2. misc-audio
  3. 1079624068

Does "Non Compensated" Reviewing Still Exist?

I still subscribe to two of the major "audiophile" publications. To be fair, I would rather not reveal the titles of these publications, so for the sake of reference let's just call one Stereophile and the other The Absolute Sound. I have subscribed to both (and other) publications, on and off, for over 20 years. I have also seen a few other publications bite the dust in the past 20 years. I don't really have any specific interest in the equipment reviews but they used to be a great reference source. Although, I find that the music reviews and new music release information is pretty thorough and diverse.

I just received the newest "XXXXXXXXXXX" publication including the "500 Great Sounding Audio Products". It's actually the "Recommended Components" issue. I decided to thumb through the articles containing said components and read the "final conclusions" to some of these reviews.

Below, I have provided some "conclusion" excerpts from the "reviewed" components of some past issues also.

This "review" excerpt was on a turntable:

"I'm not about to tell you to hock the mink and dump the Mercedes. It only makes sense if you listen extensively to analog LP and have a large vinyl collection or the patience and desire to build one—which today will take no little effort. If you do take the plunge, it will likely be your final investment (periodic cartridge replacements excepted) in analog front-end hardware. The sonic benefits are, in this reviewer's opinion, genuine. But to seek them out must be, inevitably, a carefully considered, individual decision."

Here's another "review" excerpt on a CD player:

"I've heard CD players that had better rhythm and pacing, more midrange liquidity and transparency, greater depth of field, and finer resolution. But I can't recall hearing a more musically involving, fulsomely detailed, three-dimensional presentation from any other CD player at such a modest price as the XXXXXXXXXX."

Or another excerpt on a preamp:

"The "XXXX" is a success after all, but a qualified one: It can play music brilliantly well, and it can be a very good value. Having spent more time with this pretty little thing than I usually do with a review sample, I feel unusually comfortable in recommending it—but now, all the more, I look forward to the day when the clever people at "XXXX" turn their attention to the comparatively cheap and electrically messy world that most music-lovers inhabit."

After reading these compelling conclusions, I have to wonder why I actually read the article in the first place. I also have to wonder what the hell they are actually saying with all of their wishy-washy, totally vague, substance lacking, non-committal crap.

Does real, non-biased, non-compensatory reviewing exist any longer? Is there anyone out there who still does a review in the manner in which these aforementioned publications USED to review? 20 years ago? When these guys didn't like something, they TOLD you they didn't like it, and generally substantiated their reasoning behind their opinions. Likewise, if they actually enjoyed a component. They would be more than willing to recommend a listen OR a purchase.

Now? They don't say anything! I find, by the time you get done reading these reviews, you have no more information from listening evaluation than when you started. I take ANY review with a grain of salt. Electronic components only sound "right" to that particular user, in a particular environment, with a particular synergy, with particular corresponding components. But, it would be nice to have some sort of FAIRLY accurate reference.

Here is MY conclusion to some of these conclusions:

"The "XXXXXXX" is one of the best sounding components of it's type. It will compete with any other component in the same price range, if you actually like the sound of the other components in this price range. When listening to classical music, the orchestra REALLY stood out. Rock music reproduced with this unit was VERY dynamic and loud. Jazz and Blues had exhibited a wonderful "Toe Tapping" quality.

If you are in the market for a component like this one, you really won't do better, unless you consider purchasing a better sounding unit for more money. It IS lacking the dynamics, frequency extension, quiet operation, and build quality of better sounding units, but other than that, it's right there with the best of them in it's class, if of course, you like it's class".

Is this an over generalization, or is this a fairly accurate evaluation? Do others feel the same? Are there review sources that actually COMMIT to their opinions devoid of their commitments to advertising revenues?

Has this become a thing of the past?

128x128buscis2

Showing 4 responses by sean

sean
6,231 posts
 
Madmilkman: There are more than a few "underground" audio publications that don't accept advertisements. Several are still in business after many years and others are just starting. An older "independent" is Bound For Sound, which is run by Martin DeWulf. Another "audio upstart" is Richard Hardesty's "Audio Perfectionist". Compared to Bound for Sound, Audio Perfectionist has been around a very short period of time. On top of that, AP is far more costly to subscribe to.

As a side note, many reviewers are not "full time" reviewers and operating costs may not be as high as you had imagined. Most have "regular" jobs and do this for fun and to keep their writing skills honed. This is besides the "perks" that come with the job and / or some spare income here and there. Quite honestly, i think that very few "reviewers" could actually live off of their salary / payroll dividends from writing such articles, but who knows. I sincerely doubt that you'll get any of those that are well known to discuss their income situation with you. Sean
>
sean
6,231 posts
 
El: if you don't think that "reviews" aka "opinions of others that are familiar with a specific component" are influential or give you an idea of what to expect from a product, what made you decide to purchase the Carver Pro amps that you are currently running? Sean
>
sean
6,231 posts
 
Electric Monk: I don't read Maximum PC but my business partner does. From what he tells me, it is a magazine that i would love... IF i was a "puter geek". It sounds like you have the same impression of that mag that he does i.e. head and shoulder's above the rest and able to do so while still retaining their integrity. Where are the audio rags like this??? Sean
>
sean
6,231 posts
 
The turntable was good but phenomenally pricy. The CD player was musical but lacked accuracy and detail. The preamp sounded good but was poorly designed.

I agree. The "i'll tell you everything but won't come out and say it" kind of reviewing is what allows horrid products to look good in a print review. The reviewers hope that the readers are intelligent enough to read between the lines and that the manufacturers aren't. Given that "well reviewed" units that truly are "pieces of junk" end up selling like hotcakes, i would have to say that the manufacturers are happy and that the readers aren't as smart as the writers think they are.

That is either the situation or the reviewers are simply "crafty liars" and "good salesman". Then again, it costs plenty of cash to publish a "glossy rag" and charging $6 - $25 for a subscription isn't going to cover the expenses involved. As such, the reviewers and / or publishers have to make sure that they can cover the bills and that is where "supplementary income" aka advertising revenue comes into play. Stomping on products in print doesn't bring in the supplementary income and then the doors close. Vicious circle and it is why the reviews aren't worth much. That is, unless you are intelligent to know how to read between the lines and / or know how to interpret specs ( if honestly tested and published ). Sometimes, you can't even read between the lines because the product has been so heavily sugar coated in the review that the frosting blurs where one line starts and the other ends. That's when you HAVE to know how to interpret specs. Sean
>
More to discover