Are Hifi Reviews Flawed?

[Joe]

A system, however, which majors on 'false excitement factor' (usually due to deliberate voicing as such by equipment manufacturers) may sound superficially 'impressive' with rock music, but its overall limitations are often ruthlessly revealed by the demands reproducing classical music convincingly imposes on systems.

Wasn't that the 'Flat Earth' approach?

[Marco]

Some Linn/Naim systems had the tendency to do that, yes.

Marco.

[Steve Toy]

Talking to Mr C today the FE/RE thing really is about communication and (not versus) presentation. It isn't really a dichotomy for when you use decent kit that isn't contrived in its delivery they go hand-in-hand. Effect a tweak or a component swap that gives you greater insight into the music and the chances are the presentational aspects will improve also and vice-versa.

Very good RE and FE systems will meet in the middle.

This is a presentation/communication issue, btw and has little to do with measured (objective) versus perceived (subjective.)

[jandl100]

Hmm ... I have yet to hear a FE system that can do justice to the tonal colours of classical music. IME FE works by deliberately leaning out the midrange/upper bass (and often boosting the treble) to produce a superficially faster and more exciting sound. Just play a good recording of a grand piano on a FE system and all will be horribly revealed - it'll sound like an upright honky-tonk!

[jandl100]

A system, however, which majors on 'false excitement factor' (usually due to deliberate voicing as such by equipment manufacturers) may sound superficially 'impressive' with rock music, but its overall limitations are often ruthlessly revealed by the demands reproducing classical music convincingly imposes on systems.

Would you agree with that?

It's kind of what you're saying, I guess, but rather somewhat in reverse!

Marco.

Yup - I'll go along with that - see my previous post ^^ also. I think FE systems fit that description to a T.

[Alan Sircom]

A review is nothing more than a finger pointing the way. If you agree or disagree with the reviewer - and do it consistently - you have a frame of reference. Usually that means the reviewer might have a similar room, tastes and equipment to you, or it means the reviewer has a room, tastes and equipment diametrically opposed to you.

The problem is not necessarily that advertisers dictate the shape and nature of reviews any more than they ever have, but there is a heightened sensitivity to negatives these days, far more than ever before. The old fashioned way of dealing with criticism was to look carefully at the review; if the review was fair, take it on the chin and learn from it... if it was unnecessarily damaging, speak to the editor for explanation and possibly a retraction... if it was a complete attack on the company and the product, speak to the publisher and possibly consider legal action. Today, the mildest criticism leads direