YouTube Audio Reviewer Tier List - Jan 2023 Edition

[Spocko]

What a great thread, and as a serious YouTube reviewer who makes money on YouTube because I'm deeply fascinated by this convergence of data and social science, I'd like to share one angle that hasn't been explored: the needs of the viewer. A few points to consider in the context of our criticisms of YouTubers generally:

• A curious consumer who has little knowledge or interest in anything audiophilia is suddenly very interested because Andrew Robinson has romanticized this piece of audio gear. This consumer begins a journey that will take them through a binge load of youtubers and eventually will find a few they enjoy. More importantly for our hobby, we have a contributor to the economy that births innovation and new gear.
• A lonely viewer looking for companionship enjoys the meaningless yet warm diatribe of Steve Guttenberg - an old friend if you will. Then when it's time to buy some speakers they can afford, they'll buy something suggested by Steve and enjoy the heck out of it mostly because it feels like you are a part of Steve's inner circle.
• An ignorant dad building out his man cave looks for information he can act on QUICK because he wants to buy the best $2000 pair of speakers in the next 48 hours while his wife is out of town and finds Zero Fidelity as a suggested video on google search of "best exotic speaker for under $2000" - he goes on a livestream, pays a super chat, gets his questions answered and boom, a pair of speakers are on their way with his wife still out of town.

Regardless of our high standards for objectivity and disdain for blatant consumerism as it applies to our own sensibilities, YouTube would not continue to serve this content if people did not watch the videos for more than 2 minutes. Alternatively, where else would you direct an curious consumer when they want to spend money in the next 48 hours without diving deeper than the time spent to buy a washer and dryer after 5 minutes on Consumer Reports?

 

[MattHooper]

As entertainment, I can understand that even if such things are not to my taste but I just can't get anything useful from someone telling me a particular DAC was "dry", "clinical" or "highly musical", especially if such phrases are simply repeated because that is what other reviewers also said about that product. It is impossible to separate personal bias from reality in such situations so they contain no useful information, IMO.

Sure, fair enough.

I've likened it to cooking:

If you are working in the food sciences, it means you are looking for quantifiable information - more reliable than any anecdote or impressions derived from uncontrolled experience. That's what science gets you: more reliable information. So if, like a food scientists, you are seeking a certain level of reliability in your information, uncontrolled anecdotes just won't fit the bill. You'll reject all of them. And rightly so.

On the other hand, that doesn't rule out the usefulness of information exchanged where the standards are more relaxed - of the type we exchange every day with one another.

So the fact that food science exists doesn't mean all the ways people engage in cooking - almost none of it scientific - is worthless. People can learn from cooking themselves, trying recipes, exchanging notes with other like-minded cooks, watching cooking shows on TV, etc.

Similarly, if Steve G reviews a speaker and reports things like the new bookshelf KEF speaker sounded more neutral than his Zu speakers, had less scale than the larger floor standing KEFs he reviewed before, seemed to have more image focus and incisive high frequences vs the more exansive sound and softer highs of his open baffle speakers....I'm fine with that. So long as he's not making any implausible claim....and even better if the claims ARE quite plausible given the speakers in question...I am fine with accepting that as somewhat informative. I'm not going to stake my kid's lives on what Steve says...but it can form a data point, especially if I happen to be interested in the product under review.

 

[GaryH]

Sean Olive's interview with Resolve.

Crinacle making stuff up again, this time about Dr Olive's own research, to his face

No, Harman in-ear does not have '5 dB more in the 3k to 5k region' than Harman over-ear. And no, Harman in-ear does not have '12 dB or even higher' at 3 kHz relative to 1 kHz.

 

[crinacle]

Crinacle making stuff up again, this time about Dr Olive's own research, to his face

No, Harman in-ear does not have '5 dB more in the 3k to 5k region' than Harman over-ear. And no, Harman in-ear does not have '12 dB or even higher' at 3 kHz relative to 1 kHz.

True, I've gotten some specifics on the target wrong in the spur of the moment. If I were to wind back time, I would've said "5dB more in the 8kHz region and generally higher over the 2-8kHz region". And the in-ear target is closer to 10.5dB higher at 3 kHz relative to 1kHz, but certainly 12dB higher at 3kHz relative to 300Hz. Small errors that I apologise for.

