That's how I feel whenever I read reviews on C|Net by Steve Guttenberg and other audiophile review sites. Being hyperbolic, using flowery language, not being critical enough or publish real-life test results are some key red flags I read online. These people are not to be trusted since they act like gatekeepers or used by others in Internet arguments (logical fallacy: Appeal to Authority). The same deal can be said for those defending junk players by YouTubers and other social media "influencers" since as I mentioned before, all they care about is the money and fame.
I like hearing a diverse range of opinions, but I like hearing a diverse range of equipment much more. Trust? That's got to be earned and for me guys like Ken Kessler, Mikey Fremer, Martin Colloms and Art Dudley have spent years earning it.
A few thoughts I have on the subject of reviewers include that I look for a consensus of positive reviews on a component, which I will then audition if that is what I am looking for. I used this approach when I purchased my Parks Audio Budgie, BlueSound Node2 streamer, Line Magnetic LM-502ca DAC, Revel M20 speakers etc... In other instances I may have read many comments by a particular reviewer and find myself respecting their opinion. The primary reason I chose a KingKo Audio KA-101 amp for my first tube amplifier was based on the review in dagogo and many positive comments by @Richard Austen... I continue to enjoy the KingKo, thanks Richard. I share the view of @Daedalus that I less frequently see reviews about components from brands that do not place ads compared to those that do. I suppose this makes common sense from a business perspective, but it does raise a red-flag for me as a reader of the review. I think any person, buying anything, should take the advice of someone who stands to gain from the transaction accordingly. A real-world example from last week... I sent an e-mail to a long-time print and web reviewer I knew had previously owned the same 300b s.e.t. amp I currently own. I was considering upgrading to a higher quality 300b amp I knew that he had also owned and wanted his opinion after a few years of perspective if he thought it was a good value making the switch to the more expensive amp. His reply was to forward my e-mail to a manufacturer whose amp he had recently reviewed (not a 300b) from whom I recieved a sells pitch... Basically, he simply treated me as a "sales lead" to be passed to a manufacturer, quid pro quo... I lost any respect for him.
Had to re-read the OP to see how this thread refers to audio equipment. In regards to the quote I have to admit I haven't bought audio equipment in the last two decades except my Sony MDR V6 headphones which the Amazon reviews by anonymously named reviewers were pretty spot on in how they sounded. But I've never bought any audio equipment just from listening to an actual person demonstrating the product. I don't know how many here have. My local Best Buy floor person is the closest I've gotten to that experience but he was letting me listen to a system equipped with a ported sub as opposed to a sealed sub just to see how each affect the bass response then I left because I really didn't like the sound of the system anyway because Best Buy floor isn't a very good listening room.
Those of you who have a specific knowledge or skill and years of experience with it, know very well that what is out there in print or on the internet about your skill set/knowledge, is often surrealistically off-base, wrong, slightly wrong or slightly right and sometimes even completely right. I love audio equipment reviews...all of them. I gobble them up indiscriminately. They collectively form a whisper, from which I might be motivated to try some piece of gear or other. Never would I expect my experiences and the reviews to have to correlate. Audio is too personal and I am picky as hell.
I've been reviewing gear for thirteen years. I am happy to admit that all but a few reviews were positive. Not because I received or desired advertising (Affordable$$Audio 2006-12), nor special treatment (ToneAudio, AudioPursuit). But, in fact, because the gear was worthy of such. The various shows allows for publishers and reviewers to sample much of the new equipment and predetermine its worthiness for the months of listening time during the review process. Two, any honorable reviewer will tell you that the ultimate goal of a positive review is to provide the reader with enough information to create a desire to hear it with their own ears, and hopefully with in their own system. If the review is mediocre, it is due to the number or impact of the shortcomings. But once again, most gear has significant quality. Three, due to the uniqueness of each listener's room and gear compliment, no reviewers experience will match the listener's. All the reviewer can do is provide an honest assessment/description that the listener may find intriguing enough to followup on their own. Four, reviewers don't get rich. For those that get paid, the hours versus the financial benefit makes minimum wage seem like a gravy train. The real benefit is that we get to hear a wide variety of gear in our own home/system. Finally, instead of thinking negative about reviewing, look upon it in a different way, as a celebration of a hobby we all enjoy. To paraphrase Nelson Pass, audio is ultimately a subjective experience. Enjoyment comes in a variety of forms: garage, headphones, car, vintage, budget to budget-busting.
