Has the focus of the forum shifted? Is it the marketing, promotion and cheerleading arm of selected companies? Has advertising changed the landscape?

[pk_LA]

LOL grousing sounds like a weekend escape in the country chasing flying creatures. Not for me I only go after specific "birdies"

Sorry! I'll try and use simpler language!

With that said, may I give the gift of knowledge to you!
grouse
https://www.google.com/search?sca_e...2ahUKEwjGwebk9r2QAxUFiO4BHW6cANsQ3eEDegQINxAN
verb
gerund or present participle: grousing

1. complain pettily; grumble.
   "she heard him grousing about his assistant"

 

[Elliot G.]

Sorry! I'll try and use simpler language!

With that said, may I give the gift of knowledge to you!
grouse
https://www.google.com/search?sca_e...2ahUKEwjGwebk9r2QAxUFiO4BHW6cANsQ3eEDegQINxAN
verb
gerund or present participle: grousing

1. complain pettily; grumble.
   "she heard him grousing about his assistant"

I know what it means PK I guess my humor isn’t appreciated I’ll have to try harder
I know my sarcasm isn’t

 

[Another Johnson]

Sorry! I'll try and use simpler language!

With that said, may I give the gift of knowledge to you!
grouse
https://www.google.com/search?sca_e...2ahUKEwjGwebk9r2QAxUFiO4BHW6cANsQ3eEDegQINxAN
verb
gerund or present participle: grousing

1. complain pettily; grumble.
   "she heard him grousing about his assistant"

I’m pretty sure he knows the definition of grousing. He is playing with the words … grousing = grouse hunting. Birdie is tied to golf, which I have seen him say he likes.

 

[pk_LA]

Allow me another stroke, then.

Isn't WBF at its best when there are a variety of passionate opinions volleying? For me it is. I don't always agree with them. I often challenge them. I sometimes wonder about the foundations of various positions. I think it's appropriate to ask questions and even, occasionally, question the basis for someone's position. But, at the end of the day, this place is altogether better for them.

I read this thread and worry a little. I sincerely hope the outcome isn't that passionate opinions from consumers, dealers, reviewers and manufacturers gets quelled*. That would be a shame.

* (for Elliot) quell /kwel/ subdue or silence someone (ribbing you Elliot! given other posts I needed to add this edit!)

 

[tima]

I translated for Tim what I thought micro was saying.

This is how I understood the interchange.

 

[Elliot G.]

Allow me another stroke, then.

Isn't WBF at its best when there are a variety of passionate opinions volleying? For me it is. I don't always agree with them. I often challenge them. I sometimes wonder about the foundations of various positions. I think it's appropriate to ask questions and even, occasionally, question the basis for someone's position. But, at the end of the day, this place is altogether better for them.

I read this thread and worry a little. I sincerely hope the outcome isn't that passionate opinions from consumers, dealers, reviewers and manufacturers gets quelled*. That would be a shame.

* (for Elliot) quell /kwel/ subdue or silence someone (ribbing you Elliot! given other posts I needed to add this

I’m still hunting birdies PK!

 

[pk_LA]

I’m still hunting birdies PK!

You're a good sport! Thx

 

[tima]

Ok. Being part of the industry usually means people have a financial link with it, that surely is a form of clear and open bias in product appreciation. Is this the reason why you think reviewers should be identified as such?

Please consider this question in general, not applying to particular magazines or reviewers.

I do not believe a reviewer should be identified as an industry affiliate because of financial considerations. He is an industry affiliate because he writes reviews of equipment provided to him by other industry members.

The financial link for a reviewer is he likely gets paid for his work by the publisher. This establishes the publication's ownership of the review.

I don't know if reviewers are biased. There I can only speak for myself, to which I say read my reviews and gauge for yourself. Reviewers are opinionated, which is one reason to read them.

 

[pk_LA]

I do not believe a reviewer should be identified as an industry affiliate because of financial considerations. He is an industry affiliate because he writes reviews of equipment provided to him by other industry members.

