Who is the best reviewer?

[fishnchips]

Doesn't that diminish his/her worth? his/her usefulness?

Frantz, he said quite plainly that he strives to be useful to himself.

 

[Alan Sircom]

Alan

IF there is one thing I would say about your last post it is honest ..yet the reviewer job is not that. In all aspects of life there exist a few people who can be seen as critics. The term tend to take a negative connotation as the criticism often involves a fair amount of showing far the item under review is from the ideal. Ideal being here implicit or explicit. It can change through times but it remain a central tenet of the review/critic.
Let's now, get back to High End Audio reviewing. What should be the role of the reviewer? I understand that it is in his/her interest to advance his /her industry? but should he simply be subservient the lowest common denominator i-e selling wares? Regardless of their worth with respect to his/her perception of the ideal. Shouldn't the reviewer at times takes a stand to investigate how gears approaches the reviewer personal version of The Ideal? When it becomes simply an affair of pushing wares, should the reviewer be part of this loop? Is it his/her role? Doesn't that diminish his/her worth? his/her usefulness?

A reviewer's job is to assay the device under test, to the best of their abilities, without grace or favor, while striving to eliminate influence from external forces. The job of looking past the device under test should never be down to the critic, it should be the task of a reporter or a columnist. The journalist can investigate and - if required - expose the industry on their 'beat'. The columnist can ponder the meaning of life, expressed through that industry. Each role ultimately informs the other, but should not be performed by the same person. The columnist cannot behave as a journalist, because the lines between the editorializing in a column and the fact-gathering required by a reported are immediately blurred. The columnist should not be a critic for the same reason. And the critic cannot be a reporter on an industry beat because of the perception of conflict and impartiality issues that causes.

That's the ideal. Practical considerations make that virtually impossible in the current climate. We all end up multi-tasking. That draws the impartiality of the writer into immediate question, because if you approve of a product as a critic, your findings about the company that makes the product as a reporter will be called into question and vice versa.

Worse, current reading trends do not favor the traditional long-form review and people tend to react to observation as criticism and criticism as observation. So, to my mind today, a good reviewer is a match-maker, defining the characteristics of a product (good and bad) in terms of who that product is best suited for, and then writing the review for that particular person, only to move on to the next product and finding who it suits. If a product really was unsuitable for everyone, I'd make that comment, but the competitive nature of the market usually weeds such products out at a very young age. I don't think this constitutes 'pushing wares', but reflects one of the few ways we can get the message across without distortion at this time.

Generally, the moment a reviewer starts to think his or her end-users as being the manufacturers instead of the readers, they should step aside. This can be difficult at times, because often the only time you make contact with the readers is when they are furious about you saying bad things about their pet product... often even when you didn't.

 

[DaveyF]

Come on Guys, stop trying to beat up on Alan

I have read several articles in HiFi+, that have been lukewarm reviews at best, about the gear that was under review. IMO, most of the periodicals on this side of the pond are far more lenient when it comes to gear reviews.
I cannot remember the last time that I read JV slamming any piece of gear, instead he has an eargasm and pontificates to no end about almost everything.

I must say that I am in the camp that believes the current reviewing trend is far too lenient and non-discriminatory. Unfortunately, I do not see this changing anytime soon, why?because even a simple review by Michael Lavorgna of the YG room at the Newport Show had him comparing the sound of the YG's to a live Flamenco guitar Luckily, I heard this very set-up for myself, and once again....IMHO, the sound of this system was weak and any similarity that it could produce the sound that ML was describing is just too farcical.

Which then begs the question.....is ML a reviewer who simply doesn't have the ear to do the job, or is ML a reviewer with an unknown ulterior motive or has ML simply not heard a real Flamenco guitar and therefore has an ignorant impression of what that instrument sounds like, or all of the above?

BTW, does anyone know or care what a reviewer's credentials are? I'm no reviewer, BUT I have had over 30 years of musical training and i still wouldn't hold myself out as an expert in the field....FAR from it in fact.
OTOH, I do think that a reviewer like HP ( Can we agree that he does have a VERY good ear) seems far more qualified for the job than most in his field.

 

[fishnchips]

So long as no one gets killed, the best way to keep in business is to do lots of business.

This just made me google pictures of yours. I have no more questions.