However my actual point in the interview still stands: Harman IE is a lot higher in the mid-high registers (2-8kHz) and doesn't sound great as a result. Pedantry for the sake of pedantry (and quoting completely irrelevant statements to the discussion at hand) only serves to show that you have a personal agenda against me rather than an objective one.

Black: Harman IE 2017; Grey: Harman AE/OE 2018​

Here's a proper target comparison showing the differences more clearly than the one that you just posted.

Post-edit: The reason why I've referenced IE-2017 instead of IE-2019 over here and in the interview is because the IE-2019 target was not a result of any academic or statistical testing, and by Harman/Olive's own admission is simply a smoothing of the IE-2017. And since the interview was referencing the methodology used in Harman IE research (latest being 2017), discussion of IE-2019 had no relevance here and there.

 

[a2copywriter]

I actually don't really watch any of them anymore because I have my gear, I know what it's doing, and I know that - given my specific situation and circumstances - I won't notably improve my sound in any meaningful way by buying anything new. If I wasn't in an apartment I'd add a sub. I'm a perfect example of why the traditional audiophile gear industry is so terribly against notions such as measuring gear and doing ABX testing and so forth. Subjectivity promotes sales.

I completely agree about this.

And this is how I got some friends into hi-fi gear.

They love trying hi-fi equipment but sometimes balk at the price. I help them do research and try out my gear (including EQ).

Then, I have them calculate per-hour cost for lifetime use. That's usually where my (mostly engineer/scientist) friends jump in.

For instance, I recommended that one friend just buy used Sennheiser HD-600s and a used Benchmark DAC-1 *once* -- and then he'd be done. Almost 11 years and thousands of hours of use later, he's still in love with the exact same gear. We occasionally drool over the Stax 007s and the high-end Dan Clark headphones, but we're already at diminishing returns. (And if he or I did get either of those cans, there'd be no more upgrades for life, barring a direct-to-brain sound reproduction system.)

 

[Jeromeof]

True, I've gotten some specifics on the target wrong in the spur of the moment. If I were to wind back time, I would've said "5dB more in the 8kHz region and generally higher over the 2-8kHz region". And the in-ear target is closer to 10.5dB higher at 3 kHz relative to 1kHz, but certainly 12dB higher at 3kHz relative to 300Hz. Small errors that I apologise for.

However my actual point in the interview still stands: Harman IE is a lot higher in the mid-high registers (2-8kHz) and doesn't sound great as a result. Pedantry for the sake of pedantry (and quoting completely irrelevant statements to the discussion at hand) only serves to show that you have a personal agenda against me rather than an objective one.

View attachment 271611
Black: Harman IE 2017; Grey: Harman AE/OE 2018​

Here's a proper target comparison showing the differences more clearly than the one that you just posted.

Post-edit: The reason why I've referenced IE-2017 instead of IE-2019 over here and in the interview is because the IE-2019 target was not a result of any academic or statistical testing, and by Harman/Olive's own admission is simply a smoothing of the IE-2017. And since the interview was referencing the methodology used in Harman IE research (latest being 2017), discussion of IE-2019 had no relevance here and there.

So basically you are saying that the bass shelf is mostly correct but the 2K-8K region is too high and should be lowered? If so I would agree, from my own personal testing I have found a few IEM's which closely follow the harman target to be a bit fatiguing for longer listening to certain music, but with a little EQ in those regions they have been more satisfying over longer sessions.

 

[Axo1989]

I don't really get the primate narcissism that underpins most of the forms and norms of mass media and more recently social media: endless talking heads, fetishisation of celebrity, selfies, etc. A characteristic of the small screen is tailoring content and style to low bandwidth presentation, and people apparently respond to faces (we should grow out of that but we generally don't) and general dumb*ckery. So YouTube isn't my thing. Also, ads have become obnoxious. So I don't follow anyone in the formal sense, or regularly check certain YouTube channels.

I do read the odd blog, including audio stuff from Archimago and Darko. The former is generally pretty good (but recently posted a fairly uninformed take on so-called AI generative text stuff, so isn't omnipotent). The latter throws up some interesting stuff and some rubbish but does lead me to YouTube in the sense that his videos are hosted there even though I watch via his website. Likewise I've followed links to other people's stuff on YouTube. A very short list then of YouTube audio-related things I've seen, and my very subjective commentary, going alphabetically:

Audioholics: mostly via links from here. Informative, but rambling presentation and very ordinary production values so I don't go there on my own inspiration.

