[woodsyi]

I read the Washington Post Monday for a review of an Opera I attended Saturday.  The reviewer and I usually agree on key issues most of the time.  So, I was surprised to read a vastly different perspective on the same performance this time.  This got me to think about what goes into a public review -- be it professional or amateur.  

I really think the reviewer's respect for the artist and the director, who cast her, colored his view.  When he wrote she makes a fine Joan, I believe he is being sincere.  I, on the other hand, just couldn't get over a 70 year old playing a teen.  It wasn't just the look -- she just didn't sing and move with a teenage angst or uncertainty.  She tried and I tried to suspend some visual information to help (as you have to in some operas) but she never disappeared.  She never became Joan.  To me, it was a clear case of miscasting.  But could he have said that and face the powerful artistic director again?

So, can a professional reviewer ever be brutally frank?  Or do they have to tippy toe around certain personages in the industry?

[John Ashman]

There are a lot of unwritten, but clearly enforced, rules about not pissing off a company by trashing their product, even if it deserves it.  Some bad products that were going to get reviewed simply have the reviews cancelled by the magazine because the product was so bad.  This happened to a set of Infinity speakers in HT magazine once.  Speakers returned, the announced review never happened, reports of serious bass issues leaked.  Corey Greenberg heavily reprimanded for his overly frank reviews.  A whole new language of euphemistic phrases are now in place.  If the product designer is a truly nice person, a good review is guaranteed.  If they are a schmoozer, a good review is guaranteed.  Only if someone is deemed to be "expendible", doesn't advertise, is generally arrogant or full of crap and abrasive, or the company is about to fail anyway, is it permissible to give an honestly bad review.  

So, subjective reviewing is almost corrupt and useless unless you know what the euphemisms are.  I pulled this from my forum, but I'd love to see people add to this:

Detailed midrange - bright
Not mellow, but smooth - bright
Lively - really bright
Revealing - Really, REALLY bright
Forward treble - My ears are on fire
Extremely detailed midrange - harsh
Detailed treble - peaky treble
Tuneful bass - small peak in the 50-100Hz range
Punchy bass - huge bass peak in the 50-100Hz range
Dynamic - aggressive
Needs lots of power (despite high efficiency) - really sounds bad
You'd have to spend considerably more.... - average at best
I slightly prefer...... - I definitely wouldn't buy these
Not my cup of tea - I HATE these speakers
As good as speakers costing 2-3 times as much - I'm completely full of crap and I hate my job
Slight - enormous
Ripe bass - boomy and slow
Sounds best in large rooms - REALLY boomy
Musical - colored and inaccurate
Not for rock - no bass, can't handle power, gets brighter as volume goes up
Civilized - tilted down sound
Almost too accurate - tilted up sound and/or bright
A bit forward - I now have tinninitus

But my favorite remains -

"A fantastic speaker, but ONLY when driven by the finest electronics and ancillary equipment" - This speaker bites, but at least it's expensive.

[woodsyi]

That's a good one, John.  I am going to go read some reviews and translate it using your key and see what I get!

[Carlman]

 Great list...

One thing I noticed as I've reviewed things is the amount of pressure I put on myself to hear things objectively.  I try not to get emotionally attached and just decide whether the instruments and voices sound like they would in real life.... and then break it down from there... hot or low quality mic's, poor (often overcompressed) recording quality, general sound-processing degradations... etc. and then... given all of those issues, start breaking apart the soundstage and timbral character I'm getting.

My definitions differ from many of the above but are spot-on for others.  'Detailed' being one of my favorites... it didn't take long to figure out what that meant in a review.    One of my older reviews of a pair of Onix Ref-1's I thought were ear-splittingly bright, 'tipped-up' or whatever and I was very frank about it.  Then others started PM'ing me saying, oh, now you've gone and done it... 'they' will have something to say to you on that... From then on, I hedged a little bit more and was more polite in my assessments.

There are a lot of things at play when listening to a pair of speakers or a new piece of gear.  Generally with speakers, I'm completely open and do my best at setting them up within 1/8th to 1/16th of an inch of tolerance with each other and to a point within the listening spot.  I generally let them break-in for a while but I haven't heard a pair yet that transformed completely before and after.  I've heard them change and improve, that's for sure... but their personality stayed the same.  

I've noticed electronics transform a bit more... to where the personality 'can' change.  So, I let them burn in 100-200 hours before doing any real evaluations anymore.

