2. analog
  3. 189181-96

Example of a piece o’ crap, useless review

I’ve harped on how crappy and useless many “professional” reviews are because they lack rigor and omit critical information.  This one is from TAS that is a main offender of pumping out shallow/unsupported reviews, but most of the Euro mags among others are guilty of this too IME.  One key giveaway that a review is crap is that after reading it you still have little/no real understanding of what the piece under review actually sounds like or if it’s something you’d like to consider further.  I mean, if a review can’t accomplish those basic elements what use is it?  This review is so shallow it reads like it could’ve been written by someone who never even listened to the review sample and just made it up outta thin air.  In addition to failing on this broad level, here are some other major problems with the review:

- There is no info regarding any shortcomings of this “budget” turntable — everything is positive.  Sounds like it was perfect, ehem.

- There are no comparisons to another product in the same general price category or anything else.

- The reviewer doesn’t even share what equipment is in his reference system so we can at least infer what he may have based his impressions on.

In short, in addition to this review being so bad/useless for all the reasons stated it actually reads more like advertisement for the product than an actual unbiased review.  I can think of nothing worse to say about a review, and sadly many reviews out there are similarly awful for the same reasons.  Sorry for the rant, but especially as a former reviewer this piece of garbage pushed all my buttons and really ticked me off.  What say you?

https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/sota-quasar-turntable-and-pyxi-phonostage/

soix

Showing 4 responses by ghdprentice

ghdprentice
6,408 posts
 

Yes, that was a grossly abbreviated… more of a description. Not a review. 

ghdprentice
6,408 posts
 

 

Having given it a little more thought.

 

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

I flipped through the most recent edition. There are full format reviews (under the heading of xxxx Focus) 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 Focus 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.

 

Given true long format reviews typically take six months to do. It is really not that surprising that each issue could only contain a few of these. Do the math. 

ghdprentice
6,408 posts
 

@czarivey 

 

Cynical and wrong. There is real information, you simply need to read a lot and be able to read between the lines… about the reviewer and products.

ghdprentice
6,408 posts
 

@roadcykler

It is in no one’s best interest to review a bad product. No one. You can be sure a company making terrible sounding gear is not going to be submitting it for review and no reviewer is likely to choose it..

 

@soix +1

Reading reviews as I have for nearly fifty years I can easily detect a mediocre product… you know… dammed by faint praise.

 

it is definitely true that there is more content with less depth that has happened over the last ten years over TAS. But there is way more value then midfi and consumer electronics reviews.

More to discover