What's the point of reviewing?

Exactly...

I did these experiments and it is my opinion...

It is why reviews dont have meanings in a singular way at all..

There is only meanings in  statistical analysis of all reviews on each separate acoustic factors...

Have you ever experienced listening to the same component in a different system and having it sound completely different?

Plus the room is 80% of what you hear. When that sank in, I gave up reviewing.

Great posts indeed! Thanks...

It is precisely why reviews are useful analysed for each separate acoustic factors and especially with users and non pro-reviewers mainly...

It is especially efficient with vintage or older products, because there exist more users reviews...

Very new products are very difficult to assess with few reviews mainly by pro-reviewers if not impossible...

We then must distinguish between users and pro-reviewers, and vintage and new products...

But i purchased my amplifier, dac and headphones by reading carefully users products ... None were new products...

Although I routinely read professional reviews, they are all essentially the same, gushing over soundstage, "micro detail" etc. They are generally useless. Does anyone recall a negative review of any product? I have an ARC Ref 6. On a lark, I went to CHATGPT and asked it to write an audiophile review of it. Here’s what came out:

"The true essence of the Reference 6 lies in its exceptional sound performance. It takes the listener on a journey of sonic ecstasy, revealing nuances and subtleties within the music that were previously unheard. The preamplifier’s tonal accuracy, transparency, and dynamic range are simply breathtaking.

The Reference 6 exhibits an uncanny ability to render recordings with a lifelike presence. The soundstage is expansive and three-dimensional, effortlessly recreating the original recording environment. Instruments and vocals are placed with pinpoint precision, allowing the listener to discern their individual characteristics and spatial cues.

Furthermore, the Reference 6’s tonal balance is pristine, providing an accurate representation of the recording with no discernible coloration. The bass reproduction is tight, controlled, and impactful, while the midrange exhibits a captivating warmth and richness. The high frequencies are delicate, detailed, and extend with remarkable finesse, delivering an airy and extended treble response.

The preamplifier’s transparency is exceptional, unmasking micro-details and subtle textures within the music. It unravels layers of information, revealing the true intentions of the artists and the emotions they convey. The Reference 6 possesses a sense of musicality that is rare to find, evoking an emotional connection with the listener that is deeply moving."

Sound familiar? You could probably replace ARC REF 6 with any higher end preamp and this would be the likely review. One of the things that I tend to like about professional reviews is the choice of music to review the equipment. I like to take that same song and see if I can hear what the reviewer is talking about on my own system. But I couldn’t base a big purchase decision on a professional review.

User reviews, on the other hand, have limited utility because they are so dependent on the other equipment and the room itself. But at least with a user review, they can call it like they see it, rather than sugarcoat it. granted, when someone here is motivated to review a product that they just purchased, it is usually a favorable one, but there is often value in, "I just bought this and replaced that, and this is how I think the sound has improved . . ." There is no good solution other than to listen for yourself, take a leap of faith and buy sight unseen, or get something that has a return policy.

Great post! thanks...

It is precisely why statistical of acoustic factors  over great number of anonymus reviewers and not only chosen well known reviewers  is important...

8th-note, the one thing you’re more likely to get from Audiogon and other sites forum members is honesty about the shortcomings of various products. Site members will often point out shortcomings of a product that many professional reviewers are loathe to bluntly address. You certainly less likely to get the expertise of professional reviewers, but you will be much more likely to be exposed to the other side of the coin on any components performance. That info is helpful to know prior to going to the audio store to listen to product demos.

Mike

We can easily class reviews in Reviewers i trust, reviewers i dont know, and reviewers i distrust etc...

Speaking to do a statistical analysis of each acoustic factors with the specific words picked to describe them in reviews DONT PRECLUDE what is evident to do, classify the reviewers, once we did had identified our precise needs...

«One of my hand think the other walk» --Groucho Marx 🤓

+1 Mahgister’s idea that we do need multiple reviewers to help us converge. I disagree that this does not also include "taste" because we need to find a reviewer who communicates to us, aesthetically. So it’s about both.

My main problem with reviews is that they are too positive. Critical or negative reviews have a higher burden of proof; they’re forced to make a more detailed and stronger argument.

This is precisely WHY we are better to NEVER choose only reviewers with our esthetical and taste ONLY but especially MANY unknown people, average audiophiles who will pick other words to describe what a PAID pro reviewer will avoid and mitigate: the negative impact of his words choice...Infirmation rule ,confirmation goes after...

Chosing audio component has nothing to do with "taste" , we dont even know really the needs, the room, the ears, the components of the reviewer we like because we identify ourself with one aspect of his written ghost personnality ... Chosing audio components is about "acoustic factors" evaluation and impact not about "taste"...

What is not said in a review matter the most, and what is negative is the most important and must be investigate in a comparison with the words choice of others reviewers to infirm or confirm ...

What is positive means something ONLY by the added numbers of reviewers ...

«My two hands works better together without me»--Groucho Marx 🤓

«My hands need my brain more than me sometimes»--Groucho Marx 🤓

When i bought my Sansui alpha , i could not stumble on one single bad review.... It Takes me a very long time to read them all... But it was fun...All positive...Simple i order two different Sansui... I never regret it....

But when i read about the AKG K340, i was desesperate... All my other 8 headphones were , now i can say it "crap" or so unnatural ... I decided to go speakers again after having sold Alas! my Tannoy dual gold ( 2 pairs)..

But Speakers also did not satisfy me really, even My Tannoy...I did not know basic acoustic miracles at this time...

