|
Bronze Member Username: BlazerPost Number: 90 Registered: Feb-04 | Has anyone else noticed that most equipment reviews have a positive spin to them? It's as if a magazine is afraid of offending the manufactuer for add revenue reasons. Every review seems to end with "if you are looking for xxx, then this product deserves a very close look." What the heck does that mean?? Does Audioholics really love Denon? Does anyone know reviewers we can trust with a truly objective opinion? |
|
Bronze Member Username: Uback007Post Number: 19 Registered: Mar-06 | I wholeheartedly agree! It's interesting to say the least when they say stuff like, "aside from the fact that this unit really sounds opaque and does not flesh out overtones to an accectable level, we highly recommmend this unit- it would serve well in the parlor of a hearing impaired senior citizen.. Glad I'm not the only one that has noticed this. Coby |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 8209 Registered: May-04 | " ... this unit really sounds opaque and does not flesh out overtones ... " That's not negative? The reviewers tell you what problems they hear and you are supposed to pay attention to those points. Then put the product description into the categories which you value and can live without. I've read reviews for almost forty years and the tenor of the writing has gone through several phases and fads in that time. Stereo Review, which has now become Sound and Vision, had a policy under Julian Hirsch of ending all reviews with the declaration every product represented a reasonable value. This is literally what spawned the subjective review magazines pioneered by J. Gordon Holt after he left Stereo Review. Seeking to balance the ledger sheets, for a while the subjective magazines pointed out the minor amounts of glare and hardness exhibited by a component between 2515Hz and 2558Hz when playing oboe recordings. This bit of ridiculousness could effectively kill sales of a product. Reviewers all have their personalities and it is a reader's task to decide who among them appeals to their tastes and sensibilities. Ignore the rest or take their words with less weight attached. Today you can find The Absolute Sound's reviewers subjugating all of their opinions to HP. Sam Tellig takes a very different approach to informing the reader than Art Dudley does. The Brits can still go off on tangents of inconsequential bits which resolve into major differences of subjective value. No one reviewer will appeal to all readers any more than any one piece of equipment can manage that same task. Finally, most equipment that gets to a review stage in any publication has enough quality to warrant a closer look. To the uninformed listener, most of the components which are reviewed by Stereophile would produce agreeable, and very likely similar, sound quality. The task is to find enough about any one component to suggest to the world weary audiophile just what this component accomplishes, good and bad. Every component is a series of trade offs and the reviewers focus mostly on the areas of strengths and weaknesses. While one component might have flaws which would disturb one listener, those same faults might be largely overlooked by another person who hears only the benefits of a particular design. What suits one person will find disfavor with many others and vice versa. So this becomes a choice of harping on the faults of a design and writing a negative review or playing to the strengths of the design. How many articles do you want to read where the outcome is dismal? Look at the equipment owned by the forum members. There are more than enough systems I wouldn't want to listen to and I suspect many would find my system lacking in areas they value. Yet each system satisfies its owner to a lesser or greater extent depending on how far from the purchase date you are. Gentlemen, I do not wish this to sound like a scolding, but you need to hone your reading skills in this area. My suggestion would be you take a product you own, and have some degree of familiarity with, and write a short review of the product. I doubt there are any of us who haven't thought of the weak points of whatever we own. Write a review which is thorough and fair to both sides of the argument and post it on the forum. Experience the other side before complaining about their approach to diplomacy. I would hope it would be an eye opening experience. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Uback007Post Number: 21 Registered: Mar-06 | o..............k................ |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 3002 Registered: Feb-05 | I agree with Jan. I actually enjoy reading the reviews in "The Absolute Sound" and "Stereophile". I don't take them as religion I just read and enjoy. Over the years I've found reviewers who have similar tastes as mine and feel that I can trust. Others often make entertaining reading even if I rarely agree with them. Whether it be Art Dudley, Wayne Garcia, Jonathan Valin or whomever it's just fun to read their take on products that you are familiar with or are interested in knowing more about. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 2111 Registered: Dec-04 | So I should take all of my kit into consideration, analyse the traits that I can identify, use my own music as a resource, round it all out in Nuck writing, and expose all of you to the outcome? Are you Nuts? Maybe just remove one of your own Organs for entertainment. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 8225 Registered: May-04 | Nuck - I advocate introspection not immolation. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 2114 Registered: Dec-04 | And considering I had to look up at least one of those words, NO might have been operative enough. But I might. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 2115 Registered: Dec-04 | The 'wave after wave' effect has never seemed so effective to me, for literate purposes, although I do love a good word, well placed. I'll be back. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 8227 Registered: May-04 | We know. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Uback007Post Number: 24 Registered: Mar-06 | Jan, you are right about what you said. I stand corrected. Quick question: do you like the Outlaw 2150 or the Nad 720bee... I am looking at each...dont have a lot to spend...any help would be appreciated... |
