Why are audio reviews so consistently positive?

I asked a local audio rag about why they dont publish negative reviews and their reply was that readers want to read about and buy good stuff , not bad stuff.

Bob,
It's reasonable to suggest that reviewing a component fully and properly can involve up to several months of listening and evaluation.

If a component isn't essentially to your liking in the first place then the scary thought of spending months destroying most of your music listening time with a bit of gear that you simply do not relate to would be fairly unbearable.

I don't believe there is enough money for reviewing in the world to make that kind of torture worthwhile. Most of us do this because we love it. To choose to do something that ruins that would be a crazy commitment. I would suggest most of us would be unlikely to accept anything for the fairly involving task of review if we basically didn't like that gear quite a bit in the first place. I'm sure there's other reasons as well but this would be the big one from my perspective at any rate.

Every one is a reviewer these days

Unfortunately most reviews are mainly centered on a single piece of equipment, expecting magic from it. 99% of the time a negative review implies that the reviewer was not able to create a system that could play with such component, or just that the equipment was not compatible with his too narrow preferences. In such cases IMHO it is better not publishing it. A piece of equipment is not an independent entity, such as a book or an artistic work.

Rodney Gold said:

Every one is a reviewer these days

Click to expand...

We should separate reviews from reports. Even good reviewers most of the time just write reports.

microstrip said:

We should separate reviews from reports. Even good reviewers most of the time just write reports.

Click to expand...

Agreed and they often border on musings...true deep-dive reviews are infrequently occurring to say the least.

microstrip said:

Unfortunately most reviews are mainly centered on a single piece of equipment, expecting magic from it. 99% of the time a negative review implies that the reviewer was not able to create a system that could play with such component, or just that the equipment was not compatible with his too narrow preferences. In such cases IMHO it is better not publishing it. A piece of equipment is not an independent entity, such as a book or an artistic work.

Click to expand...

Great post microstrip... and underlines just how much system building is ultimately make or break in this pursuit.

That said the notion of being able to holistically identify and characterise the essential nature of a component illludes so many reviews that are so often seemingly limited to a breakdown of subjective qualities over trying to define a holistic quality or character for the gear. This is the highest level of subjective assessment imo... just saying that something is better (preferred) than something else is really just the start of the qualitative journey.

microstrip said:

Unfortunately most reviews are mainly centered on a single piece of equipment, expecting magic from it. 99% of the time a negative review implies that the reviewer was not able to create a system that could play with such component, or just that the equipment was not compatible with his too narrow preferences. In such cases IMHO it is better not publishing it. A piece of equipment is not an independent entity, such as a book or an artistic work.

Click to expand...

Which is why Zero Distortion provides views of the same component in different systems where it is already set up

Speakers get reported in different rooms with different amps, amps get compared with different amps in different systems, and so on....if the same amp exhibits the same attributes in all systems and this gets confirmed by others - then, if in all ponds and lakes it talks like a duck, and walks like a duck...

Bad reviews would likely dry up the availability of future review samples.

Johnny Vinyl said:

Bad reviews would likely dry up the availability of future review samples.

Click to expand...

Not likely to be significant in the long run. OTOH, living with stuff that you don't enjoy is no way to live.

True, but pointing out the bad stuff can help others save their money and not waste their time.

I don't think that any (or most) of the gear being reviewed by the major mags or websites are truly bad to begin with.

Johnny Vinyl said:

I don't think that any (or most) of the gear being reviewed by the major mags or websites are truly bad to begin with.

Click to expand...

My feeling is that a lot of the equipment is far too expensive for its performance. There is tons of good stuff out there, but I also think that a good chunk of High End is just a scam.

Al M. said:

My feeling is that a lot of the equipment is far too expensive for its performance. There is tons of good stuff out there, but I also think that a good chunk of High End is just a scam.

Click to expand...

I agree about some of the pricing, but that doesn't make it bad. I'm not sure I want to use the word scam, but some products IMO defy common sense or logic no matter how well the marketing guys lay it out on paper.

