What, in your opinion, should the rules be for YouTube Reviews?
Recently, the OCD Hifi channel posted a David vs. Goliath takedown of Constellation. He does not own the unit, has none to handle personally, and bases his critique upon his examination of publicly available photos and their website patter. His video reads Constellation the riot act for their paltry construction and then questions their chutzpah for putting lipstick on a pig and suckering people in. He then contrasts the Constellation by comparing it to Jeff Rowland’s stuff, which his dealership carries.
Personally, I don’t own Constellation nor would I pay $55k for an amp. But I’m wondering what folks here — with intimate knowledge of the differences between seeing photos and handling gear -- think about this kind of takedown.
I’m imagining a spectrum of argument, pro and con this video.
On one end of the spectrum, one might argue for the OCD guy — "Look," one might say, "this is just such an easy target that all he’s doing is calling out a scam based on evidence that is so obvious that anyone could see it. OCD has Constellation dead to rights and he just bothered to make it interesting with a video. He doesn’t need better evidence to do such an obvious takedown. This is called "market correction"." Or words to that effect.
On the other end, one might say, "A channel with 11k subscribers had some duty of due diligence. A take-no-prisoners critique of a product requires that he at least have one to listen to, open up, etc. His willingness to draw a contrast with his own line of products is more than a convenient point of comparison of his video — it’s the main point, however disguised. What this amounts to is an unfair takedown of a product and company to help boost his own sales."
Or maybe there are takes in between?
In short, here I’m wondering about these questions:
"What kind of evidence is necessary for a public-facing critique?"
"What are the responsibilities of a public-facing review?"
"What kinds of reviews are appropriate for dealers to do?"
Be interested to hear from those in the industry, consumers, or reviewers on this question.
Should this be about Youtube, specifically, they have certain threshold requirements that must be abided by. Some may wonder why they do the banning thing, but I think that has to do with deliberate misinformation regarding Covid and similar subjects. Politics.
Any person providing a critique must have sufficient experience with and use of the object (service, whatever) in order to put themselves out as a credible authority.
Any conflict of interest must be disclosed, and I would go further to require any communication with all the relevant parties to be disclosed. I think that would pass any test of credibility.
So, the person here ought to have used one of his three remaining neurons and asked a person he wasn't associated with and with no conflicts and with experience etc to do the "review". Not perfect, but ever so slightly better.
Anything less than this and it doesn’t pass the pub test. For without that, it could be a parody or malicious or any other rubbish that is protected by the US constitution.
I’m deliberately avoiding the publisher/platform issue, despite I think that being very important.
Youtube, specifically, they have certain threshold requirements that must be abided by.
Yes.? The requirements are that you agree with YouTube.. Maybe YouTube doesn’t like Constellation. Who knows? We now live in a time where opposing views are not allowed. Do you really think that this is only involving politics? Ask Mike Lindell, who’s products were pulled from all the big Corp box stores. I’m sure there are others. But the point is that a level playing field where all views are heard and given consideration is gone. This will not stay strictly in the political field..
On a lighter note, why would anyone pay attention to someone who named their business for a mental disorder...ocd?
@hilde45, it is up to the individual to make his own analysis. This would only be useful if you were intending on buying such an amp which few of us are. I think it is in poor taste for store owner to dis someone else's product especially if John Curl is one of the designers. He is not known for making clunkers.
The truth for me is when I see anything that cost more than I paid for a house, 25 years ago and all they do is make speakers WORK. I gotta ask myself a question, should I care what anyone has to say for, against or can't make up their mind about a 55K amp? I don't even read articles about such nonsense. 50K DACs, 59K Cables, 30K preamp, 300-900K + for speakers..
I wish everyone well that likes that type of stuff. I'll take a Rolls over any and all of it put together with a chauffeur/carpenter/doctor/mechanic/astronaut/bodyguard/10 to go along with it.. If you don't mind..
His take down appeared to be somewhat on point, though those so called "industrial" power supply capacitors are every bit as good as used as anything with an exotic audio name on it.
The build quality of the Constellation stuff did look pretty poor, and the transformers undersized. Looked to be more marketing amps than audiophile amps. When you have people convinced that the wire connecting to the amp is more important than what is inside, anything is possible.
YouTube provides entertainment not news. People will go to great lengths to be entertaining there and get noticed, like here in some cases. Take it all with grains of salt like most of the internet.
I shudder to think of how many STILL don't realize that the one's mainly accusing other's of giving misinformation are the one's actually guilty of that!
I shudder to think of how many STILL don’t realize that the one’s mainly accusing other’s of giving misinformation are the one’s actually guilty of that!