In any case, doing a review puts you in a tricky spot.  If I get some gear to review/audition/demo and I think it's sub-standard, I generally contact the owner and tell them about it in a nice way.   I like keeping the peace and I have an open mind.  So, if something doesn't sound right, I ask for a remedy.  Sometimes the owner has an ego trip and thinks I've done something wrong, the other half they try to work with me and appreciate the honest feedback.  I'm not saying I'm always right but I never know what I'm going to get when I call someone to tell them their gear isn't that great to me.  There's nothing worse than reporting what you hear and having the manufacturer tell me my ears are wrong.

I think there is an imbalance of positive to negative feedback on gear.  I think a lot of stuff is over-hyped.  There are a lot of 'darlings' out there... Some well-deserved, some I simply do not understand.  If you look at the number of positive reviews to negative, I'd bet it's 20 to 1 or more...  Is it all really that good?  If you ask a non-audiophile, yes... it's all going to be at least 'acceptable' all the way to 'even better'.

If I post what I REALLY thought, it would sometimes seem harsh to read.  If you pick something apart too much, people won't know if you enjoyed it or not... and that's what a lot of people really want to know.... 'Did you like it?'  As much as we audiophiles ask for objectivity and statements of 'how it sounds'... I've noticed many people ask whether the reviewer liked it.... And I really don't care whether they did or not... All I care is whether I will like it and I need a review that explains how it sounds without too much flowery language to make that judgement.  So, that's how I try to review... based on what I heard after some ear-time.

So, to satisfy all the complexity of the ego's, various sensitivities, and possible system-setup anomolies involved, I try not to ream anything that doesn't truly deserve it and at the same time 'gush' a bit if it's really good.  (Read my latest on the EE Phonostage)  Other reviews lack the praise and positive comments that don't 'wow' me.

So, you can be objective but learning the style (or reviewing/analyzing the reviewer) is as important... If you know the tastes of the reviewer, you're in as good a position as can be.

Well, that's all I've got to say on that.. ha!  

[Tyson]

I just post what I hear.  Gets me in to trouble sometimes  

But, to answer the initial question:  No.  There are no objective reviews.  There are honest reviews, but even honest reviews are still subjective.

[woodsyi]

Tyson,

You forced me to go back and put quotation marks on the "objective," as I was not looking for a philosophical or theoretical physics discussion on object/subject delineation!  

[Carlman]

Tyson,

You forced me to go back and put quotation marks on the "objective," as I was not looking for a philosophical or theoretical physics discussion on object/subject delineation!  

Well gee-whiz so sorry for the long post...    

I think Tyson said in 2 lines what I was trying to say.  Well put.

-C

[woodsyi]

Tyson,

You forced me to go back and put quotation marks on the "objective," as I was not looking for a philosophical or theoretical physics discussion on object/subject delineation!  

Well gee-whiz so sorry for the long post...    

I think Tyson said in 2 lines what I was trying to say.  Well put.

-C

Actually, thanks for the "philosophy."  I was looking for an explanation to the audio sophistry!

[_scotty_]

Johns dictionary of frequently used euphemisms in audio reviews is one of
the many reasons that I stopped reading reviews to glean information about audio components about the time J.Gordon Holt sold Stereophile.  Any reviewer runs the risk of having to buy future components to review instead of receiving them for free if they say what they actually think about the what they heard.
Even if you are selling your opinion of audio gear and not taking in advertising revenue you run the risk of having your source of gear to write about drying up if you are not very careful to avoid making someone in the industry mad as a result of your comments.  No advertising is no guarantee
of an absence of undue influence over the reviewer by manufacturers regardless of claims to the contrary.  My favorite quote properly interpeted  via the euphemism translater is attributed to Julian Hirsch, " That is another one of the loudspeakers I have ever  heard."
Scotty

[nathanm]

So, can a professional reviewer ever be brutally frank? Or do they have to tippy toe around certain personages in the industry?

 Probably not, which is why it's always so much more interesting to read the reviews from a fellow attendee who paid the money for the show\gear\movie whatever it might be, has no financial interest in the success or failure of the show\gear movie etc.  and doesn't care if anyone else is bothered by the brutal frankness.

In audio I don't think it matters a whole lot because anything the reviewer writes about what he heard is about 90% useless to the reader.  No matter how good a writer you are your words can't make people hear what you heard.  They don't even post pictures of what these guys' rooms look like so you can't even construct a reasonable acoustic fantasy in your head.