If you ever want to understand why any human beings do anything, consider what they find painful and pleasurable. Also look very closely at incentives, as people do what they are incentivized to do. In fact, incentives are so powerful, I have seen studies of relatives dying in December or January, based on whether the Estate Tax was being changed, either higher or lower, in a given year. If putting grandma down a few days earlier, in December, or a few days later in January, can add a few million to one’s account, why aren’t audio reviewers dealing with megabuck speakers and cables not susceptible? Not saying there are no mensches in high end audio, but unfortunately I have not met any mother Theresa's in this hobby either. There definitely are conflicts of interest between fans and reviewers…

Due to incentives of reviewers, they just end up serving as marketing representatives of the brands and don't care about the needs of the audio fans. If someone is a fan of magico or Wilson, his positive reviews of their favorite brand bring him more free samples of the product which he can hold on to for 3-24+ months. Consider that long term loan as a marketing expense for the manufacturer...

It also helps bring eyeballs to the reviewers' publications.... Additionally, you can also see guys live valin openly bashing Wilson as “colored”. Furthermore, you also don't see magico guys talking about YG, or vice versa. YG recently had a rollout of their 15 year anniversary speakers, and no magico reviewers wrote about it - too chicken to lose those privileges.

And as the reviewers market their favorite product and result in product sales to the manufacturers, it allows the manufacturers to invest the proceeds from the sales into r&d for future products. As examples, publicity from the niche magico q5 allowed them to release the much more widely accepted S series... And publicity generated from Raidho has allowed that company to fix up most of the flaws from their initial products (popping and boomy bass; technical fixes along with stuffing the ports with socks and underwear seems to do the job), and release a new even better class of products, Raidho C -> Raidho D...

The reviewers, as a reward for their marketing efforts, are then are able to get that next set of products in house, and the cycle continues ...

Borrowing from biology, the manufacturers and reviewers have a symbiotic relationship, but the fans, unfortunately, are left out...definitely a conflict of interest

For a specific analysis of positioning a product as “BEST”, involving a "famous reviewer" Robert Harley and the dude who is a "digital authority figure", the “Computer Audiophile” (note that both have SEVERELY analytical taste), check out this "marketing case study" of the Berkeley reference dac:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...C-DSD-Debunked&p=339348&viewfull=1#post339348

....

This DAC got a lot of buzz a while back, and then went silent. Any normal audiophiles heard this DAC? Do these DACs actually exist or is this a rare case audio vapor-ware? These dacs are very hard to come by for some reason. I know many audiophiles like custom drivers (guilty here, myself), but are the Berkeley boys mining their own aluminum and silicon?

Also, very interesting marketing strategy for this DAC. High end audio, and especially computer audio, are very confusing. And when people are confused, they look to other factors such as price, scarcity, friend recommendation, or industry authority figures. So it’s worth checking out the marketing strategy for Berkeley and its competitors.

Some have claimed that Berkeley Ref is better than dCS. Yet you don’t see dcs dropping their prices. DCS’s strategy is to be the most expensive, implying it is the best. Scarcity and exclusivity is a very good marketing strategy. With the lack of beitzim on the part of reviewers to compare dCS to the upstarts, Dcs is not shaking in their boots because of Berkeley or anyone else.

Lampizator, on the other hand, has built up a quite a following from regular audiophiles who love their product. And in a confused and (seemingly purposefully) f*cked up situation such as computer audio, many folks look at a large number of passionate fans, who are just like themselves (vs. elites), and as a result, purchase the Lampizators. There is also a big social aspect to this hobby, and Lampizator is profiting from it. Talking about gear is similar to re-experiencing it. (How many times do people re-tell great vacation stories, even after many years?) Based on the internet chatter and buzz, audiophiles can try a Lampizator in their system. Many will buy it and start yapping about it to their friends and online… folks on the forums talk about these DACs because they get extra enjoyment of discussing shared experiences of products they own or are familiar with. (The technical term for this phenomenon is “social proof”.) Whether people realize it or on, Popularity happens to be a HUGE signal for quality in our hobby, and Lampizator is a winner here.