I trust online reviewers as much as any other reviewer. Print reviewing seems to be going in an odd direction this past decade. It used to feel like it was audio reportage or even journalism, but now seems more aligned with the industry than with the consumer. I still subscribe and read, but the vibe seems to have shifted. Anybody else, or perhaps I am just becoming Abe Simpson?
Isn’t it still the responsibility of the buyer to decide what sounds good? If I purchase an item solely on a review and then don’t like the sound that’s on me. I’m hell and gone from an audio retailer where I live so yeah, it’s inconvenient. It takes time and effort. This is serious business, right? <grin> I just can’t see how a knowingly less than honest review benefits long term a person who writes audio reviews, professionally or even as a side gig. You may disagree with their opinion but that’s not the same thing. I think it’s their job to peek your interest in a product and you take it from there.
Understood but the current paradigm in the US has the media relying too much on the manufacturers for their existence to be objective and critical.
Who said it wasn't the buyer's responsibility to determine what sounds good to them? And yeah, the "reviewer" can point you in a direction and we can "take it from there" but in application there are issues that must be addressed. I wouldn't say "knowingly dishonest" but rather inflated, over enthusiastic and leaving out the negatives is what they do. For example, Steve Gutlessburg in a recent review of the Klipsch Forte III failed to mention anything about the cabinet coloration effects on midrange and vocals (which are quite prominent and obvious). Most dealers do not have In the online world (reviews and purchasing) audio consumers are explicitly influenced by what they read and watch as to what they will purchase. Online reviews are clearly becoming more of a commercial / advert and less of a critical review.
Of course it is the the buyer's responsibility. But what makes up the effort that goes into being a responsible buyer? Research? Dealer demos? You have to start someplace to get good value out of your audio purchase. The reviewer also has a responsibility. The current market makes it difficult to actually listen to much of what we purchase before we purchase it. This is a reality. If Steve G. raves about the Klipsch Forte III speakers and fails to mention their obvious, predominant colored midrange and you purchase them sound unheard, what happens when you cannot live with that aspect of their sound? You just wasted a whole lot of time and energy even if you get a full refund. How would you feel? Some of this is on the reviewer. If Zero Fidelity says the Buchardt S400 sounds like the Joseph Audio Pulsars, which you heard and love, what happens when you get them home and they sound nothing like them? You anticipated the arrival of these speakers for months, bought stands for them, etc. and your disappointment in the sound turns into a full blown case of buyers remorse, wasted time and energy. The reviewers bear some responsibility for what they say and don't say. Period.
