Reviewing the Reviewers


Check out http://www.high-endaudio.com/index_ac.html and follow go to the "Audio Critique" page, and then to "Reviewing the Reviewers" page.

This site is run by a man named Arthur Salvatore. He has written much about all aspects of audio on his site...his recommended components, his recommended recordings, his store, etc. He writes like a lawyer, but it seems like he actually has integrity...he must not be a lawyer. :-) Seriously...anyone interested in a point by point analysis of modern audio reviews should check out this site. He's analyzed many reviews and developed his own list of "rules" that most reviews tend to follow (and he's dead-on)...usually because the writer doesn't want to say anything negative about any particular sponsor's (or buddy's) product.

He received an angry letter from Michael Fremer. The letter and his analysis are included on the site. It makes for a long read, but it can be fascinating. Besides...it's information than every audio joe (or jane) should be aware of when they read any review...especially when they're planning on pruchasing a product highlighted by a particular review.

If you want to see textbook examples of his "rules" put into practice, just check out any Soundstage review written by Marc Mickelson.

Enjoy...
phild

Showing 2 responses by gregm

Slawney, "excercis(ing) influence" requires acceptance on the receiving end, IMO. i.e., it takes two to tango... one giving advice or expressing opinion, and another to listen, acknowledge, "intelligently". I think this isn't always the case.
It seems to me we have a dichotomy in the reactions to opinion (in form of reviews or other) even among seasoned audiophiles sometimes.
1) "Rational" reaction, that takes a stated opinion and tries to understand the parametres upon which the stated opinion is based, and accepts, rejects, or simply acknowledges a subjective experience ("opinion") stated by another person.
2) Emotional reaction, where the receiving end *indentifies self* with equipment or person reviewing equipment. We've seen posts that could be paraphrased as "what do you mean, *MY* amplification of choice is no good, those (MY) speakers are terrible???" Likewise, with one reviewer's credibility vs. another's, worse still (IMO), for newcomers who would give credence to a well published and thereby known reviewer and disregard *USERS* opinion. In this case, disillusionment seems unavoidable.
More so, since common sense easily evidences the commercial limitations imposed upon and followed by mags. In order to pay but lip service to the mags' obvious profit pursuits, there *must* be an emotional side that shroudes reality.

If not, then what is it?
Detlof notes: "I've built a system just following my own ears and trying to voice and shape it in the way I *wanted it to sound*"(my emphasis). Which begs the question: HOW does each one of us like music reproduction? Laid back? Bass articulate? Dynamic? Pace & rythm? etc. A useful point when relating to others' opinion, and extremely useful for newcomers to this hobby, maybe.

I, for one, like transient attack, dynamics, and passion. Listening to music is an "interactive experience": I catch myself speaking to the (imaginary) musicians while listening to my system... I like to hear the sudden bursts in intensity -- SPL *and* the emotion / energy this belies.
A friend tells me, he can't enjoy sitting back with my system; the moment he relaxes, a burst kicks him out of the chair.

I fully subscribe to Detlof's proposition regarding the benefits of experiencing "...as many live musical events as possible". And that "best" is largely a subjective notion, and time/experience-related, at that. Indeed, Detlof, de gustibus non est disputandum!
And yet, disputes are sometimes the name of the game!