|
Bronze Member Username: BlazerPost Number: 91 Registered: Feb-04 | I'll re-phrase. How many reviews have you seen that DO NOT recommend a product? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that most reviews have a "positive spin" to them. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 3005 Registered: Feb-05 | Most reviews do have a positive spin, then again they often choose products they are interested in to review. It only stands to reason then that many reviews end up on the positive side. I must say though that a good many reviews are conditionally positive and lately I've read a couple that ended by saying that the product was not recommended. |
|
Gold Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 1287 Registered: Sep-04 | There was a time when HiFi+ used to say they would simply never publish a 'bad' review. They felt that if they didn't like a product, then they simply wouldn't review it, but they wouldn't want to besmirch its reputation since others may find it rewarding. After all, the designer must like it! This policy seems to have changed since I have seen at least one unfavourable review in that publication. Personally I see little point in reviewing a product unfavourably. There are loads of products out there that need reviewing, so why give product placement space and time when the product doesn't deserve it? In my view, if a product is sub-par then it simply shouldn't get a mention. There is no review that will not say something nice about a product so better to stay schtum I think. If you've never heard of it, you're less likely to buy it blind and more likely to insist on a demo when introduced to it. Also, I have seen positive reviews for all kinds of kit that I really dislike. I have also seen negative reviews of kit I really like! regards, Frank. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 8231 Registered: May-04 | Stereophile has just done two bad reviews in the last two months. I'll dig them out so you can read what a bad review looks like. CU - Sorry, I'll have to let someone else handle product recommendation as I've not heard the amplifiers you refer to. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 8233 Registered: May-04 | One review I was thinking of was in the February issue, so the comments have appeared in the last three months. Look for the comments on the Jasmine Audio LP2.0 phono pre amp in the "Analog Corner" section of the magazine. The final sentence of the commentary reads, "Perhaps there was something wrong with this unit from the get-go, but what's inside the LP 2.0, and what is must cost to make, do not justify its price, I feel." In the April issue Michael Fremer suggests the AuidoValve Baldur amplifier is also overpriced, out matched by the competition and generally sounds somewhat lousy. A few months ago The Absolute Sound reviewed both the McIntosh MC275 reissue and the Quad II Classic. Both of these amplifiers are classic designs and have a reputation for quality that has extended over forty years. Both are amplifiers which many audiophiles remember as the first great amplifier they ever heard. The Mac got a glowing review and the commentary ended with the suggestion that this was the amplifier to buy if you're in the market for a tube power amplifier. The Mac has been updated slightly from its original design to accomodate modern construction techniques and sells for approximately what an original 275 would get on the market, about $4k. The Quad is an effort at recreating what was sold in the early 1960's and shows the quality of the design but also the limitations of the construction at that time. And in trying to reproduce the old school techniques and parts. The Quad was finally suggested as an interesting experiment if you want "classic" tube sound but was not given a buying recommendation for any other reason. The commentary did, however, make clear that the classic tube sound the Quad reproduced was exceptionally interesting in some areas, just not enough to make it a valid contender against today's products. So good and bad. There are a few examples of what I would consider negative reviews. TAS reviewed a Channel Islands amplifier this month and suggested another manufacturer's product was what they would buy instead. Several years ago an AC line conditioner was raked over the coals by one of the magazines and the ensuing battle over its quality was debated for many months in the letters section. Negative and less than glowing reviews exist. They are not frequent since the magazine's subscription base would shrink rapidly if every issue proclaimed "World's Worst CD player - Ever!!!" on each month's cover. I understand the reviews can be seen as a bit hypocritical when each product is "the best" the reviewer has ever had in their room. But from the beginning, all of the subjective magazines have provided the disclaimer that everyone should listen for themself before making a purchase. The objectivist magazines always end in a positive review as they believe all products which measure the same will sound the same. To give any item a glowing review and then suggest another is unworthy would be antithetical to their cause. So you will see them criticize or praise the feel or heft of a remote control as a reason to consider the product under "review". |
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pittIrvington, New York USA Post Number: 1122 Registered: May-05 | Here's a great article explaining what goes into the review process, who's what's why's and how's. http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/why/why.html |
|
Silver Member Username: ChitownPost Number: 936 Registered: Apr-05 | One problem with these reviews, much like auto reviews is that they can only review what they see for the limited period of time they have the product. They can't tell what happens after some time. I'm not just talking about burn-in factor, but qc factors. You can generalize that say NAD's have had qc issues in the past 7 years and thus unit x that sounds really good may have issues as well, but they can't be absolute about it. To me good sounding audio much like a car must work without failure for a good 4 years in order to be worthwhile. That will be hard to tell in a one week review. |