Hey @isochronism you might want to rethink that considering that is exactly what you just did. 😉
Does this have anything to do with safe spaces? Or with the demise of the Jerry Springer show?
Safe spaces are real . Jerry Springer is entertainment. I was speaking of reality.. Safe spaces have always existed but were limited to children due to their lack of maturity and ability to understand. Now they even apply to people who should be mature. Ie, Jerryg123 who called me down for saying "poor people and had the moderators remove two of my posts that challenged his thinking. I guess He needed a safe space
It's worse than that. They didn't even have a sample to listen, so they only used pictures of the inside. This according to the OP. I agree with his assessment and yours. You cannot judge the sound by listening to a YT video or looking at pictures.
I enjoy YouTube videos about audio gear, and I've learned quite a lot from them. Some I like more than others, but if it's something I'm interested in, I'll look at as many as I can. I don't much care about reviews in Stereophile and such, but I also get a lot of good info from different forums...
@larsman, great minds do think alike!
And, yes, there are some good YT reviewers out there that don't go hyperbolically overboard and some even use better than average recording techniques. Some are good enough to actually hear a difference and sometimes, an improvement.
I always get a kick out of those that dismiss it all with one broad stroke.
@nonoise, Mike Lindell seems to be doing very well, thank you.
Of course there’s still that small matter with Dominion and Smartatic to deal with.
YouTube reviews can hardly be any different to any other reviews, can they?
Bridled with both cognitive and marketing bias, censorship and political leaning.
And why not, when you look at who its owners are?
Yet the hypocrisy of YouTube is indeed something to behold.
So many review sites are unable to play even samples of commercial music for comparison purposes on their channels and yet a seemingly unlimited number of tracks are available for download elsewhere on YT!
There is important news sometimes ONLY on youtube...
do you want an example?
Karl Friston probably one of the greatest scientist on earth, is on youtube ...
No news outlet will let him speak... It is not conspiracy but it takes a brain just to ask a single question to him... It is the same thing even about any other matters....
Without youtube i will die without news...
Yesterday i listen some interesting mathematical news: 10 hours conference in mathematical logic.... On YOUTUBE....
I could give many other examples about something else than mathematic but i dont want to create useless debates here...
One thing i know..... For many years i read no more useful and breaking news and reflections on OFFICIAL news channel ....
We live a time where , thanks to information control, there is no news save on parallell network....Even YOUTUBE censor now some "news"....But thanks God there is other chanels...
Anyway what is a news? A news is a perceived information for one and a disinformation for others...For me ALMOST all official information chanels are filled by ALMOST only pure propaganda...
For audio matters YOUTUBE is very extraordinary....
Are we not all responsible and intelligent enough to make our own decisions and sniff out poor or unqualified reviews? Does anyone really make a decision about a product from a single review?
Not only YouTube, you could say the same about any review, no matter the platform used.
The fact that the OCD hifi guy sells competing gear immediately makes his "takedowns" completely lacking in integrity. If viewers can't figure that out it's on them. And guys lets just stop with the politics now please it's nothing to do with this subject.
No rules just a healthy skepticism because they are learning as they go, which is fine, but they try to give high level advice with low level knowledge. There are exceptions.
I guess I'd ask it this way, then -- If you were a reviewer, what norms would you obey in order to make it responsible, as you define that word?
None, it’s your platform to use within the guidelines of YouTube (which I do not agree with all the time BTW) so you should have the freedom to post what you desire. What is a ‘norm’ for you may not be mine. We have the freedom to think for ourselves, or become a sheep. You can decide.
All I was really asking was, What would *your* norms be? Perhaps your answer is just, "I would operate within the rules set by YouTube." If so, ok, but there's a lot of latitude left!
If you’re not in the market for a $55K Constellation amplifier, why would the validity or accuracy of this review be of any importance to you? Everyone has an opinion but when it come to audio gear the only opinion that should matter is your own.
@bkeskeMove on? This is called a discussion. But I’ve definitely lost interest in your view on this. You seem determined to impose a certain motivation on my question that I don’t have. Step away at your first opportunity.
@bkeske Move on? This is called a discussion. But I’ve definitely lost interest in your view on this. You seem determined to impose a certain motivation on my question that I don’t have. Step away at your first opportunity.
I have a motive? What would that be? I’m not calling out for rules or ‘norms’ to be set up for reviewers on YouTube. That would be you. That sounds like a motive to me. I’ve said let anyone post what they wish on YouTube within its guidelines. Hardly a motive, unless we are speaking of freedom of thought and expression allowed by the platform. Gasp.
When I said ‘move on’, I was speaking about the review you cited. But hey, you don’t have to move on from a review you dislike. Your choice.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
