[John Casler]

As I read through the postings everyday, I see many comments and assessments with which I agree and many with which I disagree, but why is that?

Is it just me or would it be helpful if every member posting opinions, had his/her  basic system listed so we can see what they were listening to?

I know we can go ferret through the systems lists and maybe find out but boy what a hassle that is.

I wouldn't even mind a small room description.

I mean I hear a review of a cable or interconnect as being "bass shy" or mushy. or an amp as being analytical????

How can I even begin to know what this means if the party reporting has tubes, ribbons, dipoles, horns, or whatever, which contribute to the assesment but are not part of the expressed opinion?

In fact, i would go as far as to say that any assessment that doesn't mention the key elements used in making the assesmnets is flawed and useless to anyone who doesn't know the component it is judged with.

Does anyone else get this feeling?

Sure these things are fun to read, but I get hundreds of questions from midi-ophiles and newbies, who read these glowing reports or panning slashes and take them as absolutes when in fact much of the assessment is attributable to associated equipment, set up and setting, not to mention user preconception and listening expereince.

Any comments?

[JohnR]

How can I even begin to know what this means if the party reporting has tubes, ribbons, dipoles, horns, or whatever, which contribute to the assesment but are not part of the expressed opinion?

You could ask?

[John B]

I have my system info in my signature, though I usually uncheck the box when posting.   I can see your point about having it as a ready reference when a member is giving advice, reviews or opinions.

[Tyson]

I can make this whole subject very simple - just treat everything I say as Abolute Truth and everyone else's opinion as worthless (unless they are smart enough to agree with me).  Problem solved.

[BradJudy]

It would seem to me that it would be more important to include things that are difficult for many people to self-assess or things people usually don't mention like (please take no offense - I'm not describing anyone in particular):

"I like an emphasized midrange"
"I like things so detailed that all but the best recordings sound bad"
"My hearing isn't as good in the 10kHz-20kHz range"
"If it doesn't glow, it doesn't go" (for the tubers)
"Anything under 90dB isn't listening"

I don't think a list of components will tell you how valid someone's opinion is.  Is mine less valid because the whole thing adds up to well under $5000 and someone else spends that on cables alone?  

I agree that all components used should be listed when giving a review, but I don't see how seeing everyone's day-to-day system is helpful.  If anything, listing preferences (eg. I like ribbons) would be better than systems.

[gonefishin]

you do bring up some good points...most of which I agree with.  But, in the end...it still doesn't make a difference...as it's still someone else's review...and not mine.

  However, I do enjoy reading them...and all that you mention does help paint a picture of what I think the reviewer may be thinking.  Basically, a review should paint a picture...and...by describing their likes, dislikes, components, listening preferences, music preferences and room within that review...would help to paint a picture for us "readers".  


    ...and yes, some people do put WAY to much weight in others reviews.  


   Take care>>>

[John Casler]

You could ask?

Well of course that's true, but I was just making a point.  And that point is, we don't have enough info (in most cases) to put too much faith in an assessment of a product or component, with the limited info we have.

The secondary point was "more info is better", but it still falls on our ears, associated equipment, room and preferences, to get the real story.

While I many times report what I hear, I generally hope and sometimes even state that people realize that it is a combination/homoginization of elements that contribute to my impressions.

I can make this whole subject very simple - just treat everything I say as Abolute Truth and everyone else's opinion as worthless (unless they are smart enough to agree with me). Problem solved.

Hey Tyson, I always agree with you, I should have mentioned that you are the exception

It would seem to me that it would be more important to include things that are difficult for many people to self-assess or things people usually don't mention.

I don't think a list of components will tell you how valid someone's opinion is. Is mine less valid because the whole thing adds up to well under $5000 and someone else spends that on cables alone?

Hi Brad, I agree and didn't mean that preferences, settings, and even hearing ability, should not be a part of the picture.  In fact I changed my signature to include my basic reference system, preferences, and room, so others reading my meanderings, have a little more info on where I'm coming from.

