|
|
Post by firebottle on Dec 13, 2019 8:16:03 GMT
OK OK I know reviewers have got a job to do but some of the stuff they write is utter tosh. It's not difficult to engineer something with a very flat frequency response, or to achieve a very accurate RIAA equalisation. So when I read something like this I think 'oh dear': The xxxxx's wide open, glass-clear midband integrates smoothly with a strong bass and crisp, extended treble. This makes for a very neutral reading of whatever LP you care to play, with the unusual combination of a well lit and highly revealing upper midband, and a very low record surface noise.What? the? F? Well lit 'upper midband', did they fit the front panel LED's in the wrong place  Plus I though record surface noise performance was dependent on the stylus and cartridge. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 11:41:13 GMT
Have stopped reading magazine reviews for 2 years now. Most of them are BS!
S.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 11:54:17 GMT
OC9ML2.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 12:19:20 GMT
What a load of Argy Bargy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 12:54:16 GMT
I remember when a top audio journo had his speaker's on a different floor to his listening area and he had them facing the corners to make them sound right and then had a job reviewing hifi.
I kid you not.
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Dec 13, 2019 13:38:45 GMT
Ian Rankin famously admitted that he had written a couple of reviews without even taking the kit out of the box. He just didn't have the time to listen to it before it had to go back to the manufacturer.
|
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Dec 13, 2019 13:57:52 GMT
I remember when a top audio journo had his speaker's on a different floor to his listening area and he had them facing the corners to make them sound right and then had a job reviewing hifi. I kid you not. Jimmy H? |
|
|
|
Post by nonuffin on Dec 13, 2019 14:50:25 GMT
Speaking as a reviewer myself, I occupy an invidious position. You are forever treading a very fine line between pleasing the readers and pleasing the manufacturers, neither of which is an easy task, trust me.
My editor was very pleased when approached by Tannoy and I was assigned to review some of their lower order speakers. I noted a peculiarity about one of their floorstanders in my review and you could hear the noise from Tannoy when the review was published, with several ugly emails arriving in my inbox. It was more an observation than an outright condemnation, but we never heard from Tannoy again. I moaned about the speaker terminals on the Cyrus One and that too had some unpleasantness attached, even though Facebook members went wild when they read it and said thanks for writing a negative review.
Might write for a knitting magazine as it could be safer and less contentious.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 14:52:38 GMT
I remember when a top audio journo had his speaker's on a different floor to his listening area and he had them facing the corners to make them sound right and then had a job reviewing hifi. I kid you not. Jimmy H? Correct. 👍 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 14:54:48 GMT
Speaking as a reviewer myself, I occupy an invidious position. You are forever treading a very fine line between pleasing the readers and pleasing the manufacturers, neither of which is an easy task, trust me. My editor was very pleased when approached by Tannoy and I was assigned to review some of their lower order speakers. I noted a peculiarity about one of their floorstanders in my review and you could hear the noise from Tannoy when the review was published, with several ugly emails arriving in my inbox. It was more an observation than an outright condemnation, but we never heard from Tannoy again. I moaned about the speaker terminals on the Cyrus One and that too had some unpleasantness attached, even though Facebook members went wild when they read it and said thanks for writing a negative review. Might write for a knitting magazine as it could be safer and less contentious. So it's true that they try to please the manufacturers. From the horse's mouth . We always suspected it obviously . So there's no such thing as an unbiased review then . |
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,400
Member is Online
|
Post by Bigman80 on Dec 13, 2019 15:39:39 GMT
