The "how many reviews it got" rule

TAS had a preview of the XTAC and photos in the September 2018 issue.  Interesting concept.

XTAC speakers commentary on why they are unique and superior to ALL other speaker designs (per the manufacturer). https://audiomachina.com/xtac/commentary/

I’d love to hear speaker engineers/designers comment, especially on the Time/Amplitude equation.

Here's the extract from his white paper on what a speaker should be:
1. Full frequency range without the use of different driver types or any crossovers. 2. Adequate Dynamic Range and S/N ratio. 3. Absence of diaphragm flexure or breakup in the audible range. 4. Idealized acoustic radiation pattern. 5. Real-world room installation and performance optimization. 6. Reasonable manufacturing and installation difficulty. 7. Reasonable cost.

And sometimes big, well connected companies, choose not to give out components for reviews 

Tannoys a big name but rarely do their big speakers get reviewed. These are companies with great, efficient speakers.

I think in order for a product to get reviewed, it either has to have one of these:
1. The company has to have some sort of relationship with the magazine either through PR or advertisement.
2. The product has to be a revolution of very outstanding of some types and competitive in pricing vs its peers.

For #1, it’s rather obvious.
For #2, I could name a few components that have had universal acceptance. I don’t know them all but I can certainly name a few. Arcam CD23, Conrad Johnson 17LS, ART preamp, Simaudio Moon W3 amp, Thiel CS2.4, Pass Lab XP10, Living Voice
Those above if you do search on the web, they were reviewed by pretty everybody including their grand parents.

The best sound I and all the critics in the past several years heard, were the Ultra 11 Von Schweikerts. I’m considering the VR55K at $50K-$60K for a smaller room than the showroom hall. How about the great sounding, efficient Lumenwhites, virtually unknown except at shows. Tannoys a big name but rarely do their big speakers get reviewed. These are companies with great, efficient speakers.

There are so many good component manufacturers that get little press/reviews. Some out of choice; others out of circumstance.

Take von Schweikert speakers or Daedalus speakers. Beautifully made and beautifully sounding speakers that rarely, if ever, make Stereophile - though do appear in Dagogo and other fringe publications.

Or Decware amps and speakers - which refuse to be reviewed by anyone except customers - and that informally.

For audio reviews you have to re-calibrate what constitutes a bad review, it won't be the same as asking the advice of a buddy or someone on a forum. The term "damn with faint praise" comes to mind for poor pieces of gear.  The reviewer will typically point out a few minor positive qualities and say something like "careful gear matching is important." That's about as bad as it will get. 

I try to match up common characteristics across reviews, if 3 out of 4 reviews say that an amp has a wide soundstage then it usually does.  If all of the reviews say something different I become skeptical and take them all with a grain of salt.  

Art Dudley used to extol the virtues of EAR gear. Then he reviews their latest Classic CD player and said it sounds terrible (for the price) distorted while Atkinson supports that view with measurements. Sure, it was defective, putting out 6 volts instead of 2 volts. He sends it back and issues an update that it is good and should be in the company of similar priced single boxed players. No kidding. I own the EAR Acute and heard a stock Classic. It’s a great player with the stock tubes even (mine had to have NOS Amperex). The forum trolls were merciless saying how junky EAR equipment is and how they should know better than making defective equipment because of the review.

Yes Inna, it does seem like a lot of cash for a similar sound but one can purchase a used EAR Acute (strictly for CD playback) for $2K.

Sometimes the magazines go crazy for new technologies but downplay the negatives. High Fidelity cables have never sounded good in over a dozen very different systems I’ve heard them in. Yes, they have patented the heavy magnetic cable implementation, the bigger magnets, the more expensive (and the worst sounding).

Sometimes they leave out the required synergies necessary to make something sound great. B&W speakers (as well as Wilson and Magicos) need a TON of power to sound as good as the reveiewers say. No SETs or typical amps without great current reserves for them.

