Which gear reviewers do you respect / trust?

Negative reviewers don't get gear on permanent loan.

 

What Hi Fi comes to mind. I'll put it this way - where as the general lack of negative reviews can lead some people to question the objectivity of the magazine, when you read a magazine long enough to see a pattern in how they pick winners and losers, then you REALLY start to ask questions.

 

The majors (including PS Audio, Classe, and Oppo) are making big mistakes with computer/networked audio. PS Audio, for example, sold their Network Bridge as a "state-of-the-art network server" (or something like that) for years, and no reviewer of the DAC it was sold with, of all the raves, ever noticed it wouldn't do gapless playback. But plenty of reviewers said how revolutionary, a DAC that hooks to a network. No gapless lets out an awful lot of music, in a lot of genres. Owners were coming after PS with pitchforks, and PS promised to fix it, but it took at least 2, maybe 3, years, and the fix was just a discount on a new product that worked right.

PS were hardly the only mfgr. to use this flawed chipset that apparently has been marketed as a turnkey DLNA solution for non-computer-savvy manufacturers. So YES, manufacturers are still making broken stuff still, but it's in the new areas of audio. And, IMO, the reviewing is particularly terrible in the field of computer audio. I think that if a reviewer can't test a product thoroughly, he or she shouldn't take on the review. Yes, that means a lot of extra stuff hanging around for those tests, but hey -- traditional audio reviewers seem to have drawers full of $5000 cables ready for such tests.

Please note: I am not specifically talking about your publication.

 

I neglected to mention Jeff Dorgay and Richard Austen in my earlier post. Dagogo and Tone Publications are more than worthwhile ways to get gear reviews!

 

Herb Reichert - every review is a magic carpet ride
Michael Lavorgna - like his computer audio gear review, love his music recommendations
Jack Roberts - if I could afford his recommendations I would buy 'em
Steve Guttenberg - friend to the budget audiophile
Jeff Day - everything he has recommended that I've listened to is a winner
Tim Smith - wish he would write more reviews
Ken Micallef - he has good taste in gear
Steve Lefkowicz - another friend of the audio cheapskates
Dr. John at CheapTubeAudio - more reviews please
Paul Candy at PFO and 6Moons

 

Really no one gets stuff on permanent loan anymore. The equipment is too expensive. Once you've established a reputation for returning stuff in a timely manner without damage, if you ask politely to have something for a few extra months, the request might be granted. Otherwise, everyone wants their stuff back. When you're talking gear that costs upwards of $10k, etc etc, they don't want to have a lot of B-Stock gear floating around. This might have been a bit wild and wooly back in the 80s and 90s, it's really not going on anymore.

If you aren't buying it, they want it back, especially since there are so many shows now. Most manufacturers can't afford to have six of the same pairs of speakers lying around reviewers homes and be shipping them to 5-10 shows per year as well.

Next time you go to a show, ask your favorite manufacturer how much gear is out on permanent loan. (because you probably don't believe me) I think you'll be surprised.

 

A lot of the bitching directed at Fremer for that Bryston review in Stereophile came from two directions : Bryston fanboys who congregate in a couple of audio forums and from the guys at Bryston themselves. They cried about the original review Fremer was going to print with until he and the magazine conceded to doing a supplementary review of an upgraded version of the same amps which Fremer found to be not much better. And there was much rending of clothes and gnashing of teeth... A lot of the kvetching over the review was based on Fremer's using his own amps at the time as a baseline to compare against the Brystons which cost a fraction of what Fremer's amps were worth. I will say this about Fremer's review, though : his observations and criticisms were spot on because I owned those amps.

D.D.

 

I enjoy Rob Sabin's work at Sound & Vision, which admittedly focuses on mid to upper-fi rather that high end. Very readable, with the added bonus of his knowledge of the video side of the A/V world.

 

Jeff, what about Robert Harley and Jonathan Valin at TAS? They always seem to have rooms full of the latest gear at their homes. I seriously doubt that they are putting up their own money for much of this equipment. Or is this simply 'long term loaners?'

 

I think if you look at what's in their "reference components" list, it changes about every 4 months. That's about all the longer these guys can commandeer a loan. And sometimes, it can go a year. I have certainly had some mfrs park a piece here for a year and in return, we've done "long term follow up" reviews, because the component that excites you in a demo may bring new things to light after a while longer. While I can't speak for Robert personally, I know he's said both in person and in print that in order for him to be at the cutting edge of "the absolute sound" he has to have the latest/greatest all the time and that can only be done on a loan basis. Personally, it's not my approach but I don't have a problem with it.

But if you look at guys like Michael Fremer, Jacob Heilbrunn, and a few others, they've made some pretty substantial investments out of their own pocket. I don't agree with Fremer on much, but the one thing I agree with him totally on is that if you're going to do this seriously, you need to have some skin in the game. One of the requirements for contributing to TONE is that you have to own your system. I can't comment on how everyone else does it, but again, I know that most of the serious reviewers own quite a bit of their own gear.

