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.
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. |
@mijostyn , those experienced in electronics and the design of electronics products can view photographs and make generalized comments about the quality of designs, based on experience, good engineering practice and a bit of common sense. Like anything else, it is not perfect, but there is nothing wrong with it, and too many of what look like bad design decisions will make you question well what else is wrong. There is a quite heated argument going on (mostly unrelated) to the LSA GAN amp. A quick look at the pictures of the interior by someone knowledgeable suggests a really poor decision on the orientation of the AC supply, with a 180 flip reducing the length of the AC wires and their potential for noise coupling to audio, and the ability to shorten the wires (and potential noise interaction) for the DC wires out to the modules. We also see PCB mount XLR connector with wires soldered to them, no hold downs for the wires, no supplemental case grounding connection, etc. The modules appear off the shelf. When you couple the measured performance, the use off the shelf modules, and what comes across as a poorly engineered product, a conclusion similar to the video, i.e. this is over priced for what it is, is a viable conclusion. How will it sound? Like off the shelf modules in a box which you may or may not like. |
