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

+1 @tomcarr . Exactly!

I read TAS and S-phile for enjoyment, not to make purchase decisions from, with the exception of record reviews. 

Yes and no- complaining isn’t going to change anything.

A review is simply a data point, I do not nor think it wise to totally rely on it - more information including more favorable reviews which would lead me to think I’d likely get the same results, but no guarantees- different audio chains and personal preferences.  I find high value when the component is compared to other components - this allows me to determine some idea of value.

So no, not worth time or effort trying to police reviews for errors.  I’m simply pursuing better sonics while looking at new gear. 

@bdp24 Wow, J. Gordon Holt. I did not consider him as much as a reviewer as the authority on sound reproduction. I am probably one of a few music lover audiophiles who when I had the opportunity, to install activated carbon bass filtering in my custom built listening room. It works too! He suggested it 40 or 50 years ago (I’m 68 and reading about audio as you have since my youth). I still enjoy reading about new products.

@john1 My neighbor owns YG Sonja 2.3s. After improving his power cabling to Grover Huffman and adding Westmister Labs REI amps, I truly enjoy listening to music in his system but with caveats. They are wonderful for pop music, vocals, small ensembles. They are not enjoyable to listen to orchestral music or heavy rock as they sound small. I used to dislike nearly everything he played prior to the new cabling and amps. I’ve previously heard 5 prior amps in his system and did not like any sound compared to my system. Now, I can relax to pop and vocals at his house. He likes laid back orchestral sound without large dynamic contrasts so these speakers are perfect for him.

Among biased reviews for maintaining publishing/ad revenues, reviewers with alternate music/listening sensibilities and a systematic approach to audio equipment, I cannot wholeheartedly agree with most reviews. 

There are some products I own that have had such universal acceptance and/or accolades that make their reviews worthwhile.  Two immediate products come to mind that I own -Topping D70s DAC and the Dynavector 20X2 cartridge.  The Denon 103 cartridge is certainly another with many optional alterations.  Show me one negative review of the Von Schweikert speaker line since it's inception.  

I've read so many reviews by esteemed reviewers and then audition their reviewed equipment at stores, homes, and mostly at audio shows (with their room/system limitations) that I generally cannot trust reviews unless I've heard the specific equipment in my home with my systems to make my own decision.  

My profile notes what I currently use and do not intend to change.  I don't swap out equipment often and am set for decades to come now with a near SOTA system. 

Let me begin with disclosure.  I am a reviewer.  I am not going to defend or criticize what reviewers as a class do or discuss whether the reviews are in some appropriate sense 'objective'.  I have my own approach to reviewing. I view what I  do as a form of 'audio criticism' along the lines of 'art criticism' or 'dance or theater criticism.'   My reviews of components are not designed to express a judgment or encourage or discourage purchases.  They are designed to help explore issues in the distinction between sound and music, help elucidate key concepts in audio such as  'fidelity', 'representation', ' resolution',etc and to connect these concepts as they are used in audio to the role they play in other aesthetics. That's my framework.  So just to give a simple example.  Resolution in a painting or a novel is a way of describing a kind of completeness.  Its opposite is unresolved as in an unresolved painting or novel: both of which fall short in some important way of being capable of providing narrative or cognitive content.  In audio, resolution has taken on a quite different meaning that, from my point of view, is unconnected to anything musically valuable -- and much more connected to sonic attributes of a system.

My interest in this particular discussion can be captured in a couple of questions: what is it that readers expect from reviews?  What is it reasonable for them to expect from reviews?  What are the criteria for determining whether reviews are helpful, and helpful in what ways?

The first thing I would emphasize is that the entire 'high end audio' sector is a kind of ecosystem.  It consists of a set of intersecting and mutually supportive (to a degree) organizations and institutions. Reviewing mediates in some ways between the sales side and the purchase side. The magazines have a role to play in this. That role imposes a very complicated set of responsibilities to both the readers/purchasers and the producers/manufacturers.  These responsibilities do not create necessarily create conflicts of interest, but they cannot help but  create tensions.  The editors, and ultimately, the particular reviewers have to figure out for themselves a way of resolving the tensions that satisfies personal as well as objective criteria or integrity.  The tensions can turn into conflicts of interest when the incentives that naturally arise are not appropriately resisted.  That is why integrity matters as much as it does.

Readers have a right to expect commitment to overall high levels of integrity that reflect an understanding of the fact that this niche sector can survive and prove valuable to all only if the actors recognize that it is an ecosystem that requires a degree of appropriate support for others within it.  This means that in general the review process has to provide some level of support for manufacturers and producers as well as useful information to readers. 

No one should fool themselves into thinking that the cooperation necessary for the ecosystem to survive and provide value for all doesn't create incentives that, if not adequately resisted, threaten to undermine the values it is designed to provide

Just as lawyers have incentives (when possible) to search for favorable jurisdictions and judges for their causes, so too do manufacturers have incentives to search for 'favorable' outlets and reviewers.  That is unavoidable.  There are other incentives in place for reviewers and readers alike, not to mention dealers that can exacerbate the tensions and make one feel from time to time that something has gone terribly awry.

No one should deny this nor should anyone deny that it can be a genuine problem that the industry as a whole needs to address.  The question is whether there are mechanisms in place that mitigate the impact of the incentives and their potentially perverse effects -- beyond reliance on personal integrity.

