Why are audio reviews so consistently positive?

treitz3 · Feb 8, 2017

Johnny Vinyl said:
Bad reviews would likely dry up the availability of future review samples.

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

Hello Kal and thanks for chiming in. While I'm not disputing you, I am curious as to why (what is quoted in bold by myself in your quote above) your thoughts are what they are. I did agree with John but I based this on common sense. Hear me out please.

If Owner X had a company that sent out gear for review....and let's say that the gear he or she sent out wasn't the most expensive but held its own among other gear at the same price point or maybe even well beyond. Let's say that many great reviews by customers come in and other reviewers have nothing but praise. Yet, every time or perhaps after the third or fourth review that contradicted empirical evidence and other printed reviews, the end result is a bad review. Wouldn't Owner X decline to send more gear to that reviewer?

If you have the time, please fill me in on why your stance is what it is. Thanks.

Tom

BlueFox · Feb 8, 2017

NorthStar said:
One same audio product reviewed positively by a reviewer usually received positive accolades by other reviewers as well. Are they all from the same family of golden ears?

Maybe the audio product is good.

andromedaaudio · Feb 8, 2017

Johnny Vinyl said:
Bad reviews would likely dry up the availability of future review samples.

You got a point there

, whats up with the genesis speakers and the tapedeck ??

RogerD · Feb 8, 2017

Bob I call it the incremental rut, I think most audiophiles are use to small improvements. I hear this and that,this made a difference here and there. So every product unless it really stinks makes a incremental advance in their systems of some kind of sound attribute. Not to mention there is a underlying synergy factor. There are advances in technology that produce truly large differences but those are few. Of course this is a profit industry and just like the MSM they have an agenda and that is to push a idea or product,but I think the vast majority know that.

Johnny Vinyl · Feb 8, 2017

andromedaaudio said:
You got a point there , whats up with the genesis speakers and the tapedeck ??

The speakers are fine, but I sold the tape deck. I wasn't ready to commit yet to the format (need to update my sig).

Al M. · Feb 8, 2017

caesar said:
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.

1. I have a regular Berkeley Alpha 2 DAC, and it is excellent for its price.
2. I would never buy such an expensive unit as the Berkeley Ref DAC unheard.
3. The Berkeley Ref DAC is great, I have heard it myself. In that comparison, the dCS Rossini (w/o external clock) was better (so I cannot agree with Robert Harley that the Berkeley Ref DAC beats the Vivaldi stack). I might be interested someday in the Berkeley Ref DAC v2, with upgraded analog stage. But also this one I would not buy unheard, too much money involved. If I ever would want to spend that much money.
4. I do think of buying a DAC unheard, but that is the Schiit Yggdrasil and it's only $ 2.3 K. If I don't like it, I pay a restocking fee of 5 %, which is 115 bucks. I have decided that I am looking for audio bargains from now on, hoping they work out (my previous two blind purchases which were also bargains, BorderPatrol external power supplies for my amps, and Reference 3A MM De Capo BE monitors, did -- spectacularly so).

DaveyF · Feb 8, 2017

RogerD said:
Bob I call it the incremental rut, I think most audiophiles are use to small improvements. I hear this and that,this made a difference here and there. So every product unless it really stinks makes a incremental advance in their systems of some kind of sound attribute. Not to mention there is a underlying synergy factor. There are advances in technology that produce truly large differences but those are few. Of course this is a profit industry and just like the MSM they have an agenda and that is to push a idea or product,but I think the vast majority know that.

I think that is very true. Unfortunately, what I believe may not be so correct is that the vast majority know there is an agenda at work!
However, the issue I see with many of these reviewers ( and we all know the names of the real culprits) is the extreme hyperbole and the number of 'epiphany' moments that they all have!
Personally, I believe if we ( or all of the reviewers) are to really be ..."discriminative" enough, then most...perhaps all of us, would come to the simple conclusion that all gear is highly flawed in SQ in reference to the 'real'. The question would then become...how flawed?

Most of the time, when I read the typical hyperbole laced review I come away with only one reaction....pathetic piece of writing from a typical non-discriminatory writer. I don't wish to believe the alternative about that person....that is that they are being dishonest and flaunting something for personal monetary gain. Maybe I expect too much, LOL.

caesar · Feb 8, 2017

DaveyF said:
I think that is very true. Unfortunately, what I believe may not be so correct is that the vast majority know there is an agenda at work!
However, the issue I see with many of these reviewers ( and we all know the names of the real culprits) is the extreme hyperbole and the number of 'epiphany' moments that they all have!
Personally, I believe if we ( or all of the reviewers) are to really be ..."discriminative" enough, then most...perhaps all of us, would come to the simple conclusion that all gear is highly flawed in SQ in reference to the 'real'. The question would then become...how flawed?

Most of the time, when I read the typical hyperbole laced review I come away with only one reaction....pathetic piece of writing from a typical non-discriminatory writer. I don't wish to believe the alternative about that person....that is that they are being dishonest and flaunting something for personal monetary gain. Maybe I expect too much, LOL.

Hi Davey,

The hyperbolic attributes may be attributed to their incentives to set product apart from competition. But these guys are also reviewing gear they like, and to them, inside their skull, it is "real", "natural", etc. A big problem is that words like “real” or "natural" are abstract and filled with ambiguity. They really are nothing more or less than words that anyone can use to indicate anything. Without comparing to other gear, those flaws you mention can't really stand out.

