YouTube Audio Reviewer Tier List - Jan 2023 Edition

[IAtaman]

So you want to buy a new audio product, you go to YouTube, search "best closed back headphone/dac/amp/studio monitor/IEM under $xxxx", or the name of the product if you are already somewhat honed in on what you want, and you get a list of videos to choose from. But which of these reviewers offer you the best return for your time?

Well I thought it would be interesting topic to talk about, and in a format that is best by test - a tier list.

Here is my suggestion as to how to approach this, feel free to ignore it as much as you want.

I think what would be important in a reviewer would be their:

• Knowledge : do they know what they are talking about or is it just a repetition of manufacturers' sales pitch​
• Usefulness : how helpful is the review to make a purchase decision with which you will most likely be happy​
• Entertainment : how entertaining is to watch them​
• Quality of Production : lights, mics, camera - action!​
• Variety of Products : is it all IEMs or whatever their sponsors send them or do we also get a good variety of products​
• Likability : with some people you just don't click - and it is almost always better to accept that our personal like / dislike plays a role than to try an deny it and pretend objectivity in my experience. Spill it out.​

And here is the list of reviewers I can think of, in alphabetical order. If you are game, you can include or exclude whomever you want, this is for reference only.

• BadGuyGoodRewiews
• CheapAudioMan
• Chrono
• Crinicle
• Currawong
• DankPods
• Darko
• DMS
• Gizaudio
• Goldensound
• iiwi
• Joshua Velor
• Julian Krause
• LTT / Linus
• Precog
• Resolve
• Super*Review
• Zeos

I think most will agree that it's probably best to exclude Amir from this tier list as it does not feel appropriate to go into someones home and rate their "excellence in hosting" during dinner no matter what is your opinion (we will talk about him on Head-Fi )

Lad os gå!

 

[Palladium]

I take anybody reviewing speakers without a Klippel with a huge mountain of salt.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

You should include "reproducible, standards-based measurements" in your list of key criteria. I'm happy to accept a badly lit, boring presentation if it's fact-based. A lot of engineering is unexciting.

 

[Vini darko]

Dank pods wins the entertainment contest.
Erin's audio corner for objective speaker reviews.
Techmoan for the obscure stuff and the occasional puppets.
Barevids for car audio stuff.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Julian Krause for audio recording interfaces.

Erin's audio corner seconded for speaker reviews.

 

[anmpr1]

I take anybody reviewing speakers without a Klippel with a huge mountain of salt.

I guess it depends upon one's threshold for information. Think about it. How many U Toobers can afford a Klippel? Could we say in a like vein that anyone reviewing amps without an Audiograph PowerCube or Active Loadbox connected to an AP is doing it wrong, and that their opinions must be taken with a grain of salt?

All this stuff is mostly tools for designers. To expect a guy in a living room filming with a Webcam to think on that level is pushing it, and frankly ridiculous.

YT 'reviews' are mostly clickbait opinion stuff. Don't take it too seriously. You can find the engineering stuff, but almost no one interested in hi-fi as a casual 'hobby' is watching those. For my part, YT is about the bottom of the barrel, for entertainment. FWIW, I never watch anyone with their eye's bugging out, and mouth open, looking like a total moron. What is it with these Y-toobers? They have no self-respect?

 

[fpitas]

I guess it depends upon one's threshold for information. Think about it. How many U Toobers can afford a Klippel? Could we say in a like vein that anyone reviewing amps without an Audiograph PowerCube or Active Loadbox connected to an AP is doing it wrong, and that their opinions must be taken with a grain of salt?

All this stuff is mostly tools for designers. To expect a guy in a living room filming with a Webcam to think on that level is pushing it, and frankly ridiculous.

YT 'reviews' are mostly clickbait opinion stuff. Don't take it too seriously. You can find the engineering stuff, but almost no one interested in hi-fi as a casual 'hobby' is watching those. For my part, YT is about the bottom of the barrel, for entertainment. FWIW, I never watch anyone with their eye's bugging out, and mouth open, looking like a total moron. What is it with these Y-toobers? They have no self-respect?

Yes; unless you are very sure about the reviewer's motivations, it's at best a waste of time.

 

[IAtaman]

Here is my take on it.

S Tier
Resolve : I respect his knowledge and perspective, and no fanboy, no fanatic approach. It took me a year to appreciate his style though, so maybe not the most likable guy at first sight but definitely underrated in my opinion.
Crinacle : You might agree with him, you might not, but its hard to dispute he put some thought into what he is doing and he has a system which he tries to keep as coherent as possible in my opinion. Like his F-you approach as well.

A Tier
Julian Krause : S tier reviews all across the board except variety. I watch some of his videos despite having no interest in interfaces.

