Whiner's Woad

Whining, swan dives and other inappropiate topics get moved here.

Return to Whiner's Woad

Negative Reviews Are Not the Issue.

173.32.4.239
Posted on July 22, 2009 at 11:48:19
Montejay
Audiophile

Posts: 89
Joined: April 23, 2009
 The issue is not the percentage of negative vs positive reviews. What is sorely needed in reviews is completeness. Any review that does not delineate the failings of a component and merely waxes on about how great it is, is a poor review. To fully communicate the true worth of a component a reviewer needs to address the areas of performance it which it excels and in those parameters where it errs. It is here where most reviews, especially those appearing in TAS and Stereophile are delinquent.


Then to further comprehend, the value of a component, it must be compared to others of its ilk and an opinion as to which represents better value should be offered. The cop out phrases like, " it all boils down to a matter of personal preference or system synergy" does nothing in edifying the reader. It is fairly obvious when this practice is being undertaken. Certain feathers do not want to be ruffled. Reviewers need to take a stand and offer conclusions. Admittedly at times, it is not that clear cut but most of the time there is no doubt as to which component is superior. Say so and end this bending over back wards to see the glass half full. Magazine credibility demands this and the failure to provide this undermines it.

RE: Negative Reviews Are Not the Issue., posted on July 23, 2009 at 07:40:47
andy19191
Audiophile

Posts: 158
Location: Europe
Joined: June 26, 2008
 > Any review that does not delineate the failings of a component and merely
> waxes on about how great it is, is a poor review.

Whether a review is poor or not depends on what those involved want from it. The editor is probably happy enough or else the review would not be published, the reviewer is probably happy enough or else he/she would stop writing reviews, the advertisers are probably happy enough or else they would stop advertising, most of the readers are probably happy enough or else they would stop reading. Given that you are not getting what you want from audiophile reviews is it because you are out of step or that most of the people involved are out of step?

Speaking for myself, although I have browsed a number of audiophile reviews, I am fairly sure I have still to fully read a single one since reviving an interest in home audio and the audiophile phenomenon a few years ago. To my eyes, they look like meaningless drivel but this is not how they are seen by audiophiles who are the target audience. So are they meaningless drivel or are they interesting reviews of audiophile equipment? Should audiophile reviews be changed into normal reviews of technical equipment in order to better serve my interests at the expense of those whose interests are currently well served?

> The cop out phrases like, " it all boils down to a matter of personal
> preference or system synergy" does nothing in edifying the reader.

If audiophile consumers wish to believe this type of thing and the audiophile suppliers would like the audiophile consumer to believe this type of thing then such statements reinforce and maintain audiophile beliefs. It is not a cop out but a way to maintain belief.

> Admittedly at times, it is not that clear cut but most of the time there is no
> doubt as to which component is superior.

Most, though not all, expensive home audio equipment has the same audible performance under blind conditions but not necessarily under sighted conditions. So what does superior mean? And does the audiophile review have a role in establishing what is superior given the form of audiophile reviews?
That's quite a lenghty discourse, while simple..., posted on July 23, 2009 at 09:14:16
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 ... "I am cheap and deaf anti-audiophile, and have no freakin' clue what I'm talking about" would be entirely sufficient.

Funny, that's not what your other personality has been posting all this while, posted on July 22, 2009 at 18:46:24
keith_d
Audiophile

Posts: 938
Joined: June 15, 2002
 Another BassNut-calibre poster.

No, the difference is descriptive vs non-descriptive, posted on July 22, 2009 at 15:28:45
Sordidman
Dealer

Posts: 9249
Location: San Francisco
Joined: May 14, 2001
 As with plays, or movies, and other artisan crafts; there are no "good" or "bad" components. So, - the best reviews are descriptive of the component: comparitively; so that you can rule it out or in to your unique system, room, world view, and idiosyncracies.

Once you begin to think of an universal "right and wrong," "good or bad" view of high-end components, - you are lost down the wrong track.

Surrendered to self preservation,
From others who care for themselves.
A blindness that touches perfection,
But hurts just like anything else.
Here is a classic example written today!, posted on July 22, 2009 at 14:15:28
JustJoe
Audiophile

Posts: 128
Location: Essex
Joined: July 8, 2009
 Check out the review of the Soundmatters foxL device, reviewed today in the audio critic. A good example of negative and positive within a review.

Another great review by Aczel! Both negative and positive without any BS.
I've got two words for Peter Aczel: Keep WRITING!

Just Joe
Blind testing of gear works: If it doesn't sound better with your eyes closed, then it doesn't sound better!
RE: Here is a classic example written today!, posted on August 25, 2009 at 01:46:58
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22053
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 From Aczel's review......

Also, strangely enough, I sometimes heard more distortion with the AC adapter connected than on battery power, but the effect wasn’t consistent.

Stupid delusional idiophool reviewer claiming to hear differences with change of power source........


