YouTube Audio Reviewer Tier List - Jan 2023 Edition

[MattHooper]

TL;DR
Viewers often come to me just asking for "the answer." I don't know which is the best speaker. I can only hope to help them educate themselves enough to make a better decision for themselves. What's "best" for everyone is different.

Great question. The answer is that comment comes from my experience with videos I've made on my channel. I'm talking about me.

I have broken down reviews into 3 parts before: a binaural sound demo using calibrated mics, one where I just cover my measurements, and another video that's mostly my subjective opinion. You might have guessed that the subjective one gets the most views. No surprise, we're human and we want to hear the jist of it all. I do it too. I come here and just want to see what kind of panther a product gets.

TOP 5 LISTS/BUYING GUIDES
I have summary videos that are the easiest to make because I just take my favorite speakers that I've previously reviewed at certain price points and summarize my overall findings on each speaker. Those are extremely popular videos. I get it. People might not have the time or desire to watch reviews, learn about audio, they just want to know which product to buy. They want to be told. They want the shortcut answer.

So in the end, maybe I'm complaining you, the viewer? Maybe I'm frustrated with my own inability to make educational information more entertaining. Maybe I'm am thinking about a specific reviewer when I say something. This was just a rant. Me just saying whatever came to mind. If it resonates with others, maybe there's something there. But why can't that person own their own meaning of why it resonates with them. I know why it resonates with me, but that's just me. If you and I like the same song, we will have different memories attached to that song. If I say, it makes me feel XYZ way, and you also feel that way, does it matter what my backstory is? I don't think so. That's why I don't care to specify which reviewers I had in mind. It could've been a few at the same time. If I wanted to call a specific person out, I would have.

Ok thanks. (And also, thanks for contributing another more objective take on audio equipment in to the youtubeverse)

I certainly don't see the gig of a youtube reviewer as being easy, no matter where one is on the objective - subjective curve.

 

[thecheapseats]

"Don't hate the player, hate the game!" I'm hating on the game, so I didn't feel the need to call out the players. My rant might be more about YouTube and what it chooses to recommend. It's my fault because I thought it was an educational platform, and forgot it's more "show business" than anything. My fault. I'm mad at myself for forgetting that.

YouTube is about entertainment. But, I also have to remind myself that some of my best teachers were also entertaining. I don't think integrity, transparency, entertainment, and education are mutually exclusive.

I do get annoyed when I see misinformation spread. But, I don't know if you blame the YouTube algorithm for that or if you blame the people who chose to watch and subscribe? I don't know.

But here's an example. My rant video has about 12K views after one day. My interview with @amirm from two years ago has 20K views. https://www.youtube.com/live/B2AflXTTxgQ?feature=share I think my interview with Amir is more educational. But maybe it wasn't entertaining enough. I don't know. I thought it was.

That's all I really want to say. I made the video I wanted to make. I said exactly what I wanted to say. Some people wanted me to say specific names of people I think are the bad actors, but I chose not to. I'm not going to. If I wanted to, I would have. If my rant video would've gotten no views, I would be ok with it. It was for me to get something I've been wanting to say off my chest.

yep... utoob is showbiz first... always has been...

 

[Count Arthur]

yep... utoob is showbiz first... always has been...

yep... utoob is showbiz MONEY first... always has been...

Fixed that for you.

 

[Axo1989]

Those Focals didn't sound right. The recording was way too bass heavy and the Focals faithfully rendered the excessive bass in the recording. I was surprised they didn't sound better. Oh well. Listening from a Youtube video is always pretty bad. Luckily my reference JBL Flip 5 did an awesome job for me sitting at my main listening position. I have to say that Flip 5 rocks! LOL

So you are saying there's usually less bass in that type of music? I don't think I understand. Why do people listen to it?

 

[thecheapseats]

yep... utoob is showbiz MONEY first... always has been...

Fixed that for you.

same/same thing... however poor showbiz historically hasn't guaranteed revenue...
but perpetual infomercials generate revenue, regardless of content - and in that regard, utoob is a plague...

 

[VintageFlanker]

But do they turn it on?

Both are working perfectly fine, last time I checked...

 

[Spkrdctr]

So you are saying there's usually less bass in that type of music? I don't think I understand. Why do people listen to it?

I don't know. Maybe they have speakers that can't play much bass?

