Paid reviewers

[Timcognito]

A missing element in any one test is a control group or standard. In HiFi there is an added element audibility because a good microphone is a far more sensitive instrument than the ear. When Amir writes his subjective comments on the speaker test graphs they are indeed subjective but come from his data base (he said 250?). Good test results outside the audible range only imply good design and not audible perception. The fact that the data base is the the reviewers memory or training is the biggest flaw in reviewing, followed by not having documented results on several like devices for comparison as a control. Paying someone to perform a test says nothing about it's validity. Amir could charge a $1 for each review read and the results would be the same. The methodology and and documentation makes a good review. It's not common but it happens that some bad objective test results get subjectively interpreted as good and the motivation for that is shameful, but at least the data doesn't lie.

 

[TankTop]

Advertorials are a form of public dishonesty, and more so the more so the more they are disguised as impartial information.

Lighten up, the masses don’t read this stuff. I’m a salesman, you don’t get sales by giving too much information, fastest way to turn a buyer into a shopper. People make emotional decisions not logical ones and sales is just catering to this fact. If you own a company that sells things then you need to sell to stay in business. It’s just basic human psychology

 

[MattHooper]

I'm fine with reviewers who make a living reviewing.

I'm very happy ASR exists as one way to blast through some of the b.s. in high end audio.

And ASR has taken a particular approach, as we know. So for speakers, Amir (and many here) have settled on a criteria - the one arrived at via the research by Toole et al, and then generally speakers are rated against that criteria. So you get the sliding "good" or "bad" (recommended/not recommended) ratings. Whether someone pays attention to Amir's personal rating or not, there is still a general approach of looking at the measurements to winnow "bad" from "good" products. And that's cool; some people are looking for that approach.

But it's not the only approach.

Another approach used by many if not most other reviewers, e.g. Stereophile, other mags, youtube reviewers, isn't so much about rating speakers "good" or "bad" on a specific criteria, but rather just telling you about the product and, subjectively, "we are going to do our best to tell you what it's like to live with this product, and how it sounds, and the reader can decide for himself if it sounds like an appealing product." So Steve Guttenberg for instance is constantly reminding his viewers "I'm not here to tell you what to buy or not, I'm just telling you how I think it sounds, and it may not be the product for me, but it might be for someone else, some of the viewers."

There are plenty of audiophile who also appreciate that approach. I certainly do. Does it have it's liabilities? Certainly: not as objective as ASR. But then this wider sphere of audio reviewers offer things I don't get from ASR review: plenty more equipment I'm intrigued with (as are other audiophiles) that will never end up on ASR. I will watch Darko videos on equipment I'm not even terrribly interested in because he often does quite a good job introducing a product, outlining it's features, the point of the product, what it's like to live with the product, all with very good production value. Same with some other channels.

Sometimes it seems a common view on ASR that the paid reviewers (and subjective reviewers) just creates a scenario of bullshit artists and poor dupes being influenced by them. While there is no doubt some of that phenomenon, I consider myself a big boy, don't take any reviewers word as gospel, can generally sniff out the bullshit and enjoy the parts I like. Likewise you'll find a general tenor of pretty healthy skepticism about reviews in general among the audiophile community, whether it's Steve Hoffman forums or even audiogon. It's not all "wow, it must be great because it got a good review!"

So, again, I find there's plenty of useful info among the paid reviewers, and I think I and many others can navigate it pretty well understanding how to sometimes read in between the lines if necessary, and get entertainment value and sometimes some nice leads on gear.

 

[Mart68]

I'm fine with reviewers who make a living reviewing.

I'm very happy ASR exists as one way to blast through some of the b.s. in high end audio. But

And ASR has taken a particular approach, as we know. So for speakers, Amir (and many here) have settled on a criteria - the one arrived at via the research by Toole et al, and then generally speakers are rated against that criteria. So you get the sliding "good" or "bad" (recommended/not recommended) ratings. Whether someone pays attention to Amir's persona rating or not, there is still a general approach of looking at the measurements to winnow "bad" from "good" products. And that's cool; some people are looking for that approach.