Speaking as a reviewer myself, I occupy an invidious position. You are forever treading a very fine line between pleasing the readers and pleasing the manufacturers, neither of which is an easy task, trust me. My editor was very pleased when approached by Tannoy and I was assigned to review some of their lower order speakers. I noted a peculiarity about one of their floorstanders in my review and you could hear the noise from Tannoy when the review was published, with several ugly emails arriving in my inbox. It was more an observation than an outright condemnation, but we never heard from Tannoy again. I moaned about the speaker terminals on the Cyrus One and that too had some unpleasantness attached, even though Facebook members went wild when they read it and said thanks for writing a negative review. Might write for a knitting magazine as it could be safer and less contentious. So it's true that they try to please the manufacturers. From the horse's mouth . We always suspected it obviously . So there's no such thing as an unbiased review then . Let's be fair here, I am pretty sure that if every manufacturer sent goods to be reviewed, and the absolute "no holds barred truth" was spoken, there wouldn't be anything available to be reviewed, after. There are only a handful of people I've ever met who were willing to send me a sample to be judged and those guys got honest feedback about their gear. I'm no reviewer, but even the opportunity to critique certain pieces has passed me by, due to the worry of what I'd say. It's a well know fact that you can't a review totally seriously when it's in a mag. That's no dig BTW, it was just obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Dec 13, 2019 15:44:12 GMT
He loved Tangent RS4's (so did I), Bose 901's and of course he did get great sounds in his split level room with is active Isobariks, even before he went all solid core and modified his three Krell KSA 50's. Last time I visited many years back sadly, we went to a small jazz gig in the nearby Barbican Foyer. I tried to get him to compare the very close and 'direct' sound at this little gig to the distant and amorphous sounds he was getting at home, but he wasn't having any of it. I left his place despondent and in any event, our lives diverged into ladies and marriage not long after and we eventually lost touch. I'm still very fond of the guy though - a real gent and fascinating to talk to (yep, someone who wouldn't always let me get a word in edgeways  ) |
|
|
|
Post by nonuffin on Dec 13, 2019 16:26:43 GMT
Speaking as a reviewer myself, I occupy an invidious position. You are forever treading a very fine line between pleasing the readers and pleasing the manufacturers, neither of which is an easy task, trust me. My editor was very pleased when approached by Tannoy and I was assigned to review some of their lower order speakers. I noted a peculiarity about one of their floorstanders in my review and you could hear the noise from Tannoy when the review was published, with several ugly emails arriving in my inbox. It was more an observation than an outright condemnation, but we never heard from Tannoy again. I moaned about the speaker terminals on the Cyrus One and that too had some unpleasantness attached, even though Facebook members went wild when they read it and said thanks for writing a negative review. Might write for a knitting magazine as it could be safer and less contentious. So it's true that they try to please the manufacturers. From the horse's mouth . We always suspected it obviously . So there's no such thing as an unbiased review then . It is true also that reviewers also try to please the readers and I challenge anyone to please both and STILL be a reviewer whose opinions trade and readers take as the truth. Conversely, if you displease either one you are out of a job, it's as simple as that.
Although I intensely dislike the reviewerspeak that most of us are guilty of, it does make you realise the real limitations of the english language so you have to resort to it regardless. Try and deviate from those boundaries and your reviews become gobbledegook that the average readers don't understand, sadly.
The only other option I ever had was to refuse to review the duffers and by heck there has been a good few of those.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 17:09:01 GMT
He loved Tangent RS4's (so did I), Bose 901's and of course he did get great sounds in his split level room with is active Isobariks, even before he went all solid core and modified his three Krell KSA 50's. Last time I visited many years back sadly, we went to a small jazz gig in the nearby Barbican Foyer. I tried to get him to compare the very close and 'direct' sound at this little gig to the distant and amorphous sounds he was getting at home, but he wasn't having any of it. I left his place despondent and in any event, our lives diverged into ladies and marriage not long after and we eventually lost touch. I'm still very fond of the guy though - a real gent and fascinating to talk to (yep, someone who wouldn't always let me get a word in edgeways ) Must admit, I liked the original Bose 901 too. The later ported ones were not as good. |
|
|
|
Post by sq225917 on Dec 13, 2019 17:51:59 GMT
Alan has it spot on, the midband is either lit, or the riaa is ruler flat, it cant be both. Perhaps ehe reviewer should have said, the riaa is ruler flat which compared to the frequency saddled shite I usually listen to, makes the midband sounds refreshingly present.
|
|
|
|
Post by firebottle on Dec 13, 2019 18:21:49 GMT
Well the spec says
Equalisation Accuracy:
+/- 0.1dB
That's really why I questioned the gobbledygook that was written in the review.
