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
Thanks for turning me on to this site! The author struck a real chord in me. And a deep one at that. I am on record here regarding my feelings about Michael Fremer. And Jonathan Scull, for that matter. In my opinion, both perfectly illustrate how far Stereophile has indeed fallen. I will only deal with Fremer here. His letter to the author is a summation of all that he is. And is not. Fremer is a textbook case of the short guy syndrome. I have never been a fan of him, or his writing. I believe his overinflated popularity is a direct reflection on his vinyl leanings. His opinions are as often baseless as they are on point. He is continuously on his high horse. One that lectures and patronizes, rife with condescension. As if he is somehow gifted, or better than the great unwashed. Able to hear better than others. Able to judge a component better than others. As stated before, he is clueless on an incredibly frequent basis. Bragging about his reviewing talents and experience one minute; chiding those less experienced in the field. Explaining with surprise the sonic signature of an Audio Research power amplifier the next. Audio Research is to tube amplification what GM is to automobiles. A reviewer portraying himself to be a tubeophile who does not know about Audio Research's sound is a flat amateur. In fact, the whole review of this product was an utter waste of time. One in which several variables were juggled without the slightest thought about them. Starting with cables, and ending with confusion. How could the conclusions of this review elicit anything along the lines of credibility? His anger in the letter is of no surprise. His indignation is a running theme of his personality. Witness his retort of the letters regarding the very expensive turntable he reviewed. To say that he was less than courteous would be a supreme understatement. Gone are the capable reviewers of the Stereophile of yesterday. Gone are the days of the annual Audio Equipment Directory. Where we audiophiles were presented with an objective list of virtually all audio components. Along with contact information. We could search out the equipment that piqued our interests, and then review it OURSELVES. Forming our own "Recommended Components" list. A complete list. We are now left with the flagship publication of our hobby whose second most critical reviewer is sometimes incompetant, sometimes disengenous. And all of the time a horse's butt...