It's like a "stock car driver", a "dragster driver", and a "formula One driver".  It helps to know their equiment and perspective when reading about their equipment performance assessments.

And I didn't mean to imply that the Halcro owners opinion is any more valid, than the guy with the Pioneer receiver, but knowing what they are listening, to certainly adds "perspective", and as we all gain more experience, and "awareness", the ability to use the expereince of others to help ourselves, becomes more valuable.

I question many people on this board, not to "needle" them but to find out what they're hearing based on what i am looking for, and if they made their assesments in a way that is meaningful to me.

In any event,  I was just looking to offer some clarity and or reduce reliance on "incomplete" opinions, by asking for a little more info to help make a more complete picture.

Thanks for the comments.

[John Casler]

I have my system info in my signature, though I usually uncheck the box when posting.   I can see your point about having it as a ready reference when a member is giving advice, reviews or opinions.

Hi JohnB,

That is a very cool idea.  If you put your Ref system in your signature and just use it when assessing equipment, it shows up.

Very Cool

[Sa-dono]

As always, all reviews should be taken with a grain of salt. I agree that the more info known, the better. However, I would rather avoid seeing huge sigs after every person's post. Maybe we can change things around so that those people that add their system to the Systems section has the option to add the link to their signature automatically (since some people either do not know how, or are too lazy).

And Tyson...if everyone was like you, and agreed with you..wouldn't everyone eventually want to become the supreme ruler and be RIGHT..therefore, everyone killing each other?

[JLM]

I've ranted elsewhere about professional reviews because I have many of the same complaints with them:

Define your background (trained musican, stockbroker, etc.) and how long you've been at this

State preferences and yes, limitations

Specify your current system and room

List source materials used

Compare against comparable equipment

Save the life stories and eloquent waxing for love letters to your sweetie (this is on ongoing problem with professional reviews, especially 6 moons)

List pros and cons

Make a recommendation as to who should be interested in a auditioning/purchasing

The reviewer background information should be available via hyperlink.

[Dan Banquer]

JLM;
   If reviewers put up their background, most would show just how unqualified they really are.

[Brad V]

Hi John,

As I read through the postings everyday, I see many comments and assessments with which I agree and many with which I disagree, but why is that?

...

I believe, the more you know about audio, the more you learn to take opinions and reviews at what they are. You learn to extract out, what you are looking for. There are too many factors in Audio, for you to know if this great component will sound better to you in your room with your ears.

Here are some of the factors, that I deem at making:
   Your hear different than I do
   What is the reviewers hearing like? Do they have hearing problems in certain frequencies, where they might prefer one component over the other, due to an accentuated area?
   Is the room playing into the picture, causing a great bass, to sound bad? I once listened to two components and preferred the bass on one to the other. One system sounded like it had way too much bass and it was boomy. We then clicked in room correction (When I had my Tact unit) and the one that had too much boomy bass, basically wiped the floor with the other unit. How many reviewers have preferred a component with a weaker bass, as it didn't excite room modes as much?
   There are too many factors involved. You need to hear the equipment in you room, if possible. If not, then it might be best to buy stuff on the used market, where you might not lose much money, if you don't like it.

Have a great day,

Brad

[meilankev]

John,

I agree with you.  This makes me remember a post I put on Harmonic Discord last Spring.  It was in response to a rave review of the VMPS RM40 by the magazine IAR.  I was puzzled by the lack of specific information in their review, and I stated as such in my post.  Of course, VMPSGuy reamed me for having the audacity to question anything that spoke positively about VMPS.

However, I stand by my critique:

1) The reviewer never gave his name (turned out to be Peter Moncrief, who by all accounts is highly respected).
2) The reviewer never specified associated equipment.  In fact, he didn't even generalize (tubes vs SS, vinyl vs CD, etc).
3) The reviewer never specified source material.  Again, he didn't even generalize by genre (jazz, big band, classical).
4) Stated something to the effect "most $20,000 (and up) systems fall short of the RM40".  Well, that's just super.  But in my opinion, if you are going to make a blanket statement like that, you should "name names" (and associated equipment you used to test those overpriced losers).

