Reviews and reviewers - are they necessarily bad?

[jandl100]

Mmmm - given recent comments elsewhere on the forum, I think it would be interesting to start a discussion thread about reviewing and reviewers. I find myself sympathetic to what I understand Doc BH's views to be on most subjects, and partially about this subject, but not entirely.

Should there be a role for reviews and/or reviewers in the idealised hifi environment of the future?

A few points/questions, which might or might not represent my own views but which might be a useful "starter for 10" for discussion purposes ....


1. What factors are out there in the real world that might tend to corrupt the reviewing process. What can be done to mitigate against this?

2. Are reviewers claiming to have Golden Ears, or do they simply see themselves as regular folk who want to write reviews because of their enthusiasm for hifi?

3. If a review is a worthwhile or useful thing, what should it be like and who should write it?

4. Should a review be "peer reviewed" like in a scientific journal?

5. Most folk simply don't get the opportunity to hear much gear. Are reviews based on a strictly limited experience really worth that much in terms of assessing what is out there in terms of relative value for money.

6. Is there an important distinction between professional and amateur reviewers?

7. Will Doc remove this thread because he mistakenly thinks it's a wind-up? :?

Comments / questions / abuse ... ??

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

#7 no.

[sc_ita]

...
4. Should a review be "peer reviewed" like in a scientific journal?
...

Well, as an academic I can contribute to eliminate some illusions regarding the fairness of the system of "peer review" so much beloved by Anglo-American accademic world. In my field (structural mechanics), for example, the number of researchers who publish and review scientific articles is relatively modest, and unfortunately we have a system that sometimes tends to be quite self-referential. In other terms, researchers tend to submit articles to journals directed by "friends" (in accademic sense, i.e. similar views on their subject) who guarantee that their manuscript will be assigned to reviewers unknown but possibly condescending.
Even if probably there not exist a better system, this notwithstanding, the fairness of the academic "peer review" is somewhat a bit 'illusory as is effectiveness of the "blind test" in the field of hifi music reproduction.

Ciao, Siro

[zebbo]

I think there is a place for reviewers & reviews, one just has to try and sort the wheat from the chaff. Some of the best known, (KK?), seem to be just full of shit but I think you get a feel for whether the reviewer is trying to tell it like it is or just loving the sound of their own voice, (albeit in print). I would never go out and buy a product on the back of some glowing review but I might short-list it for a trial if possible. The problem I find with posing a question such as "What do people here think of such&such amplifier" is I know I'll get responses from "piss-poor" to "awesome" so back to square one. Even on a thread here somewhere a guy asked about cartridges and the Doc went straight in with Denon 103 which he obviously likes, but I think the 103 is very ordinary, a good cart for £100, but just that. The other problem, for me, is that I'm a English CSE grade 3 sort of bloke so, while I know what I like in my hi-fi, I'm not much good at telling everyone else!
The bake-off system seems a cracking way to try gear, a bit awkward maybe and I've never tried it myself but the idea seems good.

[jandl100]

Well, for a CSE Grade 3 that was a very articulate posting, zebbo! perhaps you should take up reviewing after all.

Yes, I agree that some review(er)s can be easily discounted by applying past experience of their views to your own experiences, and by determining what biases they have.
There are some Hifi Rags which I grew to trust, as their thoughts on various kit that I had experience of tallied closely with my own. Hifi+ was one of those - although I have to confess that I've not subscribed to, or even read, any hifi mag for a few years now.

... as to the Denon 103, I agree with Doc. My bet is that you didn't hear it in a synergistic arm - they like mass and somewhat loose bearings! Old Jap direct drives are an excellent match, and the like of Regas or unipivots are a disaster. Anyway, I seem to be wandering off topic. :D

[Daniel Quinn]

1. What factors are out there in the real world that might tend to corrupt the reviewing process. What can be done to mitigate against this?
Friendship, profit , status, ingratiation, stupidity , ,misplaced loyalty. In short you may as well ask what factors influence human behaviour . Full disclosure of any and all relevant information is required . It does not mitigate, it simply informs and in powers the reader .

2. Are reviewers claiming to have Golden Ears, or do they simply see themselves as regular folk who want to write reviews because of their enthusiasm for hifi?
Some do , some don’t . However , all relations are about power [ M Foucault] the reviewer is bestowed with power by virtue of the fact of the amount of equipment they are privileged to hear . This gives their words the illusion of knowledge and experience which can influence others .This is unavoidable, they could also be speaking crap , you just do not know. This is the fundamental problem with reviews and why they should be treated solely as entertainment .