While some of you think that reviews are tainted because of loaned gear, again, that may have been the case in the 80s, but now with the internet, social media and so many forums like this, if a review isn't accurate and honest, the truth comes to light fairly quickly and that doesn't help anyone. Of course we need to sell a certain amount of advertising to keep the lights on and pay our staff, but tarted up reviews fail the manufacturer as well as the reader and only make for very short term success. It also diminishes our credibility.

The best review for me is when I get a note from a reader saying that they read our review, they auditioned the product, it performed as we described it, they bought it and enjoy it. At that point, everyone wins. I know what I'm talking about, our reader gets a great piece of gear that helps them to enjoy their music more than before and the manufacturer reaches another happy customer.

What's wrong with that?

 

I do agree with what you have stated. I'm not a big fan of Fremer but I will give him this. He does purchase his equipment and has said so on many occasions.

 

I like 6 moon audio reviews. An earlier post referenced a "pay to play" paradigm.

But at the head of the review the author notes any financial connection to the manufacturer.

Am I missing something?

 

I listen to anyone who is passionately interested in something and spend much time on it to grow but only trust myself in the end. Even if a specialist has a mountain of knowledge and technical insight is it not necessarily what I'm looking for, I may have simpler needs.

 

In July 2014 the editor announced that any company that wanted to have a piece of gear reviewed in the publication had to agree to pay for an ad first. (http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews2/why/why.html)

 

Is this weird? I read reviews occasionally but don't pay attention to the names of the reviewers.

 

None.

 

Only one: Arthur Salvatore.

If you want a great sounding system, his "entry level" page pretty much sums up the best of vintage audio. I've always followed his advice.

REFERENCE COMPONENTS-ENTRY LEVEL »

 

None these days. The few that remain are subjectivists, which of course can be relevant if you have similar tastes in music and the colorisation of it. Worse though is that they are often conflicted by advertisers and unashamedly dapple in psuedo-science and audio myths to back their beliefs. Stereophile and the absolute sound are the worst in this regard. Some of their reviewers border on crankster.

I did have a lot of respect for Peter Aczel at the Audio Critic but unfortunately, they have folded now that Peter has retired.

It is a pity as this was one of the better review publications that combined subjective testing with objectivity, evidence and sound engineering technical discussions, free from the advertiser sponsored marketing, snake oil and woo you get with many of the others. I also liked that they tested and provided specifications and measurements of gear under review rather than relying on the manufacturer's marketing departments. They also pulled gear apart to comment on build and quality of parts and whether consumers are getting value for money. Their review of CD releases were also helpful in identifying the very well mastered recordings (if classical music appeals to you).

With the decommissioning of the publication they have provided free download access to some of their early 1990s reviews. It is worth a look.

Downloads »

Btw, I like Roger Sander's approach to the high end industry and their reviewers as he discusses in this interview.

Mono and Stereo High-End Audio Magazine: Interview with Roger Sanders »

 

Stereophile once was a respectable magazine back in the Holt days. Back then they tempered subjectivity with objective measurements and their technical discussions were not based on pseudo-science. I haven't read one of their mags for a couple decades now but you still Atkinson's name crop up on various forums and usually not complimentary. The greatest read I had from him was when he (and his staff) took up the Carver amplifier challenge and lost. Far from being gracious about it, they later took every opportunity to rubbish Carver and his products which resulted in Carver suing him.
Bob Carver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia »

 

Please forgive this late reply but I have been on vacation doing my other favorite hobby which has been playing Texas Hold-em. I can't reply to all your points because well I am very tired and fading. But I want to latch onto some major points you have made. Virtually none, I repeat none, of the reviewers in the audio industry are journalists. In fact, I can't name you three than have actual journalism degrees - truthfully not one.

In fact I have taken Stereophile's John Atkinson to task several times because he calls reviewers who work for him "professional reviewers" but the word professional is a bit of a slippery slope. One can take that to mean someone who works for a living - thus if I make a living as a burger flipper at McDonalds I suppose I am a professional burger flipper, but the old meaning (and to me still the current meaning) is that people should belong to a profession. A profession has standards. Audio Reviewing has absolutely NONE. JA can hire anyone he likes but in a professional body like teaching - if another teacher sees me doing something unprofessional then a board of my peers can basically sit in judgement of my wrong doing (teacher union) and fire my ass. But that doesn't go with Audio Reviewing.

I was picked up by my forum writing and a couple of outfits contacted me and here I am. I am a teacher - I have professional training and a BA in English and History (although I always point out that my English degree is a Lit degree and not a composition writing degree). As you can tell from my numerous grammatical errors I am also not particularly fond of going back and checking for errors. I am a two finger typist and type as it comes into my head.