At this point, we have the advantage of there being so many reviewers and so many reviews to choose among.   It's a greatly democraticize or distributed field these days, much in the way the fall of the giant record labels led to a more general and distributed set of 'curators', e.g. the Pitchforks of the world.  Beyond that, all readers have to judge the integrity of particular reviewers and reviewers must take seriously their responsibilities to the audience.  

Whether we see ourselves this way or not, reviewers are curators; at least that is what the vast majority of readers see us as (if not quite in those terms).  It would be helpful if we saw ourselves in that way as doing so calls for adopting certain norms and reflecting not only on our role in the ecosystem but on our capacities to fulfill those roles well.

The pressure many reviewers feel to make judgments and guide purchasing decisions should not be underestimated.  It comes as much from the readership as it does from the manufacturing and sales side.  It's reasonable for both sides to want it.  It is unclear to me whether reviewers are typically in a position to offer such judgments or for either readers or manufacturers to take the judgments as authoritative.

But that is OK because, at least from my perspective, purchasing judgments are the least valuable aspect of curatorship.  Providing education is far more important, for in the long run education is required if the audience is to make individual choices that they believe are well informed and with which they turn out to be happy or (at least) satisfied. 

I read reviews to discover what is new, to enjoy seeing the enthusiasm some reviewers have in sharing their experience with others, for information about the direction audio design is taking, and for the pleasure I experience from reading well crafted and thoughtful essays.

At the same time, I recognize that I would not enjoy reviewing if I did so feeling that at the end of a review I need to offer some putatively authoritative judgment about the worth or value of a particular component.  More importantly, I would have little useful to offer if I did.  Fortunately, for me, I have found something that suits my interests and competencies, that is true to my love of both music and audio and the role they both play in my life.  I am blessed by the fact that some readers find what I do interesting enough for me to feel good about sharing my thoughts.

I read the articles and find them interesting but I never purchased anything from any reviews. I believe most reviewers give honest reports.  The equipment they evaluate is going to sound different in your house. The cables they use, other equipment they are using, room acoustics are all going to be different in your house. The best I have done many years ago when I was very much into it, when reliable audio dealers would let you take two or three pieces home and evaluate them. I would take equipment the reviewers evaluated and evaluate them myself. I would never buy any equipment that has been reviewed without reviewing it myself first. Today there are not as many dealers, so you read a review, then order it on the web and find it is not what you expect, some places will give you time to return it if you are not satisfied, what about the ones that don’t. 

Yeah ,I really remember reading them all back in the 60s n 70s..I took a break buying them now just read them at my Library along with Rolling Stone ...They alway gave good reviews...and no bad ones ...Hear you get more interesting information .

I was sorta gratified to once read in … the absolute sound or stereo review, I forget which ….. that the reviewer felt that the Futterman OTLs that I own are among the 5 best amps of all time. But really, I read reviews these days mostly for entertainment. I’m not buying anything these days other than for maintenance. I’m set with my gear. And I got set by listening …. to the gear through my own ears, not through the ears of someone else as described in their (often silly, hyperbolic) reviews that can be so one-sidedly over the top as to read like paid editorial.  

I learn about any interesting audio equipment solely through reviews from magazines, the internet, or YouTube videos. Over the years, I have purchased a very good system. The speakers, not listed, are the only items I would not buy without hearing them first.  The first time I listened to any of the electronics was in my home after the purchase based on what I had learned.

Denafrips Gaia DDC 
Denefrips Terminator Dac
PS Audio BHK Signature Pre Amplifier (tubed input stage)
Pass Labs X260.8 Mono Amplifiers (2)
Sony Blu Ray UBP-X800 CD/Blu Ray Player

Every piece listed above did exactly what I was looking for and expected based solely on the information sources I used.  I do not care how, why, or what alleged gains these writers received; their opinions were truthful and helpful.  Since I live in an audio wasteland state, Oklahoma, they were my only source of enlightenment.

1+ @moonwatcher 

Objectivity and sincerity are things to be valued. Just surely don’t ever expect both when it comes to marketing. Especially objectivity. You are likely to be greatly disappointed.

I’d have to say that of all audio forums with which I am familiar, AG is the one where you’re least likely to encounter an appreciation for real objectivity and quantitative data. 

This is mostly the realm of enchantment where “veils were lifted” by $10K quantum-nano-carbon footers and dyed glass fuses.

It has long seemed to me that a majority of members here believe that price has a direct correlation with performance. 

I read them but have no delusions regarding them. 

I use them to validate my purchasing decisions.

As a kid, the two magazines always available in the house were Gramophone and Autocar.  Gramophone concentrates on reviewing classical recordings, with some equipment reviews.  When new recordings are compared with the finest prior recordings, you can easily read between the lines.  They did not publish bad equipment reviews because they did not want to waste space on them!

I remember a series of tyre adverts in Autocar.  According to the ads, this new wonder tyre had almost double the tyre life, better braking, better roadholding, better handling and it also reduced fuel consumption!  Looked far too good to be true, but steel-belted radial tyres are now ubiquitous for cars.  The claims were true!

I've discovered that products that do not change much, don't get reviewed much.  Get a product right first-time and you will hear about it once in reviews, unless it turns up as a classic in retrospectives.

@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!

...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.... ;)

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.

NO....frankly....

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.

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

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.

+1 @bdp24 well said.

and +1 @mitch2 very very weird.

Nope, do not care. 

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?

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

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.

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!).

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.

@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 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.

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.

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

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 . 

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.

@feldmen4 + 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.

@michaellent +1

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

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

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.

+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. 

+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.

@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.

 

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.

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 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. 

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.

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