But it's not the only approach.

Another approach used by many if not most other reviewers, e.g. Stereophile, other mags, youtube reviewers, isn't so much about rating speakers "good" or "bad" on a specific criteria, but rather just telling you about the product and, subjectively, "we are going to do our best to tell you what it's like to live with this product, and how it sounds, and the reader can decide for himself if it sounds like an appealing product." So Steve Guttenberg for instance is constantly reminding his viewers "I'm not here to tell you what to buy or not, I'm just telling you how I think it sounds, and it may not be the product for me, but it might be for someone else, some of the viewers."

There are plenty of audiophile who also appreciate that approach. I certainly do. Does it have it's liabilities? Certainly: not as objective as ASR. But then this wider sphere of audio reviewers offer things I don't get from ASR review: plenty more equipment I'm intrigued with (as are other audiophiles) that will never end up on ASR. I will watch Darko videos on equipment I'm not even terrribly interested in because he often does quite a good job introducing a product, outlining it's features, the point of the product, what it's like to live with the product, all with very good production value. Same with some other channels.

Sometimes it seems a common view on ASR that the paid reviewers (and subjective reviewers) just creates a scenario of bullshit artists and poor dupes being influenced by them. While there is no doubt some of that phenomenon, I consider myself a big boy, don't take any reviewers word as gospel, can generally sniff out the bullshit and enjoy the parts I like. Likewise you'll find a general tenor of pretty healthy skepticism about reviews in general among the audiophile community, whether it's Steve Hoffman forums or even audiogon. It's not all "wow, it must be great because it got a good review!"

So, again, I find there's plenty of useful info among the paid reviewers, and I think I and many others can navigate it pretty well understanding how to sometimes read in between the lines if necessary, and get entertainment value and sometimes some nice leads on gear.

There's plenty of people like you but there are also plenty of people who 'Want to believe.' Hi-Fi in particular is populated by middle-class, middle-income types who, for whatever reasons, are not especially 'worldly'.

Life is full of people who want to take our money. it has always been that way. It's up to the buyer to educate himself and not be naïve. If he doesn't then I've no sympathy. The 'reviewer' is only doing what he is paid - or otherwise incentivised - to do.

 

[Purité Audio]

Quote,
‘Sometimes it seems a common view on ASR that the paid reviewers (and subjective reviewers) just creates a scenario of bullshit artists and poor dupes,’
This.
Keith

 

[MattHooper]

^^^ ASR certainly comes in for some lame criticism on some other forums. On the other hand it’s not surprising some visiting audiophiles pick up on posts like this and decide ASR is a place full of snobs looking down their noses at the average audiophile.

 

[Purité Audio]

Sadly Matt the huge majority of posters on other forums are uninformed and show no desire whatsoever to become informed.
I believe that they feel that actual technical knowledge would spoil the hobby for them.
What is that Churchill quote,
‘Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.’
Keith

 

[sergeauckland]

I am suspicious of ALL reviews, paid for or otherwise. Whether it's done for money or ego, they have an agenda. I apply this to restaurants, cars, HiFi, books or anything that has a review. The only thing for me are the measurements, or other verifiable facts, not opinions.

Consequently, buying anything of significance is hard for me, as I take a long time to work out what's best for me. In effects, I create a Tender Specification, either in my head, or occasionally on paper, then select what gets closest. I accept that there is then a subjective element to balancing any issues between products, but then the spec is subjective insofar as I drew it up considering what I think is important.

This also accounts for why I buy once and keep it a long time, as hopefully I got the spec right.

S

 

[JSmith]

Sadly Matt the huge majority of posters on other forums are uninformed and show no desire whatsoever to become informed.

One of the worst things is, many of them don't realise they're perpetuating myths and being used as unpaid shills.

If one group feels another is being snobbish, it would then be prudent to find out why wouldn't it? Knowledge is power...