Great writers are able to convey experiences that others may or may not want to partake in.

Al M. · Feb 8, 2017

caesar said:
Hi Davey,

The hyperbolic attributes may be attributed to their incentives to set product apart from competition. But these guys are also reviewing gear they like, and to them, inside their skull, it is "real", "natural", etc. A big problem is that words like “real” or "natural" are abstract and filled with ambiguity. They really are nothing more or less than words that anyone can use to indicate anything. Without comparing to other gear, those flaws you mention can't really stand out.

Great writers are able to convey experiences that others may or may not want to partake in.

All that is why reviews should always be comparative, not as a stand-alone description. But obviously, manufacturers would be less happy with that.

andromedaaudio · Feb 8, 2017

What would hi fi be without reviewers ??

Pretty boring lol .

They serve a purpose off course , i just wouldnt take everything so serious /literally, and some are better less politically correct then others , and can back up certain claims with measurements /or record audio themselves
Besides like most things in life, Follow the money

, although i think most do it out of sincere love /interest in audio reproduction

microstrip · Feb 8, 2017

caesar said:
(...) 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. (...)

Curiously it is not MHO.

Sound quality is top, but DCS has many strong points - a solid company, excellent communication and distribution, longevity in the market, high reliability and a strong tradition of upgradability. They have professional audio roots and their implantation in the audio industry is firm. The fact that customers can fine tune their equipment using filters and different map versions is also a positive feature.

And no, DCS is not as scarce as you seem to think ...

MadFloyd · Feb 8, 2017

microstrip said:
curiously it is not mho. sound quality is top, but dcs has many strong points - a solid company, excellent communication and distribution, longevity in the market, high reliability and a strong tradition of upgradability. They have professional audio roots and their implantation in the audio industry is firm. The fact that customers can fine tune their equipment using filters and different map versions is also a positive feature.

And no, dcs is not as scarce as you seem to think ...

mho?

Johnny Vinyl · Feb 8, 2017

MadFloyd said:
mho?

My Honest Opinion.

IMHO was't short enough! LOL!

es347 · Feb 8, 2017

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.

..question: why do high end mfrs charge such exhorbitant prices?...answer: because they can

caesar · Feb 8, 2017

microstrip said:
Curiously it is not MHO. Sound quality is top, but DCS has many strong points - a solid company, excellent communication and distribution, longevity in the market, high reliability and a strong tradition of upgradability. They have professional audio roots and their implantation in the audio industry is firm. The fact that customers can fine tune their equipment using filters and different map versions is also a positive feature.

And no, DCS is not as scarce as you seem to think ...

Good points. They have done a tremendous job of building their brand. Obviously, scarcity is a relative thing. I mention scarcity because at its price points, most audiophiles can't really afford it. But at the same time, if someone genuinely likes the sonic signature of another brand better, cost doesn't really matter. Recently, a regular dCS reviewer and lover, Alan Sircom found the Chord DAVE to be "better" than dCS Rossini, at a fraction of the price. Likewise, Harley and Computer Audiophile like the Berkeley reference Dac better at less than 1/5 the price of the vivaldi... It's crazy what's going on subjectively in people's skulls...

es347 · Feb 8, 2017

MadFloyd said:
mho?

..mho = admittance where I come from...the reciprocal of ohms

caesar · Feb 8, 2017

es347 said:
..question: why do high end mfrs charge such exhorbitant prices?...answer: because they can

Yes, it is a luxury hobby, and people feel good about themselves when they spend a lot of money

Al M. · Feb 8, 2017

caesar said:
Yes, it is a luxury hobby, and people feel good about themselves when they spend a lot of money

I don't. Which is why I try the 'cheap' route.

On the contrary, I feel good when my audio friends praise the sound of my 'cheapo' system (in relative terms

). But I feel best when I myself enjoy the sound.

However, I have nothing against it when some achieve superlative sound while spending lots of money. But I do think a lot of what's going in high-end is luxury boutique and not worth the expense in terms of pure sound. Call it a scam or not. Perhaps some really feel good about themselves when they spend a lot of money. A shiny box with some fancy specs, or the most tubes or whatever, in itself does not make a good sound.

treitz3 · Feb 8, 2017

I will disagree with that one personally caesar. I feel good about my system when I make a choice that improves the system and brings me one step closer to achieving further excellence. Many times I have returned or chosen not to purchase something that has been in my rig, no matter the cost or how bad I liked the looks of the gear. In some cases, multiple thousands of dollars worth. To me, I feel good when my system gains attributes that make me want to sit down and enjoy all of the albums I have once again. Money has nothing to do with it.

I will agree that I have met some folks along my audio journey that would make your statement true.

Tom

NorthStar · Feb 8, 2017

Rodney Gold said:
Every one is a reviewer these days

I wrote that earlier, in my very first post yesterday, then out of the blue I deleted it.
Yes I agree; the best analyst reviewers are us the readers/listeners, in the ultimatum love affair in our own lives. The pro audio reviewer is one guide, they're many guides; the one(s) to pick depends of the journey we embark on, how high is the trail leading to the top and who can carry all our baggage safely to that audio virgin snow peak/cap. We need guides for some audio expeditions; can't make it without them, our lives depend on them, they have an enormous responsibility. Us, our emotional listening satisfaction, and our money.

Why are audio reviews so consistently positive?

Super Moderator

Member Sponsor

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

Member Sponsor

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

Super Moderator

Member

Similar threads