Example of a piece o’ crap, useless review

Happily i almost never  read reviews anymore...

i just look at this one and i concur with soix... 😊

His message in the review. He enjoyed it very much, in the design, the build, the operation, and listening to the tunes. Not unlike most other reviews I have read. soix, I would like to read some of your reviews that you speak of. Is there a way on the internet I can see these ? TY, MrD.

@mrdecibel Sure.  You can google soundstage reviews Tim Shea and some should pop up (I hope).  Here are some — they’re dated, just like me — just to make it easier.  Good bedtime reading if nothing else…

https://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/component/content/article?id=94:ayre-c-5xemp-cdsacddvd...

https://www.soundstageultra.com/index.php/equipment-menu/227-egglestonworks-fontaine-signature-loudspeakers

https://www.soundstageaccess.com/index.php/equipment-reviews/520-liberty-audio-b2b-100-stereo-amplifier#:~:text=Their%20sound%20seems%20inherently%20almost,probably%20not%20be%20for%20everyone.

https://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/equipment-reviews/459-rogue-audio-medusa-stereo-amplifier?highlight=WyJyb2d1ZSIsInJvZ3VlJ3MiLCJyb2d1ZSdzYXRsYXMiLCJtZWR1c2EiLCJtZWR1c2EncyIsInJvZ3VlIG1lZHVzYSJd

Well 30 years ago I was told by a manufacturer  that it took 5000 dollars plus giving away the review sample to write your own review in one of the major audio file magazines. Many reviews it would seem are written  that way after you have heard the piece of  equipment. 

Adrian of Audio Excellence of Canada on YouTube generally provides very informative, detailed reviews of equipment describing features, operation, sound qualities & comparisons to other stuff WITHOUT of course wasting your time trying to have you listen through your computer or phone speakers. I find his reviews very useful & enjoyable. 

I get a lot of notifications on my phone based on my searches, as we all do.  I get a   lot of these "reviews" from the absolute sound and what hi fi.  Without a doubt, what hi fi "reviews" are, for the most part, a laughing joke. like @soix said, you read the whole thing and at the end, you're left with nothing.   it's just an ad in disguise. agree with soix 100%.

@jonwolfpell + 1 - he talks about interesting gear, some of which is in my range and much of which is not, and can be quite entertaining....

The problem in this hobby is that there is no baseline. If every reviewer would start with the same speakers, amp, etc then a comparison would be meaningful.

Since every reviewer has a different setup and all of us have different setups the variations are endless and so are the subjective outcomes. 

I would not call it a review. More of a quick note that the table exists and may be worthy of further investigation.
 

I flipped through the most recent edition. There are full format reviews on a number of the components:  Burmeister turntable, Vandersteen speaker, Magico speakers, and some others. These all contain sections on associated equipment, and are in depth. The “reviews” in between in depth reviews look like an attempt to cover more equipment. With the hundreds of components, there would be no way to cover them all in depth. So, it looks like a way to say something about more. 
 

Since every reviewer has a different setup and all of us have different setups the variations are endless and so are the subjective outcomes. 

@tom2015 That’s exactly why making relevant product comparisons is absolutely critical.  Humans are inherently awful at analyzing things on their own, but we’re very good at identifying relative differences between two things, and it’s these relative differences that provide  extremely valuable perspectives and insights that better reveal a component’s sonic character.  Without that perspective I completely agree with you that we’re left with highly questionable subjective opinions as there’s no check and balance to keep the reviewer honest.  As an example, many’s  the time I was well into reviewing a product and thought I had its sound nailed, but when I substituted another component for comparison almost without fail I’d realize my compass was significantly off and I had to reassess the component under review.  It’s a very humbling and time consuming process for a reviewer but absolutely necessary IMO to be able to write a more accurate and useful review, and that’s also why I suspect publications like TAS, etc. refuse to do them. Just my take FWIW.

There are full format reviews on a number of the components: Burmeister turntable, Vandersteen speaker, Magico speakers, and some others. These all contain sections on associated equipment, and are in depth.

@ghdprentice Yeah but how many of those reviews included comparisons to competitive products? My bet would be none.  That’s the fatal flaw of TAS IMHO and why I no longer subscribe or read their reviews.  After reading them I have little confidence I have a good idea what a review product really sounds like, so to me there’s little point after that.  It’s all just pretty pictures and a product overview with some completely subjective and unsubstantiated gobbledygook thrown in at the end.  That’s my take anyway, and it’s too bad because they review a lot of gear I’m really interested in.

The problem in this hobby is that there is no baseline. If every reviewer would start with the same speakers, amp, etc then a comparison would be meaningful.