The financial link for a reviewer is he likely gets paid for his work by the publisher. This establishes the publication's ownership of the review.

I don't know if reviewers are biased. There I can only speak for myself, to which I say read my reviews and gauge for yourself. Reviewers are opinionated, which is one reason to read them.

I wish I did not have to read between the lines when I read reviews to ascertain the weak points of a piece of kit.

How about just saying, "...the bass was anemic!"

 

[tima]

so to be clear if a reviewer for example got paid for an opinion, in some manner that was not disclosed, then you are ok with that person touting a product? It isn't illegal but is it right?

A review is not a tout. Just assume that most reviewers get paid by the publisher for their work. There's the disclosure.

 

[tima]

I wish I did not have to read between the lines when I read reviews to ascertain the weak points of a piece of kit.

How about just saying, "...the bass was anemic!"

Maybe you need to read different reviewers.

 

[Elliot G.]

A review is not a tout. Just assume that most reviewers get paid by the publisher for their work. There's the disclosure.

I know you know that is not what I asked .

 

[tima]

I know you know that is not what I asked .

Sorry I was not trying to be slippery. My reply was more for others to understand that reviewers do get paid for their reviews but they don't disclose that or how much. It's a pittance unless you are an editor or columnist.

 

[pk_LA]

Maybe you need to read different reviewers.

I welcome your counsel

 

[treitz3]

For some reason, I don't think he will mention Amir.....

Tom

 

[treitz3]

I wish I did not have to read between the lines when I read reviews to ascertain the weak points of a piece of kit.

How about just saying, "...the bass was anemic!"

The one thing I personally cannot stand is the latest and greatest that is actually the latest and greatest...until the next month or issue.

I picked up on that when I was 9 years old. 1 year after I started reading the magazines, at the ripe ol' age of 8. I caught a whiff of BS and after that? I have yet to read a rag or review. They were simply a waste of my time.

Since then, it has been experience. I might read something after a new purchase or experience and many, many times, my observations do not mimic that of said "reviewer". That is NOT to say that all reviewers are full of....but it does suggest that @pk_LA has a point.

It would be very welcome if reviewers showed light on the deficiencies, just as much as they do on the attributes. Much of what they have to say is waxing poetic about BS that was exactly (or close too) the month prior.

Some folks might like the deficiencies. They give them more perspective. Case in point. The one thing that the 200 reviews on a Marantz CDP rarely stated was that the midbass was "shy" or lacking.

What this told me was that it wasn't shy or lacking, it just wasn't the "Cerwin-Vega" of the reproductive effort. Even though, at the time, that was about the only damned thing negative about the player? The negative drew me in and I bought it for the very negative thing the folks had talked about! I cannot stand boom at the bottom, period. At the time? I was VERY glad I purchased it. Wise decision.

I added a DAC to that and......irrelevant. It was a great player along my audio journey.

Point being? The negative for some may very well be a major plus for others who read between the lines with reviews.

Tom

 

[treitz3]

....and another thing....

The player was "Reference". Okay, well, did it play a "Reference" sound? Hell no. It was squandered by a Delta Sigma that filtered the signal. Out of all of the reviews? Not one damned mention of that. Just glowing reviews.

Now that I know what I know? That is relevant information that was not disclosed, discussed or even brought up. Please excuse my French, but WTF? That is limiting to the sound or a thwarting of the sound that was (to me) unacceptable. Yes, it sounded great but without the prior caveat that it sounded like chit, compared to other avenues.

These are the things that drive me Nuckin' Futz and cost a plethora of people to follow the latest and greatest, only to be disappointed. If one is to review a piece of gear? Tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You never know who may pay attention to the negative, the positive and the hyperbole. But be honest.

(Rant off)

It was "Noisy" as well, TBT...