 

[Alan Sircom]

Agrred with most of your point .. Don't you think that creating value is requisite? So Price has to be part of that equation as well shouldn't it? Price commensurate with performance?

Price should be - and is - a factor in the design of many product lines. However, many of the seriously upscale brands design in a manner akin to Formula 1; just make it, whatever the cost. Some of these products do end up being an expensive designer's folly, others offer better performance than it's possible to get from more down to earth products.

 

[Alan Sircom]

This just made me google pictures of yours. I have no more questions.

Why? And why?

 

[amirm]

This just made me google pictures of yours. I have no more questions.

Infraction issued. My first one on WBF . Do not make personal remarks.

 

[Steve Williams]

"fish"

FWIW I won't be as charitable as Amir with just issuing a warning

I have followed this thread as well as others in which you contribute. You seem to have a wealth of knowledge to share with members but one thing I won't tolerate is your demeaning attitude and the way you continue to insult members

One more of that nature will be your last for ongoing violation of TOS

 

[Alan Sircom]

Guys,

I have a thick skin (scaly and green too... I think I was an alligator in a past life). Don't be hard on the guy. If he has good things to contribute, that's to the good. If he has a chip on his shoulder (pun intended) about reviewers, he's not the first and won't be the last.

I really don't have an issue with this. Besides, there's nothing he could throw at me that I haven't heard a thousand times.

 

[Steve Williams]

Thanks for being such a gentleman. Unfortunately his comments have vile and rancor in all of them

 

[fishnchips]

One more of that nature will be your last for ongoing violation of TOS

Aw, c'mon, don't be so cruel! After all, "as long as no one gets killed", all is well, right? Alan said so!

 

[Ron Party]

Guys,

I have a thick skin (scaly and green too... I think I was an alligator in a past life). Don't be hard on the guy. If he has good things to contribute, that's to the good. If he has a chip on his shoulder (pun intended) about reviewers, he's not the first and won't be the last.

I really don't have an issue with this. Besides, there's nothing he could throw at me that I haven't heard a thousand times.

Alan, I for one really enjoy reading your posts here at WBF and sincerely hope you continue to share with us your observations and knowledge. I'm glad you take the high road with your posts.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Great tune BTW....keeping it light and on the high road......my small contribution.

 

[microstrip]

(...) This can be difficult at times, because often the only time you make contact with the readers is when they are furious about you saying bad things about their pet product... often even when you didn't.

And at that time the best existing magazine with the best reviewer in the world becomes just an hifi tabloid filled with reviews by incompetents.

Although I am rather immune to reviews - I read them mainly for entertainment and information - I assume it is not nice when a reviewer owning the same equipment as me and discards it for a new pet product, that is always much better than the previous one!

 

[cjfrbw]

I enjoy a nice subjective review, poetic or not, and I have been guilty of crass poetics myself. I do not claim to be hyper rational, because my enjoyments would be few.

I read published reviews first as entertainment, second as information and third as indicators of trends, seldom as buying guides.

The British article on the solid state amp that set off the recent controversies did step over the bounds of criticism into the realm of flogging.

There was the thread on epiphanies a while ago here. Really, do critics experience epiphanies every couple of months and epiphanies of epiphanies a couple of times a year?

Especially with solid state amps, the epiphanies seem a bit over wrought.

After 40 years, I have listened to some of the solid state epiphanies. I will marvel at the freshness and clarity of the highs, be astounded by the quicksilver dynamics, be terrified by the tight, powerful bass and amazed by the huge two dimensional imaging. Then, after about ten minutes, they will sound like aural equivalent of chewing on aluminum foil, I just don't want to listen any more.

Tubes keep me involved, and I don't want to waste my time anymore on another solid state epiphany that will wind up as somebody's expensive door stop/ boat anchor in a year or so. It is not possible to be a "popular" critic without being tolerant of diverse technologies and using speakers with passive crossovers so you can review everything that comes through the door.

Mature critics shouldn't really be engaging in "epiphany salesmanship", it really does not wash well and is probably the source of much ire and spleen in the hyper rational types, it annoys me too.

 

[microstrip]

I should add that. for me, most of the time the best part of very good reviews is not directly related to the equipment characteristics, but general comments about sound reproduction.