Since every reviewer has a different setup and all of us have different setups the variations are endless and so are the subjective outcomes.

There isn't a baseline for ones sonic preferences either.

There isn't a baseline for ones sonic preferences either.

@uncleang  Sure there is.  It’s your own ears and they’re the best possible baseline you could have.

But nobody else has your ears.

I used to buy hifi magazines when I was in my teens until the early twenties. I stopped reading the mags approaching 30 when I realize it's a waste of time (and money). 

So in the end it is a business for the professional reviewers. If they were to give critical reviews about specific products other manufacturers will avoid them as it could stop the business for a small manufacturer. So in mutual dependency we only get great reviews. Other comment in the past from Stereophile was that they would not review bad sounding products in the first place. But how would you know beforehand? 
 

In summary, for me, 3 comments form this forum saying the same thing > the professional review of the item. 

I find that herb Reichert writes some of the best reviews. 

So in the end it is a business for the professional reviewers. If they were to give critical reviews about specific products other manufacturers will avoid them as it could stop the business for a small manufacturer. So in mutual dependency we only get great reviews. Other comment in the past from Stereophile was that they would not review bad sounding products in the first place. But how would you know beforehand?

@tom2015 I’m pasting a post from another thread that relates to your comment and that may shed a little more light on the issue…

Over 17 years I only wrote one negative review, and I was not opposed to writing more if warranted. The thing is, for a product to make it to the level of getting a review among the thousands of products out there it needs to have some positive and usually even some special buzz about it. So almost every component that gets reviewed has been well vetted by many users and others so bad sounding equipment just never tends to even get reviewed. In short, the system self selects very good sounding gear right from the start. Also, the major manufacturers know what they’re doing, and it’s almost non existent that something they’d release to the public sounds bad. So this is really why you rarely read a bad review.

That said, that’s where the “art” of reading between the lines in reviews becomes important. Unlike the crappy “review” I mentioned in this thread, most good reviews will include a paragraph or two near the end just before the conclusion (that’s where I always put it) where a reviewer will elaborate on any shortcomings/limitations or qualities that he may have alluded to during the review that seem a bit off or things the reader may want to hone in on while listening or comparing to other equipment. THIS IS CRITICAL INFO SO READ IT CAREFULLY! So, while the product overall may be very good, these would be the potential “negatives” that the reviewer feels are important to highlight but they’re not nearly enough to trash the product and throw the baby out with the bath water. This again is why product comparisons are so important because these potentially aberrant qualities can be analyzed on a relative basis versus another known product and provide a very useful perspective on any potential issues. Also, reviewers aren’t all-knowing oracles and what we may think is a shortcoming for our system/tastes may well not be the case for many other potential customers, so better to just point out what we heard objectively and let the reader decide if that’s something they’d still like to explore further. Last, most audio manufacturers are not rich and do what they do for the love of it and many others might be relatively new, and a bad review could literally sink a company. Now, if the product outright sucks so be it although it’s highly unlikely that product would’ve made it to review anyway as mentioned above, but if a product isn’t perfect yet shows some promise as a reviewer you’ve gotta weigh the extent of the shortcomings and if they’re bad enough to potentially put the company out of business. So there are many things to consider as a reviewer. I wasn’t on the business end so can’t speak to manufacturers threatening to not send any more gear if they get a bad review, but I never heard of anything like that although it may happen. Anyway, I hope this sheds a little light on why there are so few negative reviews. It’s really not a conspiracy in my experience.

If a reviewer likes something I own and also like, they're brilliant. I like old Herb also because he has a fun style, but he doesn't use MY ears which means there is no general "baseline." There's no "baseline" to any artistic endeavor by the way...I love jazz, and most people don't. Amazing to me...I like a lot (not all) of abstract art, and most others don't and actually get upset by it. I don't care.

Very important post ! Thanks...

It is why i always recommended reading between lines and statistical analysis of each one of the acoustic factors in all official reviewers but also all users reviews...

I will give another reason which is not in your post about why there is not often negative review of a product apart this selective sifting process by selected users and the designer himself .

Any reviewer with experience i imagine know as i know that the gear design quality matter but the synergy and especially the mechanical, electrical and the acoustical working dimensions and their embeddings controls make a world of difference as well as each user specific needs...Then why bashing a product because of his design trade-off choices if it is not a disastrous design to begin with ?

But there is exception in this selective process sometimes a very not so well product can get acclaimed for other reason than audio....😊

i will not give my example ...It will be too inflammatory...😁

Anyway your post is very important read for all ....