|
|
|
|
Post by sq225917 on Dec 13, 2019 19:28:29 GMT
I always to explain an opinion that seems at odds with the evidence when I read one. Usually tbetes a nub on common sense in there, you just have to find the perspective.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2019 23:50:30 GMT
"I don't want to send them back"
|
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Dec 14, 2019 6:04:05 GMT
At the end of the day there are only so many descriptions of the sound one can come up with. When I read a review of something that is of interest to me, I try and get an overhaul impression of whether or not it will suit my listening needs.
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Dec 14, 2019 11:13:32 GMT
For a long time now I've just looked at the measurements. At least that's factual. Okay so that won't necessarily tell you if it will work with the rest of your stuff, or if you will like what it does, but it is a solid starting point on deciding what to try. Then get a home demo, buy it on sale or return by mail order, or buy it second hand for a price where you won't lose money if it doesn't work out.
Subjective reviews are usually just waffle. Reminds me of doing English at school where you would have to write 2000 words about a poem or something. All subjective so it didn't matter what you wrote as long as there was enough of it to fill the requirement. I got to where I could do it on autopilot.
The only time I pay attention is if they actually say what they didn't like about the item. Everything has its flaws, but nowadays reviews are usually just 100% puff-pieces.
|
|
|
|
Post by nonuffin on Dec 14, 2019 12:10:56 GMT
The only time I pay attention is if they actually say what they didn't like about the item. Everything has its flaws, but nowadays reviews are usually just 100% puff-pieces. Every reviewer I know uses a benchmark standard and usually begins their evaluation from that starting point, but the real problem is the bar has been raised over the last few years where there is very few components that are so bad they drop below that reference starting point and those few that do, don't get reviewed at all hence why the gear that does get reviewed is using the same set of words but not necessarily in the same order each time, meaning it has almost been wrapped in literary greyness and hence the perception by the readers that there is nothing new to be said. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Dec 14, 2019 12:29:51 GMT
The only time I pay attention is if they actually say what they didn't like about the item. Everything has its flaws, but nowadays reviews are usually just 100% puff-pieces. Every reviewer I know uses a benchmark standard and usually begins their evaluation from that starting point, but the real problem is the bar has been raised over the last few years where there is very few components that are so bad they drop below that reference starting point and those few that do, don't get reviewed at all hence why the gear that does get reviewed is using the same set of words but not necessarily in the same order each time, meaning it has almost been wrapped in literary greyness and hence the perception by the readers that there is nothing new to be said. When HI Fi World first started they would give bad reviews. Off the top of my head I can recall damning reviews of Pentachord, Canon, Celestion and Goodmans products, there were certainly a few more. After a couple of years that stopped. People complained that everything was getting rave reviews and their defence was that they only had room in the mag for good stuff, there was no point reviewing the poor equipment and if they received something they didn't like they just sent it back. The problem with this approach is that, rightly or wrongly, the credibility of the published reviews is called into question. I'm also sceptical of their defence as the big problem for any editor is finding enough worthwhile content to fill the pages each month (or whatever) not that they have too much content to publish. The basic idea in any business is to give the punter what they want, not what you think they want. That's why Audioscience Review has gone from nothing to a huge site in just a couple of years, because they call a spade a spade and no-one else is doing that. |
|
|
|
Post by nonuffin on Dec 14, 2019 13:38:18 GMT
Every reviewer I know uses a benchmark standard and usually begins their evaluation from that starting point, but the real problem is the bar has been raised over the last few years where there is very few components that are so bad they drop below that reference starting point and those few that do, don't get reviewed at all hence why the gear that does get reviewed is using the same set of words but not necessarily in the same order each time, meaning it has almost been wrapped in literary greyness and hence the perception by the readers that there is nothing new to be said. When HI Fi World first started they would give bad reviews. Off the top of my head I can recall damning reviews of Pentachord, Canon, Celestion and Goodmans products, there were certainly a few more. After a couple of years that stopped. People complained that everything was getting rave reviews and their defence was that they only had room in the mag for good stuff, there was no point reviewing the poor equipment and if they received something they didn't like they just sent it back. The problem with this approach is that, rightly or wrongly, the credibility of the published reviews is called into question. I'm also sceptical of their defence as the big problem for any editor is finding enough worthwhile content to fill the pages each month (or whatever) not that they have too much content to publish. The basic idea in any business is to give the punter what they want, not what you think they want. That's why Audioscience Review has gone from nothing to a huge site in just a couple of years, because they call a spade a spade and no-one else is doing that. I myself have had bad reviews published and suffered the flak that went with that. Like I said, one of them provoked a huge positive response on facebook, but the manufacturer got very nasty.
