Biased reviewers because of marketing/availability of products

[NYfan2]

I have noticed that companies who spend a lot on marketing and/or are widely available in general get raving reviews even despite the fact that the products are not great (ofcourse not on ASR), some examples are Audioquest and NAD/Bluesound.

Why is that?
Is it pure a commercial issue, bad review = maybe less money?
Or are the reviewers biased because a brand that sells so good at so many places must have a good product?

I start to think that bias also is a big part of this issue.

Your opinion please.

 

[abdo123]

because these products are transparent and the review is just as raving as the amount of money paid to the reviewer to do the review.

whatever reviewers left with actual integrity would be biased by the look, the feature set, the feel, and the price of the product that whatever faults that they can't even possibly hear to begin don't matter at all.

 

[sergeauckland]

Reviewers are paid a relative pittance, and have to be increasingly inventive to avoid writing something like "Yet another completely transparent Amplifier/DAC/DAP/Streamer" There's rarely enough money to employ engineers with test equipment as reviewers, and even they can't write a bland review or they won't get any more gigs.

Reviewing now seems to me to be just another part of the entertainment industry. Some HiFi mags now read just like some of the Supercar or superyacht mags, reviewing stuff that very few can afford to buy.

As to tying reviews to advertising, perish the thought...isn't that corrupt?

S.

 

[JJB70]

Reviewers are paid a relative pittance, and have to be increasingly inventive to avoid writing something like "Yet another completely transparent Amplifier/DAC/DAP/Streamer" There's rarely enough money to employ engineers with test equipment as reviewers, and even they can't write a bland review or they won't get any more gigs.

Reviewing now seems to me to be just another part of the entertainment industry. Some HiFi mags now read just like some of the Supercar or superyacht mags, reviewing stuff that very few can afford to buy.

As to tying reviews to advertising, perish the thought...isn't that corrupt?

S.

An honest review for most things these days would be "it works fine, if you like the design and the price is OK for you then go ahead".

 

[NYfan2]

As to tying reviews to advertising, perish the thought...isn't that corrupt?

Well, that's why I think reviewers are biased, I understand they need money but reviewing a bad component and telling it's great!
Ofcourse some people do everything for money but I can't believe that is true for all reviewers.

 

[sergeauckland]

Well, that's why I think reviewers are biased, I understand they need money but reviewing a bad component and telling it's great!
Ofcourse some people do everything for money but I can't believe that is true for all reviewers.

I don't think it's so much a case of reviewing a bad component and telling it's great, as with electronics, there are very few actually bad components these days. it's more, I think, a case of trying to hype a product to make it look different from all the others, when there's no audible difference.

The exception in electronics is deliberately 'bad' products like SET amplifiers and unfiltered NOS DACs, which however bad technically, are deliberately so. In these cases, they do seem to make a virtue of the crap performance. I think it legitimate to point out any lack of facilities, or peculiarity in performance, but to make a virtue out of them I think is disingenuous.

Loudspeakers are about the only components for which there is still a valid range of personal preferences, given that pretty much all loudspeakers are a choice between flaws. Where I think you're absolutely right is the review of expensive loudspeakers with appalling frequency response errors where even if the manufacturer did that deliberately, it still needs calling out as wrong, but is praised for some airy-fairy concept like detail, openness, or the very worse, musicality.

S.

 

[Plcamp]

YouTube reviewers are rewarded by the degree of activity they generate, if their goal is to maximize that then they primarily become entertainers.

Truth and entertainment don’t go well together, with the latter granting far more freedom to maximize activity.

Video’s about how DACs are a solved problem might entertain once, but there is no future in that. Better to maintain the mystique and talk about that endlessly.

 

[escksu]

I have noticed that companies who spend a lot on marketing and/or are widely available in general get raving reviews even despite the fact that the products are not great (ofcourse not on ASR), some examples are Audioquest and NAD/Bluesound.

Why is that?
Is it pure a commercial issue, bad review = maybe less money?
Or are the reviewers biased because a brand that sells so good at so many places must have a good product?

I start to think that bias also is a big part of this issue.

Your opinion please.

Just to let you know that reviews arent everything. Not everyone go around reading reviews before buying a product as well. So, many other factors, esp. recommendations by sales person at the shop, user's preferences etc...

Also, some of these brands didnt exist yesterday. They have been around for a long time.

 

[Headchef]

I’m bored with most reviews and their styles of writing, so much so I’ve started writing my own!

 

[Frgirard]

Stereophile has found the way to tell the truth With the measurements.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I’m bored with most reviews and their styles of writing, so much so I’ve started writing my own!

You'll probably get bored with that, too.

 

[Wes]

There are numerous types of bias. An egregious type is when a reviewer provides a positive review in order to obtain an inducement.

Less egregious, but possibly more insidious, is when the reviewer is not conscious of his bias.

Finally, if a reviewer cannot obtain a product then they cannot review it. How, for example, does a scientist with some commercial connection (e.g. drug research) "decide" to investigate a drug? Why did they not investigate an herbal remedy instead? or a generic that is GRAS?

 

[Headchef]

You'll probably get bored with that, too.

well it’s taken a good 30 years, let’s see, we’ve got time

 

[gsp1971]

Yet another thread on the same subject that @AdamG247 will close down after 25 pages. Wish we could move on.

 

[AdamG]

Yet another thread on the same subject that @AdamG247 will close down after 25 pages. Wish we could move on.

I hear ya Brother! It gets exhausting at times. But my job is not to create content or drive content in a specific direction. My job is to let the Members discuss whatever they wish. In a respectful manner. The continuance of this thread is in the hands of the Membership.

On edit: My other job is keeping the Panthers all clean and shiny and out of the liquor cabinet!

 

[gsp1971]

I hear ya Brother! It gets exhausting at times. But my job is not to create content or drive content in a specific direction. My job is to let the Members discuss whatever they wish. In a respectful manner. The continuance of this thread is in the hands of the Membership.

On edit: My other job is keeping the Panthers all clean and shiny and out of the liquor cabinet!

Understood. Freedom of speech. Until it gets out of line. Again.

This time I might take the liquor cabinet instead.

 

[Wes]

there are several liquor threads for your listening enjoyment