B Tier
Gizaudio : Appreciate the effort to find something to say after weeks and weeks of "all the same" IEMs. Appreciate the measurement and subjective take on it as well.
Chronos : I like the guy, and we have similar taste in headphones.
DMS : DMS on a good day is A tier and not on a good day is B tier I'd say. Can go either way.
Zeos/Z Review : You gotta dig through a lot of BS to find gems of interesting interesting information.
Goldensound : Mixed feelings I'd say, love his objectivists side and the measurements he does, his work on MQA was very enlightening as well. And then next week he talks about the fuller sounding amps. I like to watch his vides to keep my objectivist side under check. Amir Goldensound joint video review / discussion on an amp would be very interesting to watch.

C Tier
DankPods : Big fan. Super entertaining and very knowledgeable in some areas. I'd not buy expensive products based on his reviews though. HööDöö600.
Super*Review : TLDR - can never watch a video of his in full, a bit too slow paced for my taste.

D Tier
Joshua V. : good production quality, useless and subjective reviews.
Darko : nice style, comes across like his knowledge of the topics he is talking about is very superficial.

 

[fpitas]

If people like watching YouTube vids full of commentary, well I hope they enjoy. Just don't come here and tell us how great (or bad) something sounds in a YouTube video

 

[Trell]

If people like watching YouTube vids full of commentary, well I hope they enjoy. Just don't come here and tell us how great (or bad) something sounds in a YouTube video

On occasion that generates pages upon pages of posts here on ASR.

 

[IAtaman]

If people like watching YouTube vids full of commentary, well I hope they enjoy. Just don't come here and tell us how great (or bad) something sounds in a YouTube video

Why not?

 

[JustJones]

Why not?

Off the top of my head, Complete waste of time? I know I probably waste time as much if not more than a lot being retired but even I have limits. Now if it's for comic relief or boredom I admit to watching a few of the guys listed a couple of times.

 

[fpitas]

Why not?

I assume you're joking (?)

 

[IAtaman]

Yeah sure, I understand the lack of interest in the topic. What I do not understand is the reaction to the topic of YouTube reviewers even being raised.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Why not?

Firstly, the ethical reasons. This is #1.
A great many people on YT make money off subscriptions. This means their content had best be appealing. No restrictions are made as to legitimacy, and no promotions are made on the basis of veracity. The result is a race to use any ruse whatsoever to increase monetization. That's not a good situation. Although there are channels not dependent on monetization, they are few and far between.
Old legal saw: "Never trust a self-serving deponent".

I believe that Amir receives no revenue from his YT videos.

Secondly is technical abilities.
Speakers: All videos using microphones display the acoustic properties of the room used. You can't avoid that, even with a calibrated binaural head. Using conventional microphones are even less accurate; they may even accentuate room effects. Uncalibrated microphones compound the problem.
The result is a "sound" that bears absolutely no resemblance to what you, the viewer, might hear from the speaker. And that is listening in the room on the video; what you might hear in your room is even less applicable.
To sidestep these problems, some YT influencers (let's not call them "reviewers") insert false sound tracks. Others use equalization to make the sound more attractive.

These problems are rarely discussed, if ever.

Electronics: The current rage among YT influencers is to attribute a "sound" to electronics. In truth, a few electronics DO have a particular "sound", but the reason is either designer incompetence or deliberate pandering to subjectivist delusions. Any electronic device which is competently designed and used within its capabilities has no "sound". It receives a signal, it processes or amplifies that signal, and it outputs the signal, all with no modification.
To repeat: competent electronic devices, used competently, have no native "sound".

This problem is also rarely discussed.

The third technical ability is the technical background of the influencer. Have you ever heard the maxim, "People prefer an attractive lie to an ugly truth"? There is no method for discerning the technical background of most influencers. It's another issue that is rarely discussed. Instead, the main issue seems to be "attractiveness", or popularity. There are a great many YT influencers who have a very attractive demeanor, and who are well-versed in dealing with the public. Their experience shows; they could, as the old saw goes, "sell ice cubes to Eskimos".
The very lifeblood of scam artists and con men is the power to "deceive and make believe", and YT proves that. Technical qualifications are thrown out the window.

All in all, discussion of any YT entity other than the most stringently qualified is useless. It's similar to searching for an honest politician: yes, they do exist, but they are few and far between.

Jim

 

[fpitas]

The result is a "sound" that bears absolutely no resemblance to what you, the viewer, might hear from the speaker.

This. I have no idea how an intelligent person thinks listening to a random YouTube video represents a sonically meaningful experience.

 

[Trell]

This. I have no idea how an intelligent person thinks listening to a random YouTube video represents a sonically meaningful experience.