From a personal viewpoint I never wasted my time and effort slagging any crap products off to please the baying crowds who revelled in it. Because firstly I would contact the manufacturer to give them the opportunity to remedy the product (which many in fact did) and submit the updated item again, plus despite what you might think there has always been a lengthy queue in waiting for reviews to be carried out so there is never a gap in the schedules to lavish upon evaluating crap products anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Dec 14, 2019 16:17:39 GMT
Without the reviews of the crap, or at least of flawed products, the rave reviews lose all meaning. It's not about pleasing the baying crowds, although no-one ever lost money by giving the people what they want. (Except BMC with the Austin Mini and maybe a few other isolated examples where massively popular products were sold at a loss due to no-one at the company being able to add up  ). Even if a product measures perfectly and sounds subjectively good there is almost always something to criticise. The price/value, the build quality, the facilities, the styling, the manufacturer's poor reputation for reliability and/or customer service, where it was made (countries with poor labour relations and low wages etc). I'm surprised that there is so much new product queuing up for review. I mean I take your word for it, although I suppose if manufacturers are using reviewers as unpaid troubleshooters then it is maybe not so odd. |
|
|
|
Post by nonuffin on Dec 14, 2019 18:38:06 GMT
The only small light at the end of that dark tunnel Martin is that products that do not have a good review don't sell so well and that is even more brought to the fore when being sold on to second and subsequent users. Been studying that scenario for the past ten years or so with ebay sales and that is why shite like Musical Fidelity and other well known UK brands command such disproportionately high resale values. Familiarity is what commands the punter's spending decisions regrettably and the names they instantly recognise wins the day above the lesser known brands.
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,400
Member is Online
|
Post by Bigman80 on Dec 14, 2019 19:11:36 GMT
The only small light at the end of that dark tunnel Martin is that products that do not have a good review don't sell so well and that is even more brought to the fore when being sold on to second and subsequent users. Been studying that scenario for the past ten years or so with ebay sales and that is why shite like Musical Fidelity and other well known UK brands command such disproportionately high resale values. Familiarity is what commands the punter's spending decisions regrettably and the names they instantly recognise wins the day above the lesser known brands. Not In This house! But yes, you are spot on there. Familiar items usually sell fast regardless of how good they are. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Dec 15, 2019 11:08:41 GMT
Forum hype really helps too. My speakers got great reviews in Stereophile and HiFi Choice when they came out but I bought them for very little because forums say that Focals are bright and harsh and so no-one was interested in them.
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,400
Member is Online
|
Post by Bigman80 on Dec 15, 2019 11:11:59 GMT
Forum hype really helps too. My speakers got great reviews in Stereophile and HiFi Choice when they came out but I bought them for very little because forums say that Focals are bright and harsh and so no-one was interested in them. I still find that amazing. Saying that, larger speakers seem to be harder to sell generally. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Dec 15, 2019 11:13:00 GMT
yep just like big cars.
|
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Dec 15, 2019 17:03:26 GMT
One reviewer I do feel I understand a little, even if I don't always agree with his conclusions, has been Paul Messenger. I've met him a few times over the last forty years or so and always found him a quiet, personable and gentle-man and with known reference points on which to base his opinion. Once you know his reference points, the rest of his work has fallen into place quite well, for me anyway. Other reviewers have blown with the prevailing wind in comparison.
|
|
)
).