sounds the same, to publications that developed new lexicons to articulate differences in SQ between equipment.  It was an exciting time where these pioneers did not make money on advertising, but only on subscriptions, giving some level of comfort that the review was an honest opinion of the reviews impressions.  Some reviews in the early days were devastating in highlighting poor SQ. Some of those periodicals are gone and the ones that remain fight for advertising revenue.  Also, in our litigious society, some companies are suing reviewers when reviews not to their liking.  So I agree that most reviews are tame compared to the past and one could question if loss of advertising revenue enters into the equation.  However, reviews are part of the critical research process of finding equipment that matches your sound preferences.  First define the SQ you prefer or the improvements you wish to realize.  Second read reviews and determine if the reviews are consistent with your preferences. Third, compare differences in the explanation of the SQ between reviews.  Fourth, audition noting differences in your perception vs the reviewers.  Audition is a must at a reputable dealer that will assist in determining system compatibility and setup. I personally do not focus on design pre se.  I have found many executions of the same technology I love on one product but dislike in another.  If is not the technology but the design engineer’s use of that technology to reach their design intent.  Some are more successful than others. 

IME with hifi gear now, most if not all of it is competently designed and manufactured, and therefore mostly differences come down to personal tastes and relative synergies that arise to one degree or another while a piece of gear is in a particular reviewer's setup.

Negative reviews are therefore uncommon not just because of bad faith potentially on the part of reviewers, but because truly crappy gear is uncommon now.

BTW there are some YouTube reviewers who combine subjective evaluations with measurements - I personally found these guys to be fairly reliable sources of information to cross reference my own listening impressions with.

I’ve never encountered a negative review in a magazine (I subscribe to Stereophile), but I have encountered them on YouTube, and they really get my attention when I do. Negative reviews are risky for the reviewer, not just getting sued from the manufacturer or losing out on the chance to review gear from other manufacturers; but also from the viewership side, I don’t think negative reviews are popular anyway. Negative reviews often tell more about the reviewer than the product. Some reviewers refuse, or choose, not to offer negative reviews, period.
Stepping back a bit, I consider the inclusion of comparison to similar products in a review as an effort to contribute some ‘objectivity’ to the review; I also look for key words like, ‘I liked thus and so’, or, ‘in my system xxx worked better’, etc., or even, ‘I heard thus and so’ as phrases tipping me off that what follows is a subjective ‘take’ on the product or its performance. I like to hear components revealed and discussed as another objective component of a review, as in what kind of transformer is used, how big, how many, etc, overall system design (delta sigma or resistor ladder), or particular design elements, like the use of capacitors in the signal path (or their removal), how one designer, or one manufacturer, employs a particular design element.
Basically, I evaluate a review, or reviewer, by how much, or how little, he or she answers the questions I have about the product under review. Some hit the mark pretty well, others miss it entirely. Test measurements are supposed to be objective data. But I think, on average, most reviewers, and most publications, understand their task to be reporting both objective facts and subjective opinions on what it is like to own and use a product. If they don’t at least try to do so, they don’t deserve my subscription.

@terry9 this isn't the forum for it, but there is a huge difference between "climate change" and making the assertion that it is caused by mankind contributing a very small change in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The United States could disappear from the face of the Earth and the temperature of the Earth wouldn't change by any scientifically significant amount. 

A smart man a long time ago said if you want to know the truth about a situation for the most part, always, always, follow the money. 

All the planets of the solar system warmed in the last 50 years. There are no SUVs on Mars or Pluto. 

Scientific study is one thing, but using some poorly considered "conclusions" from that in order to funnel our tax money to the U.N. or make energy more expensive and to lower our standard of living is a pretty huge leap. 

I've followed this issue closely since the 1970s and have found enough scientific rebuttal against it to at least think it is a scam at best and perhaps mass hysteria at worse.

 

+1 @alan60, 'you have to read between the lines".  

@john1, have you ever owned YG speakers or heard them critically, with a great system?  I have owned Hailey 2.2s for a bit and they are outstanding; asstonishing resolution and clarity.  Comparing them to Paradigms?  Please....they hurt my ears.

A much more interesting conversation would be about YG selling and leaving the company, and their decisions since his departure.  After three YG bashings perhaps you should pick on another manufacturer.

+1 @terry9 

@moonwatcher  - you clearly have no idea how the scientific process works and all the checks and balances within the system to ensure junk science that only enriches the authors isn’t published. To compare that to the process for publishing audio equipment reviews is embarrassing. 