There is one YT reviewer that when reviewing microphones his wife, daughter and himself reads from a text that is the same over the reviews under the same/similar conditions, and normalized to LUFS -23. He is also a video professional.

In that case I’d say one gets some impression of how the microphone sounds for spoken word, but of course, in the end we’ve to try it out ourselves.

It’s interesting to note how the same microphone is more flattering to one person over the other.

 

[Koeitje]

I'd rate LTT far below Gamer's Nexus for PC parts, and for audio I wouldn't bother with LTT either (he thought Abyss made good headphones).

 

[fpitas]

It’s interesting to note how the same microphone is more flattering to one person over the other.

Placement is crucial, too. All part of the art and craft of getting good recordings.

 

[IAtaman]

Firstly, the ethical reasons. This is #1.
A great many people on YT make money off subscriptions. This means their content had best be appealing. No restrictions are made as to legitimacy, and no promotions are made on the basis of veracity. The result is a race to use any ruse whatsoever to increase monetization. That's not a good situation. Although there are channels not dependent on monetization, they are few and far between.
Old legal saw: "Never trust a self-serving deponent".

You gotta brush up your knowledge on YouTube economy. True, whole internet is a big sales and marketing machine, but there are, and has been, a lot of different ways of making money off of YT. Monetization you refer to is about getting a share of the ad revenue YT generates, not everyone is there selling something becasue it is the viewers attention what is being sold most of the time. Sure, there are indeed intracacies of the YT recomendation algorithm, but for most people the objective is to get as many views as possible, and a lot of people also figured that not being full of shit is a good way of achieving long term success because on the internet there is always someone who knows more about the topic than you do, and people of 21st CEntury do infact value factual data. Check EEVBlog or BenEater or 3Brown1Blue if you need examples. What all of this is meant to say is that sometimes it pays better to be credible.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that Amir receives no revenue from his YT videos. I may be wrong.

Secondly is technical abilities.
Speakers: All videos using microphones display the acoustic properties of the room used. You can't avoid that, even with a calibrated binaural head. Using conventional microphones are even less accurate; they may even accentuate room effects. Uncalibrated microphones compound the problem.
The result is a "sound" that bears absolutely no resemblance to what you, the viewer, might hear from the speaker. And that is listening in the room on the video; what you might hear in your room is even less applicable.
To sidestep these problems, some YT influencers (let's not call them "reviewers") insert false sound tracks. Others use equalization to make the sound more attractive.

These problems are rarely discussed, if ever.

Sorry, you lost me a bit, I am not very familiar with the type of reviewers you are talking about. In any case If someone is claiming you can listen to audio equipment over YT, I think we should put them in F tier.

Electronics: The current rage among YT influencers is to attribute a "sound" to electronics. In truth, a few electronics DO have a particular "sound", but the reason is either designer incompetence or deliberate pandering to subjectivist delusions. Any electronic device which is competently designed and used within its capabilities has no "sound". It receives a signal, it processes or amplifies that signal, and it outputs the signal, all with no modification.
To repeat: competent electronic devices, used competently, have no native "sound".

This problem is also rarely discussed.

Well, it is discuessed less rarely than you think actually. Some do claim amps and dacs have sounds and some don't. YouTube is not very different than the Internet universe ASR is part of really. There is LessLoss and there is Oratory and all in between. I personally don't feel obliged to agree with everything I watch and take the liberty of disagreeing with some of the comments made in reviews. Well, call it blashpehmy, I do not agree with some of the comments Amir makes. I believe that is OK and does not stop me from enjoying and learning from the other parts of the review.

The third technical ability is the technical background of the influencer. Have you ever heard the maxim, "People prefer an attractive lie to an ugly truth"? There is no method for discerning the technical background of most influencers. It's another issue that is rarely discussed. Instead, the main issue seems to be "attractiveness", or popularity. There are a great many YT influencers who have a very attractive demeanor, and who are well-versed in dealing with the public. Their experience shows; they could, as the old saw goes, "sell ice cubes to Eskimos".
The very lifeblood of scam artists and con men is the power to "deceive and make believe", and YT proves that. Technical qualifications are thrown out the window.

All in all, discussion of any YT entity other than the most stringently qualified is useless. It's similar to searching for an honest politician: yes, they do exist, but they are few and far between.

Jim

Sure. World is full of pretenders. There are also a lot of people who know what they are talking about. In all fairness, I'd rather hear YouTouber Julian Krauses's opinion on Audio Intefaces than yours for example. But if you think it is such a dangerous place out there, why don't you tell us which reviewers are good in your opinion and which are full of shit. I am sure you are not really saying that one is either an avid ASR member that only reads peer reviewed scientic papers or a fool who watches self serving YT con man, and that there is nothing in between, are you?