Also, back in the 90s, a Counterpoint Amp was deemed mediocre by RH and returned to the manufacturer. They said they changed it. He then gave it a big thumbs up stating how good it is. Turns out, Counterpoint didn’t change anything and resent it to him. You can’t trust most magazine reviewers.

Here is the thing, you give an item a bad review, and you implicitly insult people who went out and bought one. They get upset, regardless how spot on, or perhaps even generous the review, and they will not renew their subscription. Subscriptions plummet with every negative review, which also lowers advertising revenue because the advertisers want a large audience, and pay based upon magazine sales figures. 

When TAS and Stereophile were add free, they had more flexibility but still, their income stream was based upon magazine sales, but in their case, magazine sales only. So even then there was an automatic disincentive to degrade bad gear. 

I have owned and heard many of their top tier gear, and have found that much of it sucks. While I rarely ever buy based upon the clown posse's reviews, I thankfully did allow them to talk me into buying a Schiit Audio Yggdrasil, and that was a game changer, but it was also, I believe, an exception.

It was such a drastic improvement that I have since completely revamped my stereo. I went with a Schiit Freya for a time, but reluctantly followed the advice of a former Freya owner and bought a Don Sachs DS2 preamp. I honestly expected it to be at best a nominal improvement, but it wasn't. Mind you, synergy does come into play here, had I had say Vandersteen speakers, I may very well have been unable to distinguish many of the differences which I heard. 

So too with individual reviews on line. Ignorance is a part of the human condition, if not we wouldn't bother with reviews in the first place. The gear that I own is the most neutral I can find at a price that I believe that I can afford. Others would call neutral gear bright, and I suppose bright gear, very bright. So ferreting through reviews of any type is fraught with problems. It's a shame that we don't have audio studios strategically located throught the nation with large assortments of gear that we could listen to in a variety of acoustically different rooms.

@geek101  +1

I would read any audiophile review with a pinch of salt. I would look at measurements and look for forums about complaints of build or support issue. Then look at components used, design etc and of-course price.

I am in the camp that thinks good amps should all sound same at normal levels as long they can drive the speakers without breaking a sweat. 

I don’t think any of our current mags come close to the standard he attained

I don't think it's a fair criticism.  If it were that, then we wouldn't have Ferrari or Lamborghini. 

There was a mag called "Audio Ideas guide" written solely by it’s editor Andrew Marshall from Toronto.As an English major his writing was concise,readable and very informative.No flowery language or hyperbole.
I thought his reviews were spot on and fair.
He stated specifically he would not review anything that he thought was inferior in quality or overpriced compared to other products.
I don’t think any of our current mags come close to the standard he attained with his periodical...I regret his publication is no longer available .(At least not here in the US as far as I know)

There is an old saying that I believe to be true’, “We do not see what is in front of our eyes, we see what is behind them”. I think this applies to audio equipment and reading reviews. Once we take on a belief about a product, it sticks. The product might not be very good, or a good value but that will not matter. The audio mags create a lot of that “belief”, I think mostly to help sell audio equipment. 
Bigkidz and Mikepowellaudio make good points here. I would only use reviews as a very rough guide and don’t take them serious. Go and listen to any equipment that peaks your interest. Decide for yourself, be your OWN audio guru. The belief should not come from a review. IMHO.

So refreshing to see the group at least has some members aware of the audio racket. re: media, mfg and brick and mortar dealers. The trifecta of how to control a market. Keep people in the dark, or confuse them with crafted special terms for everyday stuff, blow things way out of proportion. I not only reveal the BS I find but I do straight comparisons on video, so you can hear the reality of the newest "giant killer" against a 20 year old giant and see who fares best. I show you how to make a grounding box for yourself instead of paying through the nose, I show you how to recreate the special magic "field" resonators using product made for other industries that people repackage for this industry, so they can rake in cash.. go to You Tube and search for "OCD HiFi Guy"  I find the truth and share my findings

It is a business.  The reviews are for information purposes only.  They are not written to say this one is better than that one.  They compare what the reviewer hears in their system, not yours.  Use them as a guide.  Once you read a review, go hear that component at a dealer to see if you hear what the reviewer is writing about.  If you hear what the reviewer comments on, then you can understand the reviewer and how they hear sound.  Also, small companies and start up companies do not get reviews, understand why?