Tom

 

[ctydwn]

yikes. wow, this does seem like a therapy thread for folks to get stuff off their chests and gypsy stopover camp for all ongoing discussions from the few uber posting members that have nothing to do with OP’s topic. i guess value in that. i really don’t see any new revelations at all coming from the topic posted. Huge fan of WBF and the many friends made here and folks i can trust for their input. short of concrete allegations or recommendations given thread title, it’s a forum and we have all benefitted in one way or another which i am thankful for or we would not be here. also i think well moderated overall. what is the new news?

 

[PYP]

I have never purchased gear based upon a review, therefore I have little interest in a reviewer confirming, for example, a reduced price for a purchase. But I do think it is only ethical to disclose such things and would love to see a review conclusion similar to this:

This is a great DAC. I'm putting my money where my mouth is and buying the review unit. At $50,000, it is expensive. But I purchased it for $20,000, so I really cannot advise the reader about what it is like to pay full price. However, it is competitive with other $50,000 DACs I have reviewed, none of which I purchased. You can draw your own conclusions from that. It is a great time to be an audiophile and even greater time to be a reviewer!

 

[tima]

I wish I did not have to read between the lines when I read reviews to ascertain the weak points of a piece of kit. ...

I welcome your counsel

I agree with you that it is not unusual to feel like you need to 'read between the lines' in audio reviews. And there are plenty of reviews that are overly effusive about a product. Imo the overall quality of audio reviews both in assessment and literacy is at best 'okay'.

Nonetheless there are quality reviewers out there. Generally they are the ones who sustain the effort over several years. Although there are some who have been at it for a while and still tend to pander to manufacturers and certain brands.

One place where the lines can have less space to read between is in comparisons. Compare and contrast should be a place to find that product X has some better developed attribute than product Y or vice versa. Not outright negativity but useful information. The 'problem' is that not all reviews do a compare and contrast with another product.

I could give you a list of who I think is good or bad, but, trying to act 'professional', as a general practice I don't comment negatively on other reviewers, at least not in print. A couple writers whom I think are straight shooters are Dick Olsher and Richard Mak. But I really can only speak for myself. I tend to downplay criticism statements as outright negative but they are still criticism. And since I can choose what gear I review, I will pick gear that I like. Frankly I have no interest in taking 3 months to write about something mediocre.

Here are a couple examples from recent reviews. You tell me if what you read is informative.

Atma-Sphere Class D Amplifiers - Positive Feedback

By Tim Aucremann - Overall the Class Ds delivered an open, clear sound across all the music I heard. The Atma-Sphere Class D amplifiers are true to the company’s goals of maximizing energy efficiency in a light weight package that is easy to use and takes a minimum of space.

positive-feedback.com

To pick nits, when I reviewed my listening notes I found a consistent mention of slightly diminished leading edge articulation. Call it the difference between a more incisive attack (not to be confused with harshness) and a softer attack, but not rolled off—pizzicato strings still sound pizzicato. This softer attack can sometimes smooth out a sense of texture across an orchestra or group with multiple voices playing concurrently and it can (not always) lessen the sense of the first bite of string on bow, tongue on reed or pick on guitar.

Aidas Mammoth Gold Moving Coil Stereo Cartridge Aidas Mammoth Cartridge - Positive Feedback

Aidas Mammoth Gold Moving Coil Stereo Cartridge

positive-feedback.com

Like the Mammoth Gold, the Fuuga is not a super high-resolution cartridge. I give the Gold a very slight leg up in resolution, which is simply more or less sonic information in terms of tonal saturation and delicacy of finer detail. However there were times, say my notes, when I wished for a wee bit more interior transparency on densely orchestrated pieces from both cartridges.

The Fuuga has better leading edge transient detail on attack, though a bit less duration on decay than the Gold. The Fuuga offers a bit more sense of forward movement and propulsion but I never felt the Gold laid back. Both cartridges represent heft, weight and solidity very well in dynamic 'ballsy' passages. I am writing a lot of "bits" and "slightly" and that is because overall the two cartridges are more similar than different. Here I have been picking nits but I like both cartridges.