Then 5 years ago just before i begin my acoustic experiments journey, i bought the AKG K340...In spite of some negative reviews...Why?

Because i apply my statistical reading analysis and there is more cultist fans of the K340 than people not loving them... The main criticisms were: mismatch between the electret and dynamic cell and contamination between mids and bass...

The very well known Tyll Hertzens said exactly that : mismatch between drivers and boominess...But i read many, many others reviews with more positive reaction and no words about the mismatch and the boominess save few people...

I respect Tyll but i read even the patent of Dr. Gorike the physicist founder of AKG  to figure out how this headphone worked... After all it is the most celebrated piece of AKG ... I owned the K701 and it is "unnatural" sound completely... The K701 was celebrated for years...Not by me...

I must say now that almost all headphones for me are not well designed acoustically and i know it by experience and by my experiments with the K340...

I described all this because we must analyse the more reviews possible...but in the headphone case reviews are misleading, because very, very few headphones are good acoustically... Most people dont even know why...They never listen to a really good headphone with a speaker like  holographic sound  , ethereal highs, and baqs that shake my body as with subs...

Now why Tyll, an expert reviewer of headphones miss the K340 ?

Because like most reviewers he does not created a system around them to serve them , he reviewed them ,  one after the other,  right out of the box without even knowing and learning how to use  this complex headphone peculiarities... And he does not realized that the only hybrid ever designed with success and generating cultish love for 40 years need to be LEARNED before being evaluated ... And he did not realized because he never listen to an hybrid that the sound impression will be completely different...The brain must take notice of it...  We must learn how to listen a new product, especially a verty complex headphone...Hard to drive and impossible to optimize if we dont understand why this resonators inside are there and what is this dual chamber inside etc... It takes me 6 months to eliminate the boominess and the supposed mismatch which i perceived the first day as Tyll described....... i put 6 modifications...And this diamond shine now astonishingly...For example i opened it and put two types of vibration control materials , i tried 5 pads...i discover the good one with the right dimension...i cut off the thick plastic grid inside that protect the driver ( AKG put it to protect the product not for S.Q. at all ) Etc...

Now this lesson was for me : never trust any SINGLE reviewer.... Trust a large numbers who will reveal in their own way if we analyse their language for each acoustic factor what the product can do...

I read a review by another expert in Israel by the way, a very serious dude, expert in headphone optimization,  who transformed and optimizeed the K340 ... He give to them almost a maximal note of excellence... This compensated for the negative Tyll review in my mind and convince me after the lost of my speakers/room that i can also myself  put the K340 to his top level ...( it take me 6 months each day of listening experiments in my 10 months absence from audiogon)

No reviewer even very competent one own the truth by himself alone  ... We must analyse many reviews...

We dont read reviews about an amplifier the same way we read reviews about meals and movies at all ...😁😊 Acoustic concepts are not food cooking or about "taste"...Nor movie genre...

With gear components we identifies what each listener say about, dynamic, timbre, transients, soundfield imaging and soundstaging, with what kind of gear his impressions are build , what are the musical albums used , what type of room...Etc and especially we pay attention to what he does not speak about.. We put them on a paper... After each reviews we add a column...

Statistics here means only that 35 reviews analysed is better than 5....The acoustic factors at play for the analysis had nothing to do with the 35 five different personnalities who created their own reviews...( except for common place fact as : we dont analyse review of people loving heavy metal to pick a balance headphone )

The point here is that if so many DIFFERENT people with DIFFERENT taste CONVERGE in impressions about each acoustic factors then you can believe it as a PROBABLE fact...

What the tastes of a single reviewer are MEANS nothing, because we analyse each acoustic factors written ideally by 35 different people, THATS THE POINT... ...

It is evident that even if someone has the same taste as me in music it does not means that the shape of his ears, the distance between his ears, the different components he was using, and in a very different room than mine all factors that differentiate him from me will help in a lesser way for a good pick up choice of gear than analysing the highest numbers of opinions possible about bass, timbre, highs, imaging, soundstage, transients ...This is so evident that i will not go further...

But if we are lazy we can read a reviewer or two we like and if they say this is very good, we can belive it....For sure... But it is not my general idea about reviews analysis...

And opposing the "similar taste" factor to my "statistics" is preposterous, because my point of view INCLUDE even taste of the reviewers but it is not the main factor at all , acoustic factors are the main one... we can even rank reviewers by our favorable opinion about their teste... ( I generally exclude heavy metal listener opinions or electronical music)...

I pick the Sansui amplifier and my AKG K340 as i described...Complete success...

One review means NOTHING ...Nevermind the reviewer...

Reviews are only meaningful in their statistical numbers...

Then you compare them for ALL acoustics factors...

You decode each word associated with each factors...

Then the most important part is to read what is missing, what is not there...

The text of a review say half the story, the other half is missing or between the lines...

I applied this method for all my purchase...

I made few errors when i underestimated my own ignorance and when i fail to spot  my unidentified needs,,,Not because of the reviews analysis ...

Then BEFORE reading reviews identify your real needs...

If you read reviews without precise needs you will be tempted to upgrade foolishly most of the times...

In one word : reviewers dont matter, only the sheer numbers of reviews for a product to be ANALYSED...This method for sure is valid for well known products not obscure one...

Then there is no need even to listen to it before buying it ... Anyway i cannot and could not listen before buying...This is the reason i developed this simple but efficient method...But my field work was reading analysis... 😊