Happy Listening.  

It's obvious that people only review gears that they like.  I don't know of anyone would go out of their way to bring a bad component they don't like to their place and waste their time for a couple of weeks just for the heck of it.
Therefore if a gear is being reviewed, it's most likely a quality component that they already like.  Some have brought up the issue that Stereophile only reviews established brands, well it's the same reason I only purchase components from establish brand because I don't want to take the risk just as Stereophile probably doesn't want to take the risk of reviewing some suspect components that may go out of business the next year.
Now the other issue that brought up is that do any reviewer just outright lie?  Turning a bad component into a good one.  If they did that, I don't think they would be in business for very long.  I doubt a lot of reviewers do that.  Some have brought up this issue but I am not sure there was any evidence other than hearsay. 

But it's probably true that some established professional magazine such as HiFi+ or Stereophile do have their preferred brands but that does not mean they misrepresent themselves in the reviews.  It's like advertisements.  Their ads money may steer them toward a certain brands than others but that does not mean their reviews are less than honest.

Huh? Nobody gives a crap about Bose. We want to see expensive stuff reviewed. The more expensive the better!

Try writing a negative review about a Bose product.  See where that gets you.  Just sayin'.

I to Fall for the same basis principles of marketing. Reading about audio stuff and discovering music, new equipment , people that write nice stories, etc etc. This gets me entiusiast about something that I also like to discover. It is to me a valuable  and fun part of the hobby. 

Frequently it sends me in a direction tot explore. If there are more reviews the feeling grows and changes are that that product got reviewed by me.  
If there is a chance or most of the time a need to buy. (Replacement , upgrade, bored) 

But I never buy something that has not been heared by myself in my room and system. Many reviews despite.

“Online” buying on a basis of a lot of reviews is not for me. 

Noting so subjective as “audio”. 

Well, who am I to argue ?

Elizabeth, $7k for a digital player ? No way. Couple of days ago I saw used Gryphon for $2600, that's reasonable and it will probably outperform just about any single box player.

I don't see a correlation unless perhaps it is a masterpiece that everyone wants to review.
Generally, I think I understand what Michael Fremer says. His preferred sound may not be exactly mine, at least not fully, but it doesn't matter. I mean, I would get that Continuum table and Ypsilon phono he has but he could keep his Wilsons with Tara cables and DartZeel amps for his bloody self.

^^^^^
True. I can't speak for anyone else, but I have to remind myself every now and then that just because a particular component doesn't make a "Recommended Components" listing doesn't mean it can't hang with the ones that did. Perhaps it just didn't get reviewed.

There are myriad manufacturers out there and a finite amount of review space. Especially review space by knowledgeable and articulate writers.

and lots of great stuff never gets reviewed...

Uh, there are perfectly good reasons why magazines won’t write negative reviews. 

Whoa, 2psyop, everybody lies - what a world we live in.

Andy2- I am sorry, but I don’t understand what you are saying, it makes no sense to me. There are many reviewers that don’t objectively review audio, and many buyers who are biased and in many cases uneducated or inexperienced. Therefore reviews are a small, maybe even unworthy, bit of information. Even this site itself has forums by audio manufacturers. Do you think you will see fair reviews there? Not a chance, just fanboy enthusiasm. It sells their equipment!

Consumer Reports is the best model for reviews. They buy everything at retail and then review. Not a viable model in high end audio.
I still frequently disagree with them, but they are honest.