If a professional critic can write such a poor review, how in the world can we hold the general public to a higher standard?

Kevin

[Hantra]

Define your background (trained musican, stockbroker, etc.) and how long you've been at this

State preferences and yes, limitations

Specify your current system and room

List source materials used

Compare against comparable equipment

Save the life stories and eloquent waxing for love letters to your sweetie (this is on ongoing problem with professional reviews, especially 6 moons)

List pros and cons

Make a recommendation as to who should be interested in a auditioning/purchasing

The reviewer background information should be available via hyperlink.

1) The reviewer never gave his name (turned out to be Peter Moncrief, who by all accounts is highly respected).

2) The reviewer never specified associated equipment. In fact, he didn't even generalize (tubes vs SS, vinyl vs CD, etc).

3) The reviewer never specified source material. Again, he didn't even generalize by genre (jazz, big band, classical).

4) Stated something to the effect "most $20,000 (and up) systems fall short of the RM40". Well, that's just super. But in my opinion, if you are going to make a blanket statement like that, you should "name names" (and associated equipment you used to test those overpriced losers).

Man, you can "demand" whatever you want from profesional reviewers b/c you pay their salaries.  On the other hand, I don't really care if you like my reviews or not.  I write my reviews, and critiques to give people an idea of what I heard, and what they may want to consider listening to.  

Do I care that you don't know my background?  No.  Also, you must understand that professionals are writing reviews for the most part to sell advertising space.  Therefore, they need to sell products with their reviews.  I do not.  I don't care if anyone buys from my review.  At least they read it, and decided whether they wanted to make the effort to go hear the product, or not.

Speaking of professional reviews, did anyone read John Marks' review of the NHB amp in Sterephile this month?  What a JOKE that was.

If you're going to write 3 PAGES of text on a piece, please, at least listen to it, and tell us a LITTLE BIT about how it sounds.  I could have written that review by looking at the NHB web site!  But at least I know now what color the internals are, and the intricacies of their packaging.  Give me a BREAK!  I am not a Stereophile complainer.  In fact, this is the first time I have had a real problem with it.

Ohh, and don't get me started on the Wilson WATT Puppy 7 review.  They mention the Rockports MORE than the Wilsons in that review. . . LAME. .

B

[Carlman]

I have found the most useful reviews to be from people who I know and understand their preferences.  It takes time to gain this kind of network.  I have a few friends that are musicians and hifi enthuiasts.  I not only respect their review but, understand exactly what it means.  

If you understand someone's tastes, their reviews are worthwhile.  I also agree with BradV's assessment of reviews.  You look for specific information in the review that you were curious about.  

I used the analogy that reading specs are liking reading reviews... a good starting point.  You get an idea, narrow the search, then go audition... pretty standard in this hobby.

Also, about putting the system in your sig, I have my system as my 'website' link.  That way you can get a quick answer to questions about my equipment... if you want it.  I don't like long signatures either and don't want to see them here because it makes it difficult to find the actual posted material... I've seen it on other forums and it's as annoying as reading a replied to, forwarded email.  The message is in there somewhere!

[bwkendall]

Or in your case, a profession as well.  Most opinions are purely subjective in nature.  And many of us who are engaged in this hobby will take those subjective opinions and brandish them about as if they were gospel.  Look at the differences between tube enthusiasts and SS enthusiasts........vinyl and CD......analog and digital......electrostats and, well, you get the message.

I think when it comes to helping newcomers to this hobby, we have a responsibility to urge that person to cultivate and develop his or her own opinions using one primary tool:  Their ears.  We can assist them with technical issues, performance problems and maybe guide them towards certain components (provided we take the time to find out what the individual is looking for).  Look at many of the magazine reviews that conclude with the line "if you are looking for a (name of component) that has a (insert adjective) sound, you (insert degree of recommendation) give (these, this) an audition."

But alas, we are human.......