Berkeley, on the other hand, has chosen a different route. Looking at their website, they seem to have sent their product to a couple of “experts” who have called the Berkeley Reference “The Best”. These elite experts did not bother comparing the Berkeley to any other product in their writings, so it seems like they are appealing to the dumbf*ck audiophile, who has no self-confidence, and assuring this loser audiophile to just purchase the product based on their recommendation. The Berkeley site has posted reviews by Robert Harley and some dude who calls himself the Computer Audiophile. Harley, apparently is a very good businessman. Harley’s taste runs from grossly coloured to severely analytical. Gotta please those advertisers and gear manufacturers! However, Harley can’t really be trusted by the audio fan. He reviewed Magico and called it “best”, but seems to have forgotten to test it properly with rock music. Even Valin, the man who MADE Magico into a powerhouse brand has admitted, after a DECADE of haranguing TAS readers that magico is the “best”, that magico is not for rock n’ roll. … So on Harley’s advice, busy, productive folks travel long miles, spend travel money, and rearrange their tight schedules to be sorely disappointed with Harley’s recommendations. Additionally, just a few months prior to his Berk Ref is “best” Review, Harley called dCS Vivaldi the “Best”. And why didn’t he publish the Berk Ref review first? Undoubtedly, some high rollers purchased their dCSs before he proclaimed that Berk Ref is the “best”. Yet in his Berkeley Reference review, he failed to compare the 2 products. How’s that for spitting that green/ yellow sticky stuff in the face of the audio fans?

The other industry elite who has called Berkeley the “BEST” is a computer geek who calls himself the Computer Audiophile. I am using the term geek in the most respectful way here, as in “geeks rule the world”. And this computer audiophile dude deserves a lot credit for being at the forefront of computer audio.

But whereas this dude is probably good at setting up servers and networks, where does he get the credibility to have a great ear to evaluate the musical performance that the piece of gear should deliver and put the listener in a state of flow? Most likely he has spent more time evaluating power supplies and Ethernet cables than he has listening to real, live music. Obviously, the gear manufacturers see him as an expert who can influence audiophiles, but his reviewing and writing skills, compared to the more talented reviewers, are more ...hmm…Beavus and Butthead rather than Hamlet.

… Er…Er.. this DAC got great details. He he he… loved that song… uh huh, uh huh, .. The songs on this DAC are so good, I jumped and now I gotta take a big dump. Uh huh huh

Just kidding, of course. As I mentioned, when so many reviewers are just good bullsh*itters who are serving as marketing reps for the manufacturers and are trading their long tales for a long term loan or discount on gear that suits their preferences, the Computer Audiophile dude has actually improved the lives of many in this hobby.

But the reality is that the computer geek’s work is pretty worthless to the audio fan, except to the clueless dumbf*ck audiophile who lacks self-confidence and needs reassurance from an “expert”. Without comparisons in his writings, if one were to remove the review titles or references to brands he is talking about, even he would not be able to tell apart PCM DAC A vs. PCM DAC B he wrote about. It’s all just abstract BS - "great bass", "great soundstage", etc. (Ditto for Harley.) Thus, the first step this dude should take is to realize that his proclamations of “best “ are insulting to the fan and, instead, should start comparing products he has been fortunate to receive from the manufacturers. No one cares what he thinks is best. Instead, audio fans care about if they will think it is good enough to spend their hard-earned money on. Despite what our engineering minded friends say, audio products are experience goods. Their quality can’t be judged without hearing them and comparing them. Who cares what a famous reviewer likes? The consumer’s taste will not likely match his. Without comparisons, reviewers are just marketing their favorites instead of working for the consumer. But that’s their economic incentive. ( I don’t want to give the impression that ALL reviewers don’t care about the audio fans. Most are good guys, especially the ones contributing to this site. Also, the Stereophile guys usually do their best to throw in a comparison.)


Coming back to Berk Ref, supposedly, it is very good on PCM. And who doesn’t want to find a great deal, assuming it’s not just bogus claims? And it does have scarcity going for it along with insulting recommendations by a cripple of industry elites. But because of manufacturing issues with this product and seemingly purposeful evasion, confusion, and obfuscation by some of the industry elites who have heard it, and due to mis-aligned incentives between the reviews and fans, no one seems to know much about how good it is.

....