It's akin to writing a reference letter or a letter of recommendation. If a student asks me for one and I have negative things to say, I'll pass on writing the letter rather than writing a negative letter. If I really have to write one, I'll couch it in generic terms that admissions can plainly decipher, but that don't openly condemn.
Reviews strike me the same. Every now and then Stereophile will write negative things about a unit, and the company then immediately rebuts those critiques in the back of the issue, usually pointing out detriments of the review or set-up or something like that. But I can't remember Stereophile or TAS ever ending a pages-long review, complete with sexy photos and graphs, with something like, "Don't buy this. It sucks. You'll regret it."

Does anyone has an example of a component that had
a lot of reviews but turn out to be bad? Based on
what I've seen over the years, if a component had
a lot of people reviewed it, most likely it's a good
component. Such website like www.audioreview.com
which posts reviews of regular users is a good
indication as well. I notice if something that
has a lot of feedbacks from users, it turns out
to be good as well.

No one with a lick of sense publishes a bad review. Or gets themselves into a situation where a bad review might result, due to the product not being up to snuff.

Good review sites and such look into the gear quite carefully before the review is even committed to.

If one is trying to start or has a review site, magazine or whatnot, bad reviews are the kiss of death. Think it through. Use logic and your head.

That is the simple and logical reason that there are no bad reviews out there. No conspiracies, just simple open logic that reviewers and rags openly admit to in print. They’re not hiding anything.

Additionally, some, like Stereophile, consistently go out of their way to say that if a thing is not reviewed, it means nothing. Not good not bad, just not reviewed. Nor does a review say the gear is right for you. They report, you decide. This is emotions and people and their individual wiring tied to such... and has squat to do with linear thinking math/facts. The products and devices may be built with such... but this is all on and about the indeterminate 'constant state of change' squishy fleshy bits we call people.

As for long term loaners, those are good for keeping the products in play and being talked about. Eg, a reviewer lists their equipment used in reviews, and it might include our products. that’s a good thing for us.

Reviewers get the opportunity to buy at dealer costs, in most cases. Same price a dealer might pay to have the product in a store. Nothing weird about that.

The odd long term reviewer might make mention of a closet full of cables or whatnot. (Micheal Fremer did that once, or it might have been Art Dudley, can’t quite remember...) Those are the long term loaners that the manufacturer does not care to get back, not worth the trouble, economically. Deceased models, used, etc. a $500 cable 10 years ago is worth pretty well squat today, especially to the maker of the cable, and the reviewer can’t sell it, so it is stuck in ’closet limbo’.

Many audio companies do not want to get involved with (have products reviewed at) outfits/websites/ individuals/etc that demand or pressure for free stuff and then sell it off, or have reviewers who do such things. It looks bad for all... when, in reality, it is just a few...

There is no secret information reveled in this post, it is openly known stuff ...and I mention it again, in order to snuff out wild and woolly speculation that will try it’s best to glad hand itself into being factual. It may not snuff it out, but it can at least be present to counter speculation that tries to ping pong itself into being facts.

In many of todays reviews the reviewer talks about keeping (purchasing) the equipment so it's probably exactly the same.

I'm not sure the "review business" is the same as it was in the 1980's.  Back then I worked in the high-end audio business and met some reviewers who told me that the way this game works is, the reviewer is shipped an item and if they were favorable in their reviews, were asked not to ship the item back, but to "purchase" it for a tiny fraction of the retail value.  One of the reviewers I met back then said he made a "pretty penny" flipping equipment he'd reviewed.

My take on this is that most equipment is pretty good these days BUT it's the synergy that is more important. Also as my dealer always tells me the room plays more into the sound than one thinks or wants to admit.

I’m not sure it works like that for the most part. Big distribution budgets and magazine advertising play a role in visibility. Ever notice how almost every review is a good one?

Wow i didn't know that thats really great.

This is similar to movie box office take , the numbers really have nothing to do with how actually good said movie is though to me it’s usually a sign of a lot of people got caught up in the hype and paid to see a very mediocre movie .
if you make your buying decisions on main stream industry hype and online hysteria you will never get off the merry go round .