ASR: I watched a number of these following links from here. Informative, obviously. Some start with a ramble and some personal politics best skipped over but reasonably concise presentation, once we get into the meat of the topic. Pretty ordinary production values. During covid I noticed Amir frequently touching his face and tugging his nose and I just couldn't take it, so stopped checking out the videos. FoMO hasn't hit though, I read the interesting stuff here.

Darko: while he's from UK he spent enough time in Oz that he picked up some of the sensibility and accent and sense of humour, and as @TonyJZX mentioned his relocation to Europe and cultural adjustment/observations are interesting to follow. I turn off when he goes on and on about DACs etc but he has excellent musical taste (rare among older audiophile dudes) so there's almost always some good follow-up listening. His room treatment adventures have been pretty interesting. And great production values.

Earspace: as @MattHooper said, Jana's meticulous and graceful video documents of individual systems in their rooms (along with binaural recordings) are works of art. Rare gems though, unfortunately she hasn't done many of them.

Erin's audio corner: watching videos via his website, I like his systematic approach to subjective then objective evaluation. Also his laid back style and restrained ego. Fairly ordinary video production values. It would be great if he tested more stuff. Or teamed up with Jana.

That's about it. Most of the alphabet is safe. I've watched the odd video from Beekhuyzen, GoldenSound, Guttenberg, Lavorna and others (via links from here or elsewhere) but nothing that would warrant frequent watching. I enjoyed a group effort on Jay's channel once but not his solo stuff. Basically if I'm going to watch video on the regular rather than just reading I want something well above average in the content and the presentation.

 

[thecheapseats]

fascinating thread here for a number of reasons... may I put forth a view? - which applies in many cases to a lot of utoob vids...

let's say you're a person in a profession (aka a job) - hey we all have them, yes?... and after an education of some kind you established a career - and over that career you've acquired serious skills and expertise as would be expected...

doesn't matter what your skill set is - maybe a master tradesman, a STEM career, agriculture or an academic - could be anything... the point is you know common truths and best practices in your experience, and have spent a number of years perfecting those skills...

then one day you happen to wander into a utoob vid by a talking-face making claims about your specific area of expertise which you know to be questionable and/or just plain wrong... and with your long experience you immediately conclude the utoob-face you've stumbled upon is (in plain terms) talking out their backside...

you might even feel sorry for persons that unknowingly rely upon this spurious, erroneous information... oh well, welcome to earth and you move on with your day with a moderate amount of disgust...

reflecting upon the experience later in your day - two things become clear in your mind...

first, the barriers for entry to become a self-proclaimed utoob-expert are exceedingly low, therefore this might explain the existence of hours and hours of erroneous nonsense on utoob...

and second, what you actually saw was not instructional at all - it was in fact - 'showbiz'... nothing more... entertainment with (more often than not) an embedded commercial suggestion to purchase some 'thing' or some 'service'...

something to keep in mind - for context... (don't forget to subscribe and ring the bell)... /sarc

 

[MattHooper]

fascinating thread here for a number of reasons... may I put forth a view? - which applies in many cases to a lot of utoob vids...

let's say you're a person in a profession (aka a job) - hey we all have them, yes?... and after an education of some kind you established a career - and over that career you've acquired serious skills and expertise as would be expected...

doesn't matter what your skill set is - maybe a master tradesman, a STEM career, agriculture or an academic - could be anything... the point is you know common truths and best practices in your experience, and have spent a number of years perfecting those skills...

then one day you happen to wander into a utoob vid by a talking-face making claims about your specific area of expertise which you know to be questionable and/or just plain wrong... and with your long experience you immediately conclude the utoob-face you've stumbled upon is (in plain terms) talking out their backside...

you might even feel sorry for persons that unknowingly rely upon this spurious, erroneous information... oh well, welcome to earth and you move on with your day with a moderate amount of disgust...