All audio mag reviews are worthless. I subscribe to all of them and when a new issue arrives, I scan the conclusion paragraph looking for: best product I’ve ever heard and I’m never dissapointed. 
When was the last time you saw a negative review? You won’t. A couple years ago, many YT and online reviewers were so negative on some of the rooms at Axpona that for the 1st time, an audio mag had to put in a special column designated worst sounding rooms of axpona. I know they hated to do this because those rooms had $100k pieces of equipment that they just gave glowing reviews.

If any 1 of us states they don’t like a product, you can’t be sued. Why do you think an audio reviewer would get sued if they state they didn’t like the product while other REAL reviews like car reviews always have pros and cons and even have comparisons between 2 to maybe up to 40 different cars stating who got 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc..?

If I was in the market for a speaker pair in the $100k range, it would be nice to bring up a review from an audio mag that shows 2 or 3 speakers that they reviewed in that price range (or close) and rate them from 1st to last, with pros and cons of why they rated them as such. I do the same thing when I am in the market for a new sports car up to $200k. I can look at many many reviews between all the car mags that have done this type of comparison to see which car is liked the most and why or which cars didn’t make the top and why. If I know the reviewer is my height and says you can’t see out the back or have many blind spots, I won’t even look at this car, even though it might be the best handling car.

@moonwatcher "this isn't the forum for it"

So why bring it up? Leave your politics at home. This is an audio forum.

@michaellent +1

The i beleve the majority of reviews believe are tainted. Either the author is on the take with free or demo/ long term “borrowing “ of the equipment or the person ownes it and needs to feel like they need to justify their purchase. 
i read them but with a grain of salt.

@feldmen4 + 1

I stopped subscribing to TAS years ago and now only subscribe to Stereophile. Robert Harley at TAS has some good articles, but it turns me off they do no measurements! The problems with these magazines are they for the most part only review products from companies who advertise with them. How can any reviewer say something bad about a product when that company is a customer that funds their magazine. How is it possible to be objective when you are in this situation? On YouTube they even have a video where Steve Guttenberg and Herb Reichert explain why they NEVER give bad reviews! I’m SURE they are not being honest on the reasons. I get my Audio information from Many sources including Audio forums and also attend various shows including AXPONA. Magazines and YouTube reviews are only good for getting general information about a product and still have their uses though.

We all know there are very good & not so good examples of just about every speaker design, driver material, cabinet style, crossover concept etc. Perhaps  YG hasn’t changed their midrange driver because it was excellent to start with which from the few times I’ve heard them, would say it is. ATC hasn’t changed their famous dome midrange much in 40 years & it’s still amongst the very best. 
 

YG speakers are not particularly my favorite as I find them very detailed  & image beautifully but a bit lean, dry & analytical - to each his own.

What would like to see much more of in reviews by the big two magazines is comparisons between products of similar design & price. Of course it’s difficult to remember how something sounds weeks or months later, I would imaging these professional reviewers take detailed notes so this should be possible. For example, YG vs. Magico which are quite similar in concept & cost. Or Wilson’s vs. Rockport’s etc. of course with equipment at this level, personally seeing & hearing them is a must & the stores & shows. I’ve used two big shows in the last 3 years to research equipment that I eventually bought & been very happy . 

"do speaker cables..." type of stuff, elusive

After Art Dudley and the Beatnik fading most reviewers seem to sit on their ears, be in the pockets of manufacturers or simply don‘t have a clue. If you can take his prose, Srajan at 6 Moons is one of the few left worth reading. Let‘s face it: this hobby is increasingly esoteric and septuagenarians don‘t get digital.

I stopped getting all the magazines.  Now I ask questions at my local hifi shops and on Agon.  I also watch a bit of YouTube and ask the YouTube reviewer’s questions if I have any.

@john1 

"I had thought that’s not an especially good, long term business model."

Uh, define "long term."  YG Acoustics have been around for 22 years, are they almost there?

BTW, how many times did Lamm redesign their amplifiers?  Just sayin'.

I cannot present a strong argument against the premise of the OP. I quickly page through most of the reviews. But I do love the music reviews.

Discovering J. Gordon Holt and his Stereophile magazine in 1972 changed my life. Bye bye Stereo Review and High Fidelity, but I kept reading Audio Magazine for it’s entire history. Gordon provided me with the basis tenants of high fidelity music reproduction, how components are examined and evaluated, along with the vocabulary with which that endeavor is described.

Gordon and his mag (founded in 1962) were the first of their kind (and the only of their kind for over a decade, until Harry Person started The Absolute Sound in ’73): "subjective" reviews, components evaluated by listening to them in addition to measuring them. For years Gordon was the lone reviewer in the mag, and he published plenty of negative and mixed-reviews.