LOL! Aczel is his idol...., posted on July 22, 2009 at 18:47:16
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 15942
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 28, 2003
 ...even if you ignore Aczel's seriously unethical conduct in reviewing his own loudspeaker...

...you can't ignore that he said it was the best loudspeaker ever, and it failed - the company went bankrupt. His ability to identify quality music reproduction is in serious doubt.

Yeah, trust what that guy says.

And for those of you who want, posted on July 22, 2009 at 15:04:09
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9840
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 the best linestage available ("there is nothing better at any price"), such is available on Audiogon now for only $325. :)

rw

Forgive my ignorance..., posted on July 22, 2009 at 17:33:02
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 Which one of these?

Classifieds Category Asking
QUAD 34 Pre-Solid $325.00
Kinergetics Research kpa-2 class a platinum preamplifier Pre-Solid $325.00
Morrison ELAD preamp Pre-Solid $325.00

It was with the Benchmark DAC review, posted on July 22, 2009 at 17:54:53
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9840
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 that I read that Wackzel has been using the same E.L.A.D. op amp based line stage since 1998 and assures us that THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A BETTER UNIT EVER MADE.

Righ-ty-o there! :)

rw

There are more than 2 words I have for Aczel - but none of them I would risk posting here,..., posted on July 22, 2009 at 14:52:21
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 ... without risking my post being deleted immediately.

If that's your understanding of good reviewer and good reviews - so be it.

Check out the Benchmark DAC review, posted on July 22, 2009 at 16:43:22
kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 3695
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003
 Just below the one JustJoe commented on. It's a hoot! LOL

Yeah, I've read that before. By a chance, do you know why..., posted on July 22, 2009 at 17:14:30
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 ... he includes "Sound" paragraph in his "reviews"?

I personally see only one reason - it's an opportunity to excrete yet another portion of what he excretes in paragraphs before and after that one, namely his hatred for audio and everything associated with it.

You hit the nail on the head, posted on July 23, 2009 at 05:02:50
kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 3695
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003
 He can't hear, and he likes to lambast those who can. Why he writes for an audio magazine is beyond me, and why anyone reads his drivel is flabbergasting. I liken his writing to a blind guy critiquing porno magazines.

Tiresome., posted on July 22, 2009 at 13:40:32
Dave Pogue
Audiophile

Posts: 7494
Location: DC Area
Joined: October 9, 2001
Contributor
  Since: March 18, 2003
 Not to mention pointless. Start your own magazine, blog or whatever. If you work hard at it you could ultimately be as popular as Teresa.

i wasn't expecting that last line..., posted on July 22, 2009 at 15:46:48
robert young
Audiophile

Posts: 2226
Location: new york
Joined: October 19, 2003
Contributor
  Since: July 13, 2004
 and it made me spit coffee on my screen.

Thanks for the laugh, Dave!

Was very efficient of him to get the twofer in, wasn't it? t, posted on July 23, 2009 at 11:02:00
keith_d
Audiophile

Posts: 938
Joined: June 15, 2002
 t

You are wasting your time. Putting it mildly, this ain't the first time......, posted on July 22, 2009 at 13:32:34
Rick W
Audiophile

Posts: 6110
Joined: October 3, 2001
 the issues you/Spendor/Joe have posted about have been discussed here. I'm not sure what phrase would be best to use (maybe "negative reviews"), but if you searched the Critics forum archives you'd find pages and pages of raps about all this starting almost from the time the forum was created. The current posts have produced absolutely zilch that is new.
RE: Negative Reviews Are Not the Issue., posted on July 22, 2009 at 13:00:56
Bruce from DC
Bored Member

Posts: 18025
Location: U.S. Capital
Joined: October 13, 1999
Contributor
  Since: March 1, 1999
 Although they seem to have a very hard time getting the magazine to me, I've been a regular Stereophile subscriber for quite a while . . . and I don't recall reading many reviews in that magazine that fit your description of a poor review. Most of them sort out the pro's and con's of the equipment under test.

The description you set out applies far better to any number of Internet e-zine reviews -- that I formerly read and now have pretty much stopped reading. That is the difference between a professional review and one that's not.

Since there are quite a large number of Stereophile reviews available to anyone on-line, your case would be a whole lot more persuasive if you linked to one as an example of the defects that you claim exist.

But that appears to take too much effort.

On the absence of negative reviews point that you are busy tryint to wiggle out of, you are conflating the "Consumer Reports" model of reviewing with what Stereophile and the other mags actually do.

CR attempts to survey the universe of a particular product -- washers, cars, TVs, house paints -- and then ranks them or classifies them into "check-rated" "not recommended" and so on.

Neither Stereophile nor any other mag does that. They do not survey everything in the market and tell you "what's best." They simply review stuff that they decide to review . . . and their reasons appear to be varied. It also appears that lots of the stuff they review is something that they've heard before at a show or that someone has recommended to them as being worthy of a review. So, when they do a review, it's not like they have no idea of what they're getting into.

But, really, why would they waste the time -- and the ink -- on reviewing a bad product?