I didn't get anywhere with John Atkinson on the notion of professionalism. People can write Codes of Ethics but heck governments write constitutions that leaders rarely follow. So You can have a group of honest ethical people operating with said ethics - or you can have an outfit that has written the code of ethics but they're not followed. John Atkinson likes to argue that his magazine is the best because they have a Chinese Wall between marketing and writing etc - but as I pointed out - he has fired reviewers for being unethical in the past.

On the one hand that is good - he acted when someone was being unethical - but it didn't stop the unethical behavior - the person got away with it for a long time. Who is to say that someone else isn't also unethical but better at not being caught.

Take dagogo reviewers. None of us get paid. So it is largely a group of audiophiles who write about what they like. So we can be faulted in the sense that we're not paid - and therefore "not professionals" versus someone who takes a few bucks for reviewing. But the easy counter to this is that we're not relying on a paycheque to say something nice. I don't get paid - so there is no due dates and no pressure to get something written. The pros and cons go back and forth but whether Stereophile likes to admit it or not they have the same gaping holes that all the e-zines have. They have to sell magazines and they have to get advertising space to subsidize it. Let's say for the sake of argument that only .01% of the audio industry was truly great. The magazines would all fold if this were the case. You'd basically have three companies get good reviews and everything else would get thrashed - the magazines would all go out of business.

So they need the manufacturers. And to be blunt I don't like most stuff. Which is why I barely review anything. Which is fine. They hire 10 other people and each person has their own ideas of what they like.

You see the magazines like casinos simply find the right person for the right game(product). Some guys are tried and true gear heads - they just want to cycle through as much stuff as is possible and they may genuinely love everything. These are perfect reviewers for the magazine and the audio industry IMO. They may be good for the consumer too I can't say. I am in the worst sort because I generally dislike SS amplifiers and virtually the entirety of what the mainstream puts out - home theater slim line speaker designs, which is at least 90% of the speakers sold.

But a magazine can't have people like me ripping it all because they'd close down. So I'd never work at the mainstream audio magazines. I simply don't like enough stuff.

Another point about manufacturer and reviewer or editor is true. Musical Fidelity has a standing relationship with Stereophile that if some other company pulls out of a reviewer for whatever reason they have Musical Fidelity products to "Go to" in order to fill the need for their monthly print. JA has been upfront about this - I don't blame him for all the MF reviews but it's hard for people to not see a "too close" relationship. The fact is there is human contact and people like or dislike people and that can get into the mix.

I have met the guys at Audio Note and their owner. I own their gear. I felt hugely uncomfortable at an audio show when I went to the restaurant and their dealer invited me over to sit with them. It's precisely because from a professional standpoint in my field I know how that looks - whether it is based in fact or not - it has the appearance of a conflict of interest. It was also uncomfortable because I didn't care for the sound at the show even though I am an owner of some of it. The fact is - I worry about stuff like that. It's when you have reviewers who don't that is the problem - they'll take the free meal - or in fact expect the free meal.

And since you the reader have absolutely no idea which reviewer worries and which reviewers have expectations of whatever freebies whether it be products or meals or watches - then you really have to treat audio "journalism" as audio infotainment. Personally I would not hold audio reviewers in any higher regard than movie reviewers. You find a film critic who has similar sensibilities and you take their advice. In audio much like politics, things are fairly polarized and people tend to read and place more value with reviewers who hear it like they do. So for me I read Wes Philips, Art Dudley, Herb Reichert, Martin Colloms, Fred Crowder etc. And the guys who like stuff I would not touch with a barge pole and can't understand how they could possibly like the stuff they like - I rarely read.

And the big problem is that all the wonderful virtuous vocabulary has been so overspent on such banal tired unlistenable poo that it is next to impossible to say that something is so much more "awesomer" than the poo. We have devalued the entire review industry where greatness is put upon the mediocre. And real greatness will go awash the sea of the banal.

 

I like the reviews over at Stereomojo, James Darby and others. I have read reviews over there that stated the components sounded bad when they thought so.

 

Maybe that's why they seem to review so few components. Mfgs won't take a chance. Cable & music reviews don't count.

 

Yea your probably right, Darby just sold his company and is retired now, that's why the site has been slow with new reviews, I think it's gonna ramp up when the party's over.

 

how can stereophile class ratings have any value when they say themselves that they rate the gear over period of time without even using the same gear or comparing the gear together.
everybody know how aural memories are unreliable. its fraudulous and dishonest for customer that they build their ratings and class using such unreliable methods. " oh yeah, speaker a is much better then speaker b that ive heard two years ago with a differnt dac and amp". what a joke!

for example, kef ls50 is class a. atc scm7 class c. kef ls50 and scm7 were compared in hifichoice test group and scm7 won.

so how can stereophile speak so highly of the ls50 and so modestly of atc scm7? my suspicion is the ratings and class are paid advertisement. its fraudulous tbh.

 

Seems to me speakers can be like "media darlings", you here so much about them and then "poof" nothing. Tekton speakers come to mind as well the LS50, kind of "what have you done for me lately thing in our hobby and in the review rags.