Gordon sold the mag to Larry Archibald in 1982, who expanded the mag by hiring other reviewers and eventually bringing John Atkinson over from his editor job at the UK Mag Hi-Fi News & Record Review. John not only became Stereophile’s editor, but also took over from Thomas J. Norton the bench testing of the components being reviewed in the mag. Those bench tests are about the only of their kind in the world of subjective hi-fi publications, and imo are alone worth the price of a yearly subscription

Gordon eventually left Stereophile, but before doing so had hired and tutored a guy named Steven Stone, who has written for not only Stereophile but also TAS and Future Audiophile. He was and remains a credible-to-me source of hi-fi evaluation.

But there was another hi-fi figure who became an important source of opinion for me: Art Dudley. Art worked for Harry Pearson at TAS for as long as he could stand, then left and started his own digest-sized mag, the unique Listener Magazine. I have a complete collection of Listener, and though disappointed when he folded the mag, I was delighted when he signed on at Stereophile. In my opinion Art was (as you probably know, he passed away in 2020) the most interesting hi-fi critic alive, and his death created a huge hole in the hi-fi world. His good friend Herb Reichert is doing his best to fill Art’s shoes, and is himself a very interesting writer (and colorful character!).

Grain + salt

However I do trust my doctor. And scientific consensus.

No such thing as audiophile consensus other than one must go slow and that there is no consensus.

The older some of us get we believe we are the smartest in the room because somehow our age and experience entitles us to wisdom.  Crotchety crockery.

Is this thread about magazine reviews, YG Acoustics, or just weird?

If memory serves me, it seems that you've already been down this exact road before. Do you have some kind of beef with YG?

Nope, do not care. 

+1 @bdp24 well said.

and +1 @mitch2 very very weird.

Most (especially meaningful valid) replies & not one liners - are about magazine reviews, YG Acoustics as this was intended to be. YG represent an odd or even wierd lack of integrity indisputably unique to them as specifically stated. In a semi major high end co. its sociologically, commercially & acoustically interesting & certainly worth noting.  If someone doesn't want to be curious & interested enough (in the audio industry in particular but in general as well) then G-d bless, but snideness & cynicism for its own sake is truly sad & demeans those evincing it & all discussions contaminated by it.

@bdp24 …and don’t forget The Sensible Sound…

I have heard their speakers, and while they are not among my favorites, they sound like many other modern, high end speakers.  I don’t hear any unique qualities that I can attribute to any aspect of their design such that I cannot begin to suspect the aluminum midrange cones are guilty for any shortcomings.  So what if YG hasn’t changed that aspect of its design; perhaps they got it right from the beginning.  There are a lot of speaker manufacturers that have not changed fundamental aspects of their design in many decades, such as SoundLab and Magneplanar, and people continue to like their sound.

My midrange driver is a compression driver that, to my personal taste, has few rivals.  The driver is very expensive but it delivers detail and microdynamic subtleties without being harsh and etched sounding.  It certainly was high tech when it was made sometime around 1939.

NO....frankly....

To imply a company has a “lack of integrity” simply because they chose not to make changes to their midrange driver is ridiculous, and weird.  I am curious why you even care.  If you don’t like the magazine and/or the speakers, then vote with your wallet and don’t buy them.

On their website, YG Acoustics states,

“What’s important is how the speakers sound to people: in real systems, in real rooms. That’s what we want to talk about.”

Good for them, more people should take that viewpoint.

To your original question, I couldn't care less.  Magazines, and audio reviewers, are going to print what they want.  Sincerity in advertising is somewhere between an aspiration and a reality.  Reviewer opinions, even when objective and sincere, are fraught with variables including room acoustics, partnering equipment, sonic preferences, musical preferences, and reviewer bias.  No two reviewers are going to call something exactly the same.  It is my job to sort through what I read, verify and confirm what I believe to be true, and make my own decisions about products I would like to know more about.

...I read reviews with a salt block and a strong chaser when I'm in the mood for a glowing review with an implied tinge of irony...

"...it's Really Good, but...."

...followed or preceded by all manner of commentary, whereas I'm looking for some basic specs and the what 'n how does it do what it does. Or not.

Drawn to pro gear, things not req'd to look 'pretty'

The technology has rose to a level that even 'mid-fi' has the numbers that we used to demand from the stratos-level stuff that req'd a 2nd mortgage or made the card whimper and the sig other get testy at best...

If she/he/? filed for a divorce/division and you Really disposed of your 'disposable income', you are/were at fault and stfu.....

Consider car ads.....even the ones that end up being citrus with wheels in the shop yet again get transposed in the ads 'n reviews as the mobile manse you can't ignore...irony be damned, along with your theoretical budget....

Personal pref ='s flexibility.....'how' I define that is mho.... ;)

@moonwatcher

"The United States could disappear from the face of the Earth and the temperature of the Earth wouldn't change by any scientifically significant amount".

Now that would be some experiment!