So in the end it is a business for the professional reviewers. If they were to give critical reviews about specific products other manufacturers will avoid them as it could stop the business for a small manufacturer. So in mutual dependency we only get great reviews. Other comment in the past from Stereophile was that they would not review bad sounding products in the first place. But how would you know beforehand?

@tom2015 I’m pasting a post from another thread that relates to your comment and that may shed a little more light on the issue…

 

Over 17 years I only wrote one negative review, and I was not opposed to writing more if warranted. The thing is, for a product to make it to the level of getting a review among the thousands of products out there it needs to have some positive and usually even some special buzz about it. So almost every component that gets reviewed has been well vetted by many users and others so bad sounding equipment just never tends to even get reviewed. In short, the system self selects very good sounding gear right from the start. Also, the major manufacturers know what they’re doing, and it’s almost non existent that something they’d release to the public sounds bad. So this is really why you rarely read a bad review.

That said, that’s where the “art” of reading between the lines in reviews becomes important. Unlike the crappy “review” I mentioned in this thread, most good reviews will include a paragraph or two near the end just before the conclusion (that’s where I always put it) where a reviewer will elaborate on any shortcomings/limitations or qualities that he may have alluded to during the review that seem a bit off or things the reader may want to hone in on while listening or comparing to other equipment. THIS IS CRITICAL INFO SO READ IT CAREFULLY! So, while the product overall may be very good, these would be the potential “negatives” that the reviewer feels are important to highlight but they’re not nearly enough to trash the product and throw the baby out with the bath water. This again is why product comparisons are so important because these potentially aberrant qualities can be analyzed on a relative basis versus another known product and provide a very useful perspective on any potential issues. Also, reviewers aren’t all-knowing oracles and what we may think is a shortcoming for our system/tastes may well not be the case for many other potential customers, so better to just point out what we heard objectively and let the reader decide if that’s something they’d still like to explore further. Last, most audio manufacturers are not rich and do what they do for the love of it and many others might be relatively new, and a bad review could literally sink a company. Now, if the product outright sucks so be it although it’s highly unlikely that product would’ve made it to review anyway as mentioned above, but if a product isn’t perfect yet shows some promise as a reviewer you’ve gotta weigh the extent of the shortcomings and if they’re bad enough to potentially put the company out of business. So there are many things to consider as a reviewer. I wasn’t on the business end so can’t speak to manufacturers threatening to not send any more gear if they get a bad review, but I never heard of anything like that although it may happen. Anyway, I hope this sheds a little light on why there are so few negative reviews. It’s really not a conspiracy in my experience.

But nobody else has your ears

+1

I read (skim through) reviews to see what music they are using to evaluate a system. Found some good stuff that way. Not much use for them otherwise.

Reviews are largely another form of advertising. Boilerplate is far less time consuming than critical analysis and irate manufactuers threarening to pull advertising dollars can be avoided. 

I’m not saying there are no audio reviewers out there worth reading, but I haven’t read a review since Moncrief and Enid quit publishing the international audio review. They went well beyond what most reviewers were doing while they were active, and I found every one of their reviews useful in one way or another. There is no other audio magazine or reviewer about whom I can say that. Also, the Internet and used audio marketplaces enables direct exposure to any device in which I might have an interest. So, why would I rely on another reviewer, except to call my attention to a new product in the audio space? 

I’m not saying there are no audio reviewers out there worth reading

@hce1 I’d submit there are several reviewers at Soundstage who are well worth reading. Guys like Jeff Fritz, Doug Schneider, and Hans Wetzel just to name a few are straight shooters and well worth reading IMO, and their reviews are rigorous and thorough unlike many others out there. I’ll also mention Sandu at Soundnews.net — he skews more toward DACs and headphone equipment, but his reviews likewaise are very thorough, informative, and actually useful.  There are some good reviewers out there so I’d encourage you to search them out as they truly provide some useful info.

This was the kind of review that got Stereophile started (by JGH) --

"This and the higher-powered P-L 700 have a sound that is characteristically their own: A rather fat, rich quality that one normally associates with good solid-state units of considerably lower power (such as the Citation 12 and the Crown D-60), and the effortless openness that is a sure sign of oodles of reserve power. Both however also have a noticeably fine-grained or ’gray’ quality that is substantially less conspicuous in the 400 (which in turn has a shade more of it than the Crown DC-300A). In addition, although it is not easy to overload the 400, it does not respond very gracefully when it is overdriven (usually on heavy, sustained bass passages), and takes a perceptible period of time to recover.

"All in all, we would judge this to be a less successful design than the Dyna Stereo 400 (which sells for $100 more), but would rate it as being the best solid-state amplifier in its price class."

It can be fun time to time to look into the past :

https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/HiFI-Stereo-Review.htm