This view reminds me of the Consumer Reports phenomenon: People will read consumer reports for information on a product when they don't know enough to evaluate the item for themselves. Yet when it comes to products about which they have experience or technical knowledge, they'll say CR is speaking out it's ass and don't know what they are doing. Yet...they'll rely on the reviews for products they know little about.

reflecting upon the experience later in your day - two things become clear in your mind...

first, the barriers for entry to become a self-proclaimed utoob-expert are exceedingly low, therefore this might explain the existence of hours and hours of erroneous nonsense on utoob...

and second, what you actually saw was not instructional at all - it was in fact - 'showbiz'... nothing more... entertainment with (more often than not) an embedded commercial suggestion to purchase some 'thing' or some 'service'...

something to keep in mind - for context... (don't forget to subscribe and ring the bell)... /sarc

It's fun to muse that way. But if we are being serious in our conclusions it's much more complex than that. It's like New Age Healing Fairs. The fact almost none of the venders there know what they are talking about in describing their Healing Technology doesn't mean we should label it as "entertainment." It may be for YOU but it isn't for many of the vendors or the intended audience who takes it seriously.

And we should also grant that viewers and the youtubers have some sophistication. For instance clearly many youtubers understand that they are providing entertainment in terms of the fact most people watching aren't going to be buying the particular gear in question. Just like audiophiles have long read audio magazines featuring tons of gear they won't purchase, but it's fun reading about it.

On the other hand, there WILL be some portion of viewers who are interested in the types of products being reviewed. And depending on the review/reviewer, the viewer can get some reasonable information about the product to help guide their purchases.

So, sure, generally speaking about youtube audio review channels: it's entertainment. But it's not *just* entertainment and it's not *useless* for gaining information about products.

 

[thecheapseats]

I wasn't 'musing', per se... although written with a fair amount sarcasm as well as hypothetical premise and assumptions - this has been my experience in areas in which I am an expert... so I simply shut up and move on... shills will be shills and showbiz is showbiz...

 

[MattHooper]

I wasn't 'musing', per se... although written with a fair amount sarcasm as well as hypothetical premise and assumptions - this has been my experience in areas in which I am an expert... so I simply shut up and move on... shills will be shills and showbiz is showbiz...

Ok, sure. I guess it depends then on whether your comment was aimed only at a single instance of watching a youtube audio review, or a single reviewer, or whether you were leveraging that experience to make some general comment on youtube audio reviewers, casting them all as "entertainment only, folks."

My comments apply if it is the latter (which is how I took your comment).

Also, it's hard to know how salient your evaluation was, given we don't know who the reviewer was or what was said. Many folks here have waved off plenty of reviews as useless, too rashly in my opinion (and that of many others).

I certainly agree with you that the barrier to making a youtube audio review channel is very low, as it is for any other youtube channel. But that doesn't establish if any particular channel is useful or not, or whether they are only relevant as "entertainment."

 

[thecheapseats]

Ok, sure. I guess it depends then on whether your comment was aimed only at a single instance of watching a youtube audio review, or a single reviewer, or whether you were leveraging that experience to make some general comment on youtube audio reviewers, casting them all as "entertainment only, folks."

My comments apply if it is the latter (which is how I took your comment).

Also, it's hard to know how salient your evaluation was, given we don't know who the reviewer was or what was said. Many folks here have waved off plenty of reviews as useless, too rashly in my opinion (and that of many others).

that doesn't establish if any particular channel is useful or not, or whether they are only relevant as "entertainment."

no - you took my comment correctly, as I certainly was applying it to the largess of utoob-monetizing clowns and NOT a singular reviewer - and I stand by that premise...

monetizing a review implicitly (not directly expressed) has bias and cloaking it in a 'showbiz' wrapper while raking-off a back-end piece of a 'click-thru' sale is obsequious at best and pure excrement at the other extreme...

we seem to disagree and that's ok as well...

 

[IAtaman]

monetizing a review implicitly (not directly expressed) has bias and cloaking it in a 'showbiz' wrapper while raking-off a back-end piece of a 'click-thru' sale is obsequious at best and pure excrement at the other extreme...

I think there is a bit of confusion around the terms here. Monetization of a YT video means that you allow YT to show ads with the video, and share that ad income with the content creator. Creator has no say in which ad gets shown, they just get a share of the ad income. So, in order to make money on YT, content creator only needs to gather views and likes and comments to increase their engagement score to get better paying ads next time. They do not need to be selling anything to make money with monetization. And in that way they are not very different than Super Bowl or Law & Order or any other TV show or event.