 

[egellings]

yep... utoob is showbiz MONEY first... always has been...

Fixed that for you.

Money doesn't talk; it swears. And when it starts doing that, we go Y-y-y-yessir, y-y-y-yessir.

 

[Leif]

But one of the suggestions you made that, off hand, stuck out was that many of these youtube reviewers want you to come to them to "be told what to buy."

That's the type of thing that struck me as mostly a strawman. I'm masochistic enough to have watched many different youtube high end audio channels, and I struggled to think of anyone who fit that criticism.

Many years ago I would assume that reviewers of hifi gear knew what they were talking about, because they had used so many products, and because they were professionals. To many people, the hifi world is immensely confusing. There are so many different varieties of Woo Woo that it is totally baffling. So I’d buy a magazine, check out the best buys, then look out for offers and clearance deals. You only have to look at dealers’ web sites to see the What HiFi 5* awards used as a marketing tool. I believe an awful lot of ordinary people do as I did. I have since learnt the error of my ways.

In my view the reviews by What HiFi are total gibberish.

I recently posted a comment on one YouTube video, asking if the reviewer had done double blind tests of the outrageously expensive DAC. He said I was rude, and he didn’t need to because we don’t do double blind tests when buying. I asked him if he wanted to know if his impressions were valid, or placebo. He said he didn’t need any tests, he knew what he heard. I think the explanation for his viewpoint is a mix of ignorance (no knowledge of psychoacoustic and no willingness to learn), narcissism (his impressions are absolute) and low intelligence. That last bit might seem very rude and harsh, but if we are going to discuss the motivations behind reviews, it has to be considered. After all, would we take seriously the opinion of a doctor who had the intellectual gifts of a well worn door knob.

I once bought an expensive liquidiser which looked great, and it had a rave review. It was one of the worst products I have ever bought. The container was soild glass and VERY heavy making it hard to pour. Because it was ordinary glass, you couldn’t pour hot soup into it, you had to wait thirty minutes for it to cool. And it didn’t liquidise very well. I gave it away to a charity shop. The only reason I can see for that rave review is corruption.

 

[MattHooper]

In my view the reviews by What HiFi are total gibberish.

I agree. Even as someone who can appreciate some subjective reviews, What HiFi is the worst of the worst for sheer word salads.

 

[amirm]

I agree. Even as someone who can appreciate some subjective reviews, What HiFi is the worst of the worst for sheer word salads.

I asked Chatgpt to write an audio review as if WhatHifi had done. See what it generated:

---
Sound Performance: Now, let's dive into the essence of Product X—the sound performance that sets it apart from the competition. The sonic reproduction is nothing short of mesmerizing. With remarkable precision and finesse, this audio gem creates a captivating soundscape that envelopes you in pure bliss. The audio signature strikes a perfect balance between accuracy and musicality, offering a listening experience that transcends expectations.

The bass response is deep and authoritative, without overpowering the delicate nuances in the midrange and treble. Each instrument and vocal is presented with impeccable clarity and separation, allowing you to discern the subtlest details of the music. The midrange, known as the heart and soul of audio reproduction, shines through with warmth, richness, and an extraordinary level of expressiveness.

The treble range exudes brilliance, offering sparkling highs that add an ethereal touch to the music. Product X excels in creating a vast soundstage, where instruments and vocals are meticulously placed with an astonishing sense of depth and precision. Whether you're immersed in a symphony or enjoying the intimacy of a jazz trio, the audio presentation is nothing short of captivating.

Conclusion: In the realm of audio excellence, Product X stands tall as an extraordinary accomplishment. Its stunning design, robust features, and, above all, its mesmerizing sound performance make it an audiophile's dream come true. Prepare to be transported to a world of musical ecstasy, where every note, every instrument, and every lyric comes to life with unparalleled realism and emotion. Product X raises the bar for audio reproduction, delivering an experience that will leave you spellbound.

----
Maybe they have been using AI all this time! If they have not, here is a great opportunity to let go of all of their "reviewers" and use ChatGPT.

 

[thecheapseats]

I asked Chatgpt to write an audio review as if WhatHifi had done. See what it generated:...

essence, mesmerizing, finesse, captivating, bliss, delicate nuances, richness, ethereal, intimacy, stunning, ecstasy, emotion...

descriptions for subjective audio - or an online dating site profile...

you choose...