3. If a review is a worthwhile or useful thing, what should it be like and who should write it?
Only as entertainment . As a means of influencing a prospective purchase they are analogous to buying a lottery ticket . A lot of shit is written which seeks to bestow upon products characteristics which transcend time/space, when all they should ever conclude is in my system , in this room and this moment in my life I like the sound of this piece of equipment . I am not saying there is no such thing a good piece of equipment which would be good in a variety of systems , I am simply saying it is impossible for a single person to ever make such a conclusion. For example . this month’s hi-fi choice interconnect review is classic shite . There is lip service to system synergy is trying for yourself , then the usual crap about universal cable features such as booming bass, sparkling treble , open soundstage are trotted out and nowhere in the entire review is the equipment used mentioned.
The problem is the truth of “ in my system , in this room and this moment in my life I like the sound of this piece of equipment” undermines the whole raison detre and usp of magazines and reviewers.

4. Should a review be "peer reviewed" like in a scientific journal?
How , synergy and human nature is the ultimate negation. If you claim this pill cures cancer and it does’nt you lose . If you claim this piece sounds amazing and I think its shit , I lose because it doesn’t synergise in my system and/or I have got cloth ears .

5. Most folk simply don't get the opportunity to hear much gear. Are reviews based on a strictly limited experience really worth that much in terms of assessing what is out there in terms of relative value for money.
So what , there is nothing more honest than a person who bought a piece of equipment to listen to music and loves it and wishes to tell people. There is an unwritten agenda in reviewing and it is look at me Ive tried all this equipment , I know whats what , aint me and my system ace., please hang on my every word.
An honest review of a person who as listened to one system is as useful as a honest review of a person who a listened to a thousand to a prospective purchaser . Additionally , the former is much more likely to be honest .
The quantity issue also helps facilitate another prevalent pernicious aspect of reviewing and that it the giant killer phenomena . look at me ive listended to shit loads of equipment some very very expensive and i can assure you this low cost piece of equipment is a bloody giant killer. Thereby facilitating a bandwagon. The equipment could be good , it could equally be more about the reviewers vested interest.

6. Is there an important distinction between professional and amateur reviewers?
Yes one does it for ego and money and god knows what else , the other just for ego and god knows what else .

7. Will Doc remove this thread because he mistakenly thinks it's a wind-up?
Actually , I thought he’d remove it because it constitutes very good market research for somebody in your position . Kudos to the doc .

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Good reply DQ, nothing really to add. Apart from Jerry's participation in this is unpaid and he has no share as far as I know in Stupinder's business. AND he is a box collector and addicted to trying different gear. So for him it is a heaven sent opportunity and I fully understand and respect why he does it. I just don't understand what use it is to anyone else apart from to try and create a revenue stream for the owner.

[terrybooth]

In reading any sort of review, you need to be aware of the reason the review has been published. Reviews in magazines are there to sell the magazines so that the magazines can sell the advertising space for the manufacturers who attempt to influence the reviewers. Reviews on web sites are either vanity publishing or are there to drive traffic to the web site so that the web site can make money selling advertising and we've been here before. In both cases the reviewers are seeking to fill column inches not to pursue the truth.

Perhaps there's a useful function in flagging up that something exists (I stumbled upon NVA trying to find out about John Farlowe) but not around quality or usefulness. At the very best, taking the background and reading between the lines and comparing reviews you might gain an idea of what is popular. But in the final analysis, Caveat Emptor - see it, sniff it, feel it and take a taste before committing.

[jandl100]

Hmm! My what a cynical lot you are!

BTW Doc, you were spot on with regard to the nature of my involvement with a certain webzine.

Let's forget the latter and consider the many reviews I've done on the forums, mainly the Wigwam ...
Yeah - how about the famous "Mini-T" review.
I just happened to come across an eBay listing that I thought looked interesting - I buy one (Distance Selling refund regs!) and Lo & Behold, the little amp's performance is astonishingly good. So, I review it on the Wam -- wonderful sound blah de blah - lots of folks who otherwise wouldn't ever have known about it give it a go. Many of them think it as wonderful as I do.

So, they've got a great vfm component and are very happy. All as a result of my review, which I did out of the goodness of my heart to spread the Good News.

I don't claim to have Golden Ears - I just have heard enough to recognise an exceptional component when I hear it.
Do I crave the attention and the "power" that DQ refers to? Well ... some people think I'm just out to big myself up. Maybe they are right. Others follow my boxswapping adventures with much interest. In fact, I get a lot of encouragement from many folk.

Where's the harm? All I can see is a lot of good has been done.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

That is not the same thing Jerry, that is what I want here, that is what I want all our members to do about their own systems. I hope you can encourage them, as few have the same confidence you have in your ears and music. It is this that creates the "golden ears" myth, we all have golden ears. More often than not golden ears are very much confused with over inflated egos.

If you do fall out with the wam or they don't want your reviews then you are very welcome to post them here, we obviously don't have the same level of readership, but we have quality instead of quantity