|
Gold Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 1299 Registered: Sep-04 | Trust me - these guys get to play with the kit for months on end. I have had to wait for very long periods while a new model was at a reviewer's house. However, I take your point about QC and more importantly, production variation. Regards, Frank. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 2132 Registered: Dec-04 | Absolute punishment, having to live with various new releases of equipment for months on end. Does the UN Human Rights Council know about this? |
|
Bronze Member Username: BlazerPost Number: 93 Registered: Feb-04 | Here is an interesting take I found on another thread about equipment reviews: Reviewers almost never say anything bad. However, they do know how to use euphemisms, consciously or unconsciously. Here is a list on popular euphemisms and catch phrases and what they usually really mean: Detailed midrange - bright Not mellow, but smooth - bright Lively - really bright Revealing - Really, REALLY bright Forward treble - My ears are on fire Extremely detailed midrange - harsh Detailed treble - peaky treble Tuneful bass - small peak in the 50-100Hz range Punchy bass - huge bass peak in the 50-100Hz range Dynamic - aggressive Needs lots of power (despite high efficiency) - really sounds bad You'd have to spend considerably more.... - average at best I slightly prefer...... - I definitely wouldn't buy these Not my cup of tea - I HATE these speakers As good as speakers costing 2-3 times as much - I'm completely full of crap and I hate my job Slight - enormous Ripe bass - boomy and slow Sounds best in large rooms - REALLY boomy Musical - colored and inaccurate Not for rock - no bass, can't handle power, gets brighter as volume goes up Civilized - tilted down sound Almost too accurate - tilted up sound and/or bright A bit forward - I now have tinninitus But my favorite remains - "A fantastic speaker, but ONLY when driven by the finest electronics and ancillary equipment" - This speaker bites, but at least it's expensive. Here are descriptions you hear that are generally good and usually mean more or less what it sounds like it means: Precise Natural Neutral Seamless Controlled Clear Transparent Open Non-fatiguing Deep Low level detail |
|
Bronze Member Username: BlazerPost Number: 94 Registered: Feb-04 | I'd like to thank John Ashman for finally bringing to light what I and so many other enthusiasts have been discovering... Here is a review that *perfectly* illustrates why a) reviewers are completely full of crap and b) you should never trust them. This is from a B&W 802D review in TAS. I was just scanning it when I came on the following quotes that had my jaw just drop. See if you can find what's wrong with these quotes:Quote: The next thing that struck me was the lack of brightness. The previous Nautilus line was notorious for letting you know when you did not have the best of equipment upstream, and this often translated into bright, smeared highs......[lots of additional stupidity removed]......Listening to Billy Holiday's Lady in Satin was a revelation. This is not the best recording and it can sound harsh and lacking in low-end weight, with strident highs. Though the 802Ds, though, this recording was transformed, sounding smoother, clearer and more realistic. By removing treble sibilance, the speaker made the listening experience much more balanced, so that subtle, previously unheard details emerged from the music. That's *one* part of the insanity, but it goes on: Quote: B&W's Kevlar midrange driver is excellent, its only flaw being an occasional chestiness that can be heard on some vocals. This is probably a result of the stiffness of the Kevlar cone, as the paper cones on my KEF Reference Series speakers create softer, more delicate textures. The Kevlar diaphragm, although stiffer and more accurate than a paper one, is less forgiving, and can sound just a bit harder. Okay, in that one, there are at least 2 or 3 really *dumb* statements, if anyone cares to take a stab at them. I remain dumbfounded, but not as surprised as I'd like to be. Nothing to do with B&W here, just the sheer stupidity of the reviewer (Manoj Motwani is apparently an eye surgeon, great credentials for a part-time audio reviewer, I always say.) BTW, allow me to translate into normal english: "I was shocked by the lack of brightness. B&Ws are notoriously bright, but only because of the lousy equipment and recordings most of us audiophiles use that makes them bright and smeared, not the speakers. Bill Holiday's recordings are also bright and and smeared. Except when I played them them through the 802Ds. Which somehow removed the distortion in the recordings and the equipment. I'm not sure how it did this because it was there. It must have been. Because the Nautilus speakers weren't bright, it was the recording. Except now the recordings sound smooth. I don't know how this could be, but it couldn't be that the Nautilus speakers. I'm thinking that the 802Ds must have secretly remastered my recordings and modified my gear not to suck. The 802Ds are more transparent, but they somehow removed the harshness. It's like the 802Ds are more transparent, but more forgiving of the gear and recording. It's an enigma" "Kevlar is great, but it sounds bad. Well not bad, just chesty. Paper sounds better, but it couldn't be because it's not as high-tech as Kevlar. I mean, Kevlar is more accurate because its stiffer. Well, not stiff because it's flexible, but you know what I mean, right? You can be stiff and flexible at the same time. Right? And, you know, it makes everything sound worse, but that's only because it's better." |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 8400 Registered: May-04 | Blazer - Don't ever read Moby Dick. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 2389 Registered: Dec-04 | I read all the liner notes from Moby. I must have missed the Dick cd. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 8401 Registered: May-04 | Liner notes from who? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 4163 Registered: Dec-03 | Nuck;- you probably just failed to spot it. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 2395 Registered: Dec-04 | Ahh... |