JSmith

 

[Purité Audio]

It appears to me that the majority will without question believe more or less anything, was it always like this?
Keith

 

[Willem]

Lighten up, the masses don’t read this stuff. I’m a salesman, you don’t get sales by giving too much information, fastest way to turn a buyer into a shopper. People make emotional decisions not logical ones and sales is just catering to this fact. If you own a company that sells things then you need to sell to stay in business. It’s just basic human psychology

I think it is deception, and in my book that is dishonest. Sure, it may make money, but not all ways to make money are ethically right.

 

[Sokel]

I'm ok with any review that presents raw,reliable data,payed or not.
For anything else,it's their ears,their room,their taste,their mood,etc.Not mine.

So...

 

[Kaligogrrrrr]

Nothing wrong with marketing.

If it is not misleading and tells you the truth about what is being marketed. In my experience this is REEEEEEEALLY rare with tech. And the way tactical omission is used so incredibly frequently infuriates me.

 

[tomtoo]

It appears to me that the majority will without question believe more or less anything, was it always like this?
Keith

They believe what some authoritys tell them. Even this "authoritys" are self proclaimed. The difference is maybe that 40 years ago it was much harder to create a audio magazin than today a youtube channe.

 

[Ze Frog]

I'm fine with reviewers who make a living reviewing.

I'm very happy ASR exists as one way to blast through some of the b.s. in high end audio.

And ASR has taken a particular approach, as we know. So for speakers, Amir (and many here) have settled on a criteria - the one arrived at via the research by Toole et al, and then generally speakers are rated against that criteria. So you get the sliding "good" or "bad" (recommended/not recommended) ratings. Whether someone pays attention to Amir's personal rating or not, there is still a general approach of looking at the measurements to winnow "bad" from "good" products. And that's cool; some people are looking for that approach.

But it's not the only approach.

Another approach used by many if not most other reviewers, e.g. Stereophile, other mags, youtube reviewers, isn't so much about rating speakers "good" or "bad" on a specific criteria, but rather just telling you about the product and, subjectively, "we are going to do our best to tell you what it's like to live with this product, and how it sounds, and the reader can decide for himself if it sounds like an appealing product." So Steve Guttenberg for instance is constantly reminding his viewers "I'm not here to tell you what to buy or not, I'm just telling you how I think it sounds, and it may not be the product for me, but it might be for someone else, some of the viewers."

There are plenty of audiophile who also appreciate that approach. I certainly do. Does it have it's liabilities? Certainly: not as objective as ASR. But then this wider sphere of audio reviewers offer things I don't get from ASR review: plenty more equipment I'm intrigued with (as are other audiophiles) that will never end up on ASR. I will watch Darko videos on equipment I'm not even terrribly interested in because he often does quite a good job introducing a product, outlining it's features, the point of the product, what it's like to live with the product, all with very good production value. Same with some other channels.

Sometimes it seems a common view on ASR that the paid reviewers (and subjective reviewers) just creates a scenario of bullshit artists and poor dupes being influenced by them. While there is no doubt some of that phenomenon, I consider myself a big boy, don't take any reviewers word as gospel, can generally sniff out the bullshit and enjoy the parts I like. Likewise you'll find a general tenor of pretty healthy skepticism about reviews in general among the audiophile community, whether it's Steve Hoffman forums or even audiogon. It's not all "wow, it must be great because it got a good review!"

So, again, I find there's plenty of useful info among the paid reviewers, and I think I and many others can navigate it pretty well understanding how to sometimes read in between the lines if necessary, and get entertainment value and sometimes some nice leads on gear.

All valid points. A lot of it really comes down to the consumer at fault for relying on someone else's opinion. That's the big problem with the advent of the internet, the human mind hasn't really evolved at such a pace as the technology we possess.

I do watch reviews occasionally, but don't really take anything on board, it's more to get a glimpse at a product and see it beyond a fancy sale picture. Given time though I think people will catch up. I was once the type who kind of took it all quite seriously as actual information myself, it's a job to suddenly be bombarded by information in the way the internet can muster and not really fall into that kind of trap at the beginning really. Personally I don't think I could do what many of them do though, I'd find it embarrassing gushing over everything and the fact someone will buy it and be completely gutted. There's likely not that many products that bad to be fair, but still. I think the most cringe inducing thing is seeing a lot of these reviewer's morph into rather egotistical types that genuinely believe to begin they are some kind of expert in their fields and will then actually get rather defensive and such when someone is doing actual reviewing based on objective data. This is a problem not just with so called reviewer's, but even manafacturers, like what we have all witnessed with Tekton. It's that age old human problem of perceived power or fame, can really end up creating quite odious people.