I was re-reading some minutes ago Jacob Heilbrunn's excellent review in TAS of the Classe CA M600 and found something I have tried to say in another thread. I am now quoting his words "One of the first things that I notice when listening to a live orchestra is the sheer sumptuousness of the sound, something that stereo systems often sacrifice in the pursuit of fidelity, in its most banal form, which is to say the mere reproduction of detail for its own sake." I have been pursuing this "sheer sumptuousness" for longtime - it is why I always use Haitink version of the Shostakovitch Symphonies as test recordings - these orchestras should sound full and sweet, powerful but not shouting, as if we were listening in the Concertgebouw Amsterdam. Most reviews of Anthony H. Cordesman also have this kind of comments embedded in the text.

As my preferences go towards classical music and jazz I favor reading reviews using this type of music.

Although I have stated a few posts above I am immune to reviews, I have gone now through three enthusiastic independent reviews of the Classe CA M600 that state that this amplifier belongs to the state of the art in amplifiers - impressive score! Should I offer myself to review it?

 

[cjfrbw]

\

Although I have stated a few posts above I am immune to reviews, I have gone now through three enthusiastic independent reviews of the Classe CA M600 that state that this amplifier belongs to the state of the art in amplifiers - impressive score! Should I offer myself to review it?

Please do, lay reviews are always a nice antidote to the professional variety, but they are a bitch to write well, that's where the professional reviewers get the nod for effort.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

To each its own. I fail to understand what a person means by "sheer sumptuousness of the sound" especially when the same person tells me later

something that stereo systems often sacrifice in the pursuit of fidelity

If something has fidelity doesn't that mean that it reproduces the sound as is? i-e "sumptuousness" included ... Call me literal but this is to me wordplay not a trial at describing the sound (or lack) of an amplifier By the way by all accounts the Classe is a good amp ...

 

[mauidan]

Are you speaking as someone who would pay 70K for this product? If not, you really cannot make such a statement. This product and this statement is what is wrong with Hi-end audio and why people feel so negatively about reviewers.

Mr.Smith,

Have you heard this DAC?

Why is it that you always seem to jump on Mr.Bedworth everytime he posts something on this forum?

 

[DaveyF]

I enjoy a nice subjective review, poetic or not, and I have been guilty of crass poetics myself. I do not claim to be hyper rational, because my enjoyments would be few.

I read published reviews first as entertainment, second as information and third as indicators of trends, seldom as buying guides.

The British article on the solid state amp that set off the recent controversies did step over the bounds of criticism into the realm of flogging.

There was the thread on epiphanies a while ago here. Really, do critics experience epiphanies every couple of months and epiphanies of epiphanies a couple of times a year?

Especially with solid state amps, the epiphanies seem a bit over wrought.

After 40 years, I have listened to some of the solid state epiphanies. I will marvel at the freshness and clarity of the highs, be astounded by the quicksilver dynamics, be terrified by the tight, powerful bass and amazed by the huge two dimensional imaging. Then, after about ten minutes, they will sound like aural equivalent of chewing on aluminum foil, I just don't want to listen any more.

Tubes keep me involved, and I don't want to waste my time anymore on another solid state epiphany that will wind up as somebody's expensive door stop/ boat anchor in a year or so. It is not possible to be a "popular" critic without being tolerant of diverse technologies and using speakers with passive crossovers so you can review everything that comes through the door.

Mature critics shouldn't really be engaging in "epiphany salesmanship", it really does not wash well and is probably the source of much ire and spleen in the hyper rational types, it annoys me too.

cjfrbw, that's a good post. One of the reasons that I started the 'epiphany' thread was because it seems to me that there is far too much " epiphany salesmanship" in today's high-end. My friend who bought the ultra expensive amp was essentially sold on it in this manner. To me, upon hearing the amp, the first thing that occured to me was...' it sounds good, BUT for that kind of money I would expect something far greater in sound quality and construction quality, particularly since the review that my friend and I had both read, would make it seem like this amp was opening the gates to heaven '

I guess this thinking is beginning to pervade my overall opinion of gear in today's high-end. Oddly, it's not that the gear in question is 'unaffordable' for me, but more that my expectations are getting greater as I gain more years in this hobby. For some reason, I have this perhaps unreasonable expectation, that if I am going to pay $180K for a pair of speakers or $97K for an amp, that these pieces had better perform to a level that is commensurate with my expectations; which increase as the price level does. To read so many of these 'epiphany' reviews by the usual suspects is frankly beginning to get OLD