If it is possible to be completely honest, include all negative\critical comments and still maintain a reviewer job I'd be pleasantly surprised, but I doubt it would be very likely.  Vendors just want ad copy that they didn't write themselves.  Then again, maybe reviewers are wont to be super positive when their own money isn't being invested in all these toys.  I suppose many people would get a little Yes Man-like when all sorts of smiley salesmen are handing over new stuff to play with for free every month.

[Dan Banquer]

Yes: If you base it on measurements, and the only few I have seen that are complete enough are the ones by Ed Foster who does an occaisonal review for Pro Audio Review. These are far more detailed than the average "objective" review. The flip side of that is you have to understand what the measurements mean.
In any case I love this one from John Ashman:
 "Musical - colored and inaccurate"
Bud Fried has always asked me what "more musical" means when a reviewer states that. Now I can tell him in a very clear and precise way.
      Thanks John.
                          d.b.

[WEEZ]

There are equipment reviews that are interesting to read, but mostly they all sound the same after a while. Especially in Stereophile. Best I've ever heard, highly recommended, yadda yadda.

I'm a believer in system synergy. When a reviewer talks about an absence of real low bass, for example, it may be because the preamp being reviewed has an output z of 2k- and the reviewer is using an amp with an input z of 10k. No wonder.

If a reviewer says that an amp sounds 'tight', for example, does that mean the amp is thin-sounding or does it mean highly controlled bass or does it mean the speakers are highly damped? Who knows.

However, if there are multiple reviews of a given product in various publications using different systems, rooms, etc.- and all describe a similar sound (good or bad)- there may be something to be learned about a given component's characteristics.

As we all know, two products with the same specs will sound different. CD players are a good example.

WEEZ

[Dan Banquer]

Personally when someone asks me about how my stuff will sound in their system I'm pretty much at a loss for words. I don't really know much about your loudspeakers and room, and I certainly don't know how you perceive music. Could anyone else?
               d.b.

[John Casler]

Objective = Known or assumed facts

Subjective = perceptions and opinion

Can there be an "objective review"??

Yes, but only if one sticks to the facts.  As soon as perception and opinion are added, it can no longer be "objective".

[WEEZ]

Nope, probably not.

But some of us still read the reviews. About cars, books, music, audio, etc. Some of the time, they're helpful. Mostly, they're not. But, like I said, when multiple reviewers like something and describe similar characteristics- it beckons the reader to an audition.

Then the purchaser has to make up their own mind.

WEEZ

[BradJudy]

Objective = Known or assumed facts

Subjective = perceptions and opinion

Can there be an "objective review"??

Yes, but only if one sticks to the facts.  As soon as perception and opinion are added, it can no longer be "objective".

Given this definition, have you ever seen an objective speaker or audio equipment review?  I don't think I have.  Why?  Because no one would pay for it.  All it could really be is measurements, specifications, pictures, etc.  While these are usually part of a review, I can't recall any reviews that exclusively consisted of these types of things.

[John Ashman]

Actually, the Audio Critic used to do these kinds of reviews and it was fascinating.  They'd talk about the quality of op-amps, DACs, drivers, overall design, approximate cost to build vs retail etc, etc, etc.  You learned a *lot* more about the product.  Sometimes they'd gush, other times they'd just rip something up.  A lot better than hearing the same old BS lines over and over as if the each review is based on a computer generated template.

[John Casler]

Objective = Known or assumed facts

Subjective = perceptions and opinion

Can there be an "objective review"??

Yes, but only if one sticks to the facts.  As soon as perception and opinion are added, it can no longer be "objective".

Given this definition, have you ever seen an objective speaker or audio equipment review?  I don't think I have.  Why?  Because no one would pay for it.  All it could really be is measurements, specifications, pictures, etc.  While these are ...

100% correct, all reviews are "subjective" with some authors adding some objective information (measurments) as "supporting information".

I know I'd probably never read a "geek head" (objective) review

[Dan Banquer]

Quite frankly, the Audio Critic was incredibly superficial, apparently politically motivated, and in many cases totally and utterly misinformed. If you ever get to compare an  Ed Foster review to the superficial Audio Critic review you will instantly understand.
               d.b.

[John Ashman]

That's exactly why I said "used to".......