 

[bodhi]

I believe that they feel that actual technical knowledge would spoil the hobby for them.

It kind of does. It seems to me that the more you know about how sound reproduction really works the less you need to worry about things and spend money.

The usual case is someone who has good speakers, way into diminishing returns. If you buy into objectivism then your upgrade options are pretty limited. You can buy a bigger house or build dedicated, treated listening room but that's about it. If you buy into subjectivism then everything matters: you can satisfy the upgrade itch easily and can choose the proper amount to spend at that time. If one is a bit short on cash then one can buy for example nice absorbing plate under your streamer or upgrade the fuses to audiophile grade in your house.

 

[napfkuchen]

I'm fine with reviewers who make a living reviewing.

The more someone depends on the number of clicks, comments, referrals, etc., the more dependent they become. I would say the majority of hi-fi reviewers on YouTube have perfected the art of stringing together a lot of flowery phrases without any reference to measured values. It's all pretty vague, but in the end you still get the verdict that this particular DAC is too shrill, that it lacks the analogue sound...
Subconsciously, these reviews cause uncertainty in the recipient, who questions their own purchasing decisions. So the gas (gear acquisition syndrome) continues to be fueled and a lot of sales are generated without increasing the satisfaction of the hi-fi enthusiast. If you read the comments under such videos, you quickly get the impression: This is the voodoo priest speaking to his believers.
But there are now numerous product categories that have been developed to perfection, such as DACs, where apart from the aesthetics, workmanship and extravagant features (here e.g. AES input), there is no longer any reason to resort to the expensive devices. Basically, anyone can choose a cheap China DAC that Amir considers to be good and the “hi-fi journey” is quickly over in this regard. This means that in the end you only have to concentrate on a few critical points (speakers, EQ, room acoustics) to achieve a reasonable result. Once you have ticked these off, the urge to improve diminishes.

 

[Gregm]

Sadly Matt the huge majority of posters on other forums are uninformed and show no desire whatsoever to become informed.
I believe that they feel that actual technical knowledge would spoil the hobby for them.
What is that Churchill quote,
‘Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.’
Keith

I understand your point (and I do agree) -- but why is the behaviour of those hobbyists a contentious matter?
Indeed, were technical (or other - acoustics, etc) knoweldge to spoil their stew, why not let them enjoy it as it is? Regards
(p.s. it's sometimes hard work to rationalise in the face of belief: I tried to explain to someone that the sound of system, operating in a closed space, will be affected by that space... but, no cigar!)

 

[Purité Audio]

I understand your point (and I do agree) -- but why is the behaviour of those hobbyists a contentious matter?
Indeed, were technical (or other - acoustics, etc) knoweldge to spoil their stew, why not let them enjoy it as it is? Regards
(p.s. it's sometimes hard work to rationalise in the face of belief: I tried to explain to someone that the sound of system, operating in a closed space, will be affected by that space... but, no cigar!)

Quoting @JSmith from above,
‘One of the worst things is, many of them don't realise they're perpetuating myths and being used as unpaid shills.’

I believe the nonsense has to be refuted, if it makes one listener actually stop and think …
Keith

 

[ta240]

It appears to me that the majority will without question believe more or less anything, was it always like this?
Keith

I think for the most part it has. If something is said with the right conviction and authority a lot of people people tend to believe it. If it is someone they already think is smart, then it makes it that much easier to believe.

Ironically, having nearly all the information that exists in the palm of ones hand made it worse.

At one point I thought the internet would be the end of urban myths and misinformation. Instead they have gotten worse. I can't remember who said it, but I love the line that goes something like "Who's idea was it to take all the idiots in the world and connect them with each other?"