 

[MattHooper]

Agh!

Well I guess this thread is as good as any to get this off my chest.

Andrew Robinson's review channel:

I actually think his channel is overall quite good. I think he presents plenty of useful info on the products he reviews, gives a good account of what it's like setting up, using, living with a piece of gear. I think his descriptions of, for instance, comparing different speakers are quite good. And I think he has come close to mastering getting information out in a talking format - getting at "what the viewer wants to know" (or what will keep interest).

So all those positives aside: I'm finding it ever harder to bear his presentation. Like some other youtube reviewers, it seems that as they go on in their channel they "ratchet up" their delivery style more and more, putting on the "video announcer voice" rather than just being chill and natural. At this point Robinson goes through so many vocal and facial inflections per sentence it's distracting, like he feels he has to "act" every sentence, EMPHASIZE with ever changing emotions and expressions every single point, in case we miss it or fall asleep. He was much more normal and chill in his older vids, less of the "persona."

This is one thing I really, really appreciate about Erin's Audio Corner. Erin has the chill delivery that is comfortable to watch (though even he seems to be ramping things up a teeny bit...click bait titles etc).

I also appreciate Amir's delivery on his channel for the same reasons!

 

[TonyJZX]

i think the difference especially in Amir's case is that his videos are NEVER about him... it doesnt matter if its a $50 IEC cable... i never go there wondering what whacky shit Amir is going to say... but its different when I go to a video with Zeos or Randy... people want to see what the wacky presenter is going to say... and what anime catgirl is going to be stuck on a dac...

Williston and Erin is the same... we rarely see their face talking straight to the camera unless its a conclusion... but we see Robinson talk straight to the cam for 18:30 of a 20 min video

some videos people go to be entertained and either get their forgone conclusions confirmed or "BUSTED"

its entertainment... i have never once been 'entertained' by williston...

 

[ta240]

So all those positives aside: I'm finding it ever harder to bear his presentation. Like some other youtube reviewers, it seems that as they go on in their channel they "ratchet up" their delivery style more and more, putting on the "video announcer voice" rather than just being chill and natural. At this point Robinson goes through so many vocal and facial inflections per sentence it's distracting, like he feels he has to "act" every sentence, EMPHASIZE with ever changing emotions and expressions every single point, in case we miss it or fall asleep. He was much more normal and chill in his older vids, less of the "persona."

Mute the sound sometime and watch all of them bob around and make wild facial expressions. All of them are quite entertaining with no sound. It works for them though as their viewers keep going up. Something in most people's hardwiring must like that movement, because they have loyal followings that swear by what they say.
The early Andrew Robinson stuff was pretty good but I haven't been able to stomach it in a long long time.

 

[Axo1989]

Agh!

Well I guess this thread is as good as any to get this off my chest.

Andrew Robinson's review channel:

I actually think his channel is overall quite good. I think he presents plenty of useful info on the products he reviews, gives a good account of what it's like setting up, using, living with a piece of gear. I think his descriptions of, for instance, comparing different speakers are quite good. And I think he has come close to mastering getting information out in a talking format - getting at "what the viewer wants to know" (or what will keep interest).

So all those positives aside: I'm finding it ever harder to bear his presentation. Like some other youtube reviewers, it seems that as they go on in their channel they "ratchet up" their delivery style more and more, putting on the "video announcer voice" rather than just being chill and natural. At this point Robinson goes through so many vocal and facial inflections per sentence it's distracting, like he feels he has to "act" every sentence, EMPHASIZE with ever changing emotions and expressions every single point, in case we miss it or fall asleep. He was much more normal and chill in his older vids, less of the "persona."

This is one thing I really, really appreciate about Erin's Audio Corner. Erin has the chill delivery that is comfortable to watch (though even he seems to be ramping things up a teeny bit...click bait titles etc).

I also appreciate Amir's delivery on his channel for the same reasons!

Yes. As you might remember me commenting elsewhere, it's one reason I'm not a YT follower.

Fyi there's an old book on TV by Jerry Mander (his real name, amusing for a sometimes politico like me) called Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television. The central thesis is nicely summed up by the quote in the Wikipedia intro "many of the problems with television are inherent in the medium and technology itself, and thus cannot be reformed". The Wiki article is too short, but the book isn't too long, so I recommend it.