If someone could come up with a product that is widely praised in a magazine review but, "in reality," is crap and that something is a product heavily advertised in the magazine, you might have a case.

But you haven't done that, and I don't think it's possible.

OTOH, in the car mag business, the old Motor Trend seemed always to be awarding its "Car of the Year" award to some P-O-S car that was a big advertiser. But even MT appears to have realized that to be a short-sighted strategy as the magazine lost all credibility and, I would guess, readership. Because they seem to be upgrading the content a bit from what it used to be.


RE: Negative Reviews Are Not the Issue., posted on July 22, 2009 at 12:55:29
JustJoe
Audiophile

Posts: 128
Location: Essex
Joined: July 8, 2009
 I agree. What you said in the post above should be a component of EVERY review.

I'd also like to know what components I need to stay away from, where the manufacturer screwed up, etc. Negative reviews can serve that purpose. Read www.theaudiocritic.com for very nice examples of negative reviews, and then examine the statement that audio industry insiders have made here, that "all products we review are good and we just want you to know how they sounded to us, etc etc".
It IS possible to write meaningful negative reviews. It helps readers, manufacturers (in the long run) and the industry as a whole.
But I see that is not going to happen in this field.
Ahh well, it's dying anyway. Here come the next gen hi def mini players!

Just Joe


Blind testing of gear works: If it doesn't sound better with your eyes closed, then it doesn't sound better!
RE: Negative Reviews Are Not the Issue., posted on July 23, 2009 at 07:37:30
andy19191
Audiophile

Posts: 158
Location: Europe
Joined: June 26, 2008
 > Read www.theaudiocritic.com for very nice examples of negative reviews,

The Audio Critic and its commercial failure is indeed a nice example of a number things but most of the reviews of equipment would seem to be positive.

> It IS possible to write meaningful negative reviews. It helps readers, manufacturers
> (in the long run) and the industry as a whole.

If we consider just the audiophile industry can you explain how meaningful negative reviews are going to help current audiophiles and, particularly, the industry? Why did the industry move away from such reviews after the stereo boom?

> Blind testing of gear works: If it doesn't sound better with your eyes closed, then
> it doesn't sound better!

Sound perception under blind conditions is not the same as sound perception under sighted conditions. See, for example, Sean Olive's blog for some online data. Now which is the more relevant to an audiophile enthusiast?
You're holding up Aczel as an ideal?, posted on July 22, 2009 at 15:26:37
Rob Doorack
Audiophile

Posts: 4707
Joined: May 26, 2000
 Hoo boy. I guess you haven't been an audio hobbyist very long. Aczel committed the single worst ethical offense in the history of audio magazines when he gave a rave review to a speaker from a company in which he was a part owner, without disclosing the grotesque conflict of interest to Audio Critic readers. The scandal effectively put the magazine out of business for years. I can't imagine why anyone would trust a single word he writes.

RE: You're holding up Aczel as an ideal?, posted on July 22, 2009 at 16:22:38
John Atkinson
Reviewer

Posts: 1901
Location: New York
Joined: November 24, 2003
 >Aczel committed the single worst ethical offense in the history of audio
>magazines when he gave a rave review to a speaker from a company in which
>he was a part owner, without disclosing the grotesque conflict of interest
>to Audio Critic readers. The scandal effectively put the magazine out of
>business for years.

I did point this out to JustJoe last week, alog with another documented
example of unethical behavior on Peter Aczel's part, but JustJoe seemed to
have difficulty assimilating these facts.

"A man believes what he wants to believe and disregards the rest."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
RE: You're holding up Aczel as an ideal?, posted on July 22, 2009 at 18:35:47
Art Dudley
Reviewer

Posts: 70
Joined: July 12, 2001
 > I did point this out to JustJoe last week, alog with another documented
> example of unethical behavior on Peter Aczel's part, but JustJoe seemed to
> have difficulty assimilating these facts.

A sliding scale appears to be at work, John, as Mr. Joe seems quicker to judge some members of the press than others. Sadly, he also has some reading comprehension issues:
All ya gotta do..., posted on July 23, 2009 at 05:08:47
kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 3695
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003
 ...is re-review the Brentworth Sound Labs speakers, this time in Stereophile. Joe will LOVE you then! You can even become unethical! JustJoe will forgive all if you just write more negative reviews! You might even become his second favorite reviewer! :)

RE: All ya gotta do..., posted on July 23, 2009 at 08:00:57
Art Dudley
Reviewer

Posts: 70
Joined: July 12, 2001
 > re-review the Brentworth Sound Labs speakers, this time in Stereophile.

:-)

I think I'd rather spend my days following after an incontinent old jackass with a shovel.

> Joe will LOVE you then! You might even become his second favorite reviewer! :)

Then again, I guess that job's already been taken.

Yeah, John but, posted on July 22, 2009 at 17:56:23
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9840
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 JustJoe told us that Wackzel explained that later and put the issue to rest. :)

rw

Page processed in 0.105 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ] [ Go Green ] [ Take5 ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]