Excellent post and good to hear from your perspective. [I've been reviewing gear for thirteen years. I am happy to admit that all but a few reviews were positive. Not because I received or desired advertising (Affordable$$Audio 2006-12), nor special treatment (ToneAudio, AudioPursuit). But, in fact, because the gear was worthy of such] Most gear is good but unfortunately as audiophiles we tend to be more critical and demanding than most. When we are fighting for the n'th degree by optimizing interconnect cables for example, it is very helpful for reviews to be equally critical. Most reviews gloss over or fail to mention anything negative or actually describe the sound quality in terms we can understand. Most gear is good but lots of gear have flaws as well. I never hear about the flaws. [Two, any honorable reviewer will tell you that the ultimate goal of a positive review is to provide the reader with enough information to create a desire to hear it with their own ears, and hopefully with in their own system. If the review is mediocre, it is due to the number or impact of the shortcomings. But once again, most gear has significant quality.] Because of the lack of opportunity to listen before purchase, I would suggest your goal should be to review as accurately and critically as possible and describe the sound quality, the tendencies, the characteristics, especially as compared to others in their price range. [Three, due to the uniqueness of each listener's room and gear compliment, no reviewers experience will match the listener's. All the reviewer can do is provide an honest assessment/description that the listener may find intriguing enough to followup on their own.] Understood. I just want you to call them as you hear them. A product's sonic tendencies tend to reveal themselves regardless of environment. [Four, reviewers don't get rich. For those that get paid, the hours versus the financial benefit makes minimum wage seem like a gravy train. The real benefit is that we get to hear a wide variety of gear in our own home/system.] Sorry about that, but it does sound like fun! Many are relying on your experience to make reliable recommendations. Holding back punches to not offend the manufacturer is contrary to that end. [Finally, instead of thinking negative about reviewing, look upon it in a different way, as a celebration of a hobby we all enjoy. To paraphrase Nelson Pass, audio is ultimately a subjective experience. Enjoyment comes in a variety of forms: garage, headphones, car, vintage, budget to budget-busting] I would love to think of reviews as a celebration and I love hearing a variety of components as anyone else. There are some that are worth celebrating and I applaud that. Unfortunately there are also many that are simply wrong to the point of being misleading.
sorry, i edited my post. no disrespect meant. however i am angry at the lack of accuracy in his and other's reporting.
I think most reviewers would feel pressure to avoid making negative comments about a component if they wish any manufacturer to submit a product to them for review in the future... Look at it from the manufacturers' perspective, would you prefer the evaluation of your product be written by someone who has published critical reviews in the past or someone who has written only flattering reviews? A manufacturer (especially a small one) has a lot riding financially on the published reviews of its products. I agree that most reviewers are just hobbyist audiophiles with a passion for music and good playback gear. They are not doing this for a living, it is an opportunity to hear quality gear at home and perhaps get a discount or long-term loan on something that may have been beyond their budget. There is probably also a little cachet that comes with being recognized as a reviewer and I assume if a person is well organized there could be tax benefits covering travel expenses to shows, etc? If Rega (for example) provided an RP10 with street cost of $55oo and Lyra provides a cartridge, what are the chances of any negative words being written by a hobbyist who would also like to long-term audition (for free) a VPI turntable and Koetsu cartridge or a Manley phono-stage or Wilson speakers? I find audio reviewers beneficial and it is not my intention to disparage them. However, the way the industry works in general does not instill confidence in me as to the total veracity of many claims being made by reviewers. That would require purchasing the audio equipment anonymously and writing the review without consideration of the manufactures' response.
Very well said and this is the catch-22 nature of the business especially for commercial media. The online reviewer wants "hits" on his site to generate popularity and for that he needs a steady stream of products to review. That stream will dry up if he is objectively critical. In that case what is their value? To become a self fulfilling validation of the products we have our eye on? There has to be a better way.
Some lines get even more blurred. This online reviewer got a whole bunch of product from Micca to sell at Axpona. So... should I treat the reviewer as a reviewer? Or as a distributor? A real pity. I actually followed a couple of his videos before Axpona. Now, I'm not so sure. Joe N Tell
I like reviews where there's a comparison at the end. Everyone gets used to how something sounds after awhile, so I think it's a good refresher for the reviewer to pull out a competing product or reference and A/B. I don't trust anyone's audio memory - experienced reviewer or not, even my own. If I was reviewer, I'd invest in a AVA A/B box. This way I'd be able to easily and reliably check a piece of gear or cable against a reference.
I've made 2 purchases of items I use on a daily basis solely by going by online reviews - turntable and road bike. I don't regret either purchase and would do the same again without any concerns/questions. Ironically, the reviews for both products said it was a "no-brainer" to buy the product I was considering and did buy.
Trust them all, but cut the cards. If a reviewer start his thoughts with slogans like "this hardware changed my life" or "this is the best bang for the money" it need double precautious. Some reviewers are secretly paid by the manufacturers to promote their stuff. Marketing sneaky strategies. If the specs are precarious or missing completely and important things are kept silent, then it's all a nice and emotional poetry to take your money out of your pockets.