YT has similar issues: small screens and low bandwidth (only two senses) lead to faster-paced shouty presentation and graphics. That plus our primate narcissism leads to talking heads and vanity cults of personality. And then add the platform's monetising mechanisms. Of course there's information etc there—no need for anyone to come to the defence—and some exceptional holdouts maybe including our host, but the general stylistic shit that people start with or that creeps in and ramps up over time is an inevitable tendency consequent to the characteristics of the medium and the platform.

 

[GXAlan]

I asked Chatgpt to write an audio review as if WhatHifi had done. See what it generated:

This is hilarious! Can you generate one for a negative review?

 

[Axo1989]

Mute the sound sometime and watch all of them bob around and make wild facial expressions. All of them are quite entertaining with no sound. It works for them though as their viewers keep going up. Something in most people's hardwiring must like that movement, because they have loyal followings that swear by what they say.
The early Andrew Robinson stuff was pretty good but I haven't been able to stomach it in a long long time.

Haha totally, that's bound to be fun. And possibly better without the words! Like making funny faces for babies ...

 

[Axo1989]

I asked Chatgpt to write an audio review as if WhatHifi had done. See what it generated:

---
Sound Performance: Now, let's dive into the essence of Product X—the sound performance that sets it apart from the competition. The sonic reproduction is nothing short of mesmerizing. With remarkable precision and finesse, this audio gem creates a captivating soundscape that envelopes you in pure bliss. The audio signature strikes a perfect balance between accuracy and musicality, offering a listening experience that transcends expectations.

The bass response is deep and authoritative, without overpowering the delicate nuances in the midrange and treble. Each instrument and vocal is presented with impeccable clarity and separation, allowing you to discern the subtlest details of the music. The midrange, known as the heart and soul of audio reproduction, shines through with warmth, richness, and an extraordinary level of expressiveness.

The treble range exudes brilliance, offering sparkling highs that add an ethereal touch to the music. Product X excels in creating a vast soundstage, where instruments and vocals are meticulously placed with an astonishing sense of depth and precision. Whether you're immersed in a symphony or enjoying the intimacy of a jazz trio, the audio presentation is nothing short of captivating.

Conclusion: In the realm of audio excellence, Product X stands tall as an extraordinary accomplishment. Its stunning design, robust features, and, above all, its mesmerizing sound performance make it an audiophile's dream come true. Prepare to be transported to a world of musical ecstasy, where every note, every instrument, and every lyric comes to life with unparalleled realism and emotion. Product X raises the bar for audio reproduction, delivering an experience that will leave you spellbound.

----
Maybe they have been using AI all this time! If they have not, here is a great opportunity to let go of all of their "reviewers" and use ChatGPT.

What Hi-Fi? is a bit of a low bar I reckon. I'd want something as erudite and mannered as a Stereophile review. Not something you'd appreciate (or discern) I imagine but a tougher test for ChatGPT using ≥ GPT-4 ...

 

[MattHooper]

Yes. As you might remember me commenting elsewhere, it's one reason I'm not a YT follower.

Fyi there's an old book on TV by Jerry Mander (his real name, amusing for a sometimes politico like me) called Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television. The central thesis is nicely summed up by the quote in the Wikipedia intro "many of the problems with television are inherent in the medium and technology itself, and thus cannot be reformed". The Wiki article is too short, but the book isn't too long, so I recommend it.

YT has similar issues: small screens and low bandwidth (only two senses) lead to faster-paced shouty presentation and graphics. That plus our primate narcissism leads to talking heads and vanity cults of personality. And then add the platform's monetising mechanisms. Of course there's information etc there—no need for anyone to come to the defence—and some exceptional holdouts maybe including our host, but the general stylistic shit that people start with or that creeps in and ramps up over time is an inevitable tendency consequent to the characteristics of the medium and the platform.

I certainly get the "youtube is ruined" vibe especially from the home page and all the "trending videos" etc, which exhibit much of what you describe. Seems like a certain golden age is in the past.

That said, I often use youtube for music and last night I was watching performances from The Prodigy - a band I've always liked, never seen, and it was glorious to be able to watch all sorts of live performances, on my big projection screen in glorious surround (upconverted) sound. As annoying as youtube can be, I still find it extremely valuable.