I've been reading a lot of equipment reviews lately by both amateur and professional reviewers (I assume they get paid at Stereophile, TAS, Positive Feedback, Enjoy the Music, et al.) I've found there are certain frustrating habits of professional reviewers that are not consumer-friendly, but certainly industry-friendly.Just to start with one example, one of the most common compliments given to a product that is the subject of a professional review is that it is as good or better than certain other products that cost twice as much. Yet the inferior, more expensive products are never named. If the more expensive competing product is slightly or substantially better, then it usually is identified in the review. If the reviews are intended to truly help the reader/consumer, shouldn't the reviewer identify these grossly overpriced products that perform no better than equipment that cost half as much?
(BTW the amateur reviewers often have no problem calling out expensive gear that don't perform as well as a more affordable one.)
Edits: 02/10/09 02/10/09 02/10/09 02/10/09
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Topic - Naming names - ScottZ 03:38:05 02/10/09 (57)
- Scott - i have done the same with my reviews... - RGA 04:35:36 02/14/09 (1)
- RE: Scott - i have done the same with my reviews... - Dr.Phil 08:23:53 02/21/09 (0)
- RE: Naming names - roxymott 16:01:10 02/11/09 (2)
- RE: Naming names - roxymott 16:39:45 02/11/09 (1)
- RE: Naming names - RGA 05:02:17 02/14/09 (0)
- I think you are dead wrong on the facts. At least as concerns the real professionals. - John Marks 10:46:50 02/10/09 (51)
- RE: I think you are dead wrong on the facts. At least as concerns the real professionals. - das@soundstage.com 06:02:52 02/11/09 (1)
- RE: I think you are dead wrong on the facts. At least as concerns the real professionals. - RGA 21:45:19 02/27/09 (0)
- Not my intention to stir up a hornets nest... - charlieboy11 00:51:22 02/11/09 (1)
- RE: Not my intention to stir up a hornets nest... - becketma@yahoo.com 12:58:30 02/11/09 (0)
- LOL ... you'd better have that knee-jerk checked! nt - bjh 17:54:13 02/10/09 (0)
- RE: I think you are dead wrong on the facts. At least as concerns the real professionals. - JNS 16:42:25 02/10/09 (12)
- "....one of the problems with Stereophile..." - powermatic 19:21:35 02/10/09 (4)
- RE: "....one of the problems with Stereophile..." - John Atkinson 06:36:08 02/12/09 (2)
- SM is a Yuppie.. - Bill the K 08:36:00 02/13/09 (1)
- RE: SM is a Yuppie.. - Stephen Mejias 10:15:24 02/20/09 (0)
- agreed - jkalinow@hotmail.com 05:42:38 02/12/09 (0)
- RE: I think you are dead wrong on the facts. At least as concerns the real professionals. - John Atkinson 17:36:33 02/10/09 (6)
- RE: I think you are dead wrong on the facts. At least as concerns the real professionals. - JNS 17:54:30 02/11/09 (5)
- RE: I think you are dead wrong on the facts. At least as concerns the real professionals. - John Atkinson 05:57:14 02/12/09 (0)
- Agree with JNS [your magazine is far too dedicated to the old boy network ] - jkalinow@hotmail.com 05:47:08 02/12/09 (3)
- RE: Agree with JNS [your magazine is far too dedicated to the old boy network ] - rick_m 08:03:13 02/12/09 (2)
- Not many guys like me about to fill the boomers shoes so why not work at getting new folks interested in audio - jkalinow@hotmail.com 05:39:17 02/15/09 (1)
- RE: You've covered a lot of ground... - rick_m 06:41:28 02/15/09 (0)
- Final note - ScottZ 15:27:02 02/10/09 (11)
- What is the meaning of "most common"? - John Marks 19:35:43 02/10/09 (4)
- Benchmark DAC - bogartg 22:09:48 02/11/09 (1)
- June 2003 (July cover date) - John Marks 16:16:28 02/12/09 (0)
- What is the meaning of "I challenge you?" - Analog Scott 21:19:15 02/10/09 (0)
- RE: What is the meaning of "most common"? - ScottZ 20:29:29 02/10/09 (0)
- RE: Final note - John Atkinson 17:31:29 02/10/09 (3)
- RE: Final note - ScottZ 09:08:07 02/11/09 (2)
- RE: Final note - John Atkinson 09:45:46 02/11/09 (1)
- RE: Final note - ScottZ 09:58:49 02/11/09 (0)
- Follow-up to a final note - ScottZ 15:37:02 02/10/09 (1)
- RE: Follow-up to a final note - John Atkinson 17:45:48 02/10/09 (0)
- Here's Example 3 - ScottZ 15:12:41 02/10/09 (5)
- You can probably stop giving examples... - powermatic 19:37:43 02/10/09 (0)
- zing pow. I think someone owes you an apology for the troll remark. nt - Analog Scott 19:37:35 02/10/09 (3)
- In which universe does 1.2% equal 51%??? - John Marks 06:26:27 02/11/09 (2)
- RE: In which universe does "one of the most common" mandate 51%? - Analog Scott 19:08:23 02/11/09 (0)
- Let's see-the OP said he spent "15 minutes" to find 3 examples. Since your - powermatic 07:27:23 02/11/09 (0)
- RE: I think you are dead wrong on the facts. At least as concerns the real professionals. - lord addleford 15:06:13 02/10/09 (0)
- Here's Example 2 - ScottZ 15:04:26 02/10/09 (0)
- Here's example 1 - ScottZ 14:40:54 02/10/09 (0)
- Could your skin be any thinner? - powermatic 12:21:08 02/10/09 (6)
- What do you do for a living? What matters to you? - John Marks 15:20:11 02/10/09 (5)
- "...a question of manners..." - powermatic 18:25:27 02/10/09 (3)
- Oooh...somebody is having a bad hair day. -t - Bruce Kendall 11:20:01 02/11/09 (2)
- RE: Oooh...somebody is having a bad hair day. -t - powermatic 19:31:20 02/11/09 (1)
- I don't know how to type. -t - Bruce Kendall 11:15:26 02/12/09 (0)
- RE: What do you do for a living? What matters to you? - jamesgarvin 16:49:53 02/10/09 (0)
- Let's try: What are those $5000 CD players that were so soundly beaten by Cambridge Audio 840C? - carcass93 11:40:28 02/10/09 (4)
- That's a good one, I must admit. - John Marks 12:03:58 02/10/09 (3)
- BTW, I wasn't aware I even have cause célèbre, let alone multiple. - carcass93 12:38:59 02/10/09 (1)
- The truth may hurt... - kerr 15:59:12 02/10/09 (0)
- That's not a problem - review date September 5th, 2007. Not sure about the issue - - carcass93 12:14:04 02/10/09 (0)