Maybe what you are refrering to as monetizing a review is about sponsorships? Which, btw, does not need to be (and usually is not) directly related to the product being reviewed. A lot of content creators get sponsors like VPN service providers etc that has nothing to do with the products under review. Sponsorship also happens to be how a majority of amateur athletes make most of their living for example, but I don't think you are trying to say Olymipcs is a click-thru sale either.

So maybe what you mean is that people are pretending to like a product in order to increase its sales from which they get a share? I am sure that happens, but if you think that is how all of YT works, then I think you have quite strong opinions about a topic of which you don't seem to fully grasp and that is always a dangerous combination.

 

[MattHooper]

no - you took my comment correctly, as I certainly was applying it to the largess of utoob-monetizing clowns and NOT a singular reviewer - and I stand by that premise...

monetizing a review implicitly (not directly expressed) has bias and cloaking it in a 'showbiz' wrapper while raking-off a back-end piece of a 'click-thru' sale is obsequious at best and pure excrement at the other extreme...

we seem to disagree and that's ok as well...

Ok, then my comments stand and yes we disagree and as you say that's ok.

(Which doesn't entail each side of the disagreement is just as viable as the other btw...sometimes mere cynicism masquerades as an argument)

 

[thecheapseats]

...Maybe what you are refrering to monetizing a review is about sponsorships? Which, btw, does not need to be (and usually is not) directly related to the product being reviewed....

...I think you have quite strong opinions about a topic wich you don't seem to fully grasp and that is always a dangerous combination...

I understand very clearly how it works... and I was very clear to segregate both instances in my descriptions - the initial 'play' of the vid, - and then (if it occurs) a 'click-thru' vendor link - they are two separate revenue events...

I mean what I said, and clearly 'grasp' what occurs... pay attention, please...

 

[thecheapseats]

(Which doesn't entail each side of the disagreement is just as viable as the other btw...sometimes mere cynicism masquerades as an argument)

to settle your cynicism v.s. argument question, perhaps putting up a poll would be helpful to extract a consensus, as well as rereading prior comment's sentiments on this thread... be well...

 

[MattHooper]

to settle your cynicism v.s. argument question, perhaps putting up a poll would be helpful to extract a consensus, as well as rereading prior comment's sentiments on this thread... be well...

What do you think a poll would solve?

I think one main issue is your argument remains vague.

You offered an opinion that started with the premise that "one day you happen to wander into a utoob vid..." and in finding that video to convey incorrect information, the conclusion is the video is "not instructional at all" and "showbiz and nothing more."

Well, what does that mean? Do you mean that the youtuber does not MEAN for the video to be instructional but ONLY "showbiz?" Does it mean nobody in the audience takes the video to be informative but ONLY as "showbiz" and nothing more? I think that would be hard to demonstrate, as it would entail you demonstrating this person really does not believe the "information" he is presenting.

Or is it a warning not to take such reviews as "information" but "only as showbiz?"

You say my inference was correct that you were casting such aspersions not just on the single "utoob vid" in your description, but at the wider community of youtube audio reviewers.

Really? What position are you in to know many of these channels are not meant to be "informative" (as well as entertaining)? And are we to believe you are leveraging your "stumbling upon a utoob vid" to the proposition "all or most such channels only provide misinformation?"

Seems rather extensive claims are hinted at in your opinion...but not backed up. Which is why I suggest that it comes across more as cynicism, rather than a position that has been justified.

Cheers.

 

[thecheapseats]

so, no poll then?... ok!...

 

[IAtaman]

so, no poll then?... ok!...

Here is another poll idea, how many of us think you have seen and evaluated every single audio reviewer with more than 10K subscribers on YouTube and the opinion you put forward is the crystallization of that study vs you watched a few reviews. you thought they were crap, and you are just generalizing that to be true for all of them - how do you think that vote would go?

 

[thecheapseats]

Here is another poll idea, how many of us think you have seen and evaluated every single audio reviewer with more than 10K subscribers on YouTube and the opinion you put forward is the crystallization of that study vs you watched a few reviews. you thought they were crap, and you are just generalizing that to be true for all of them - how do you think that vote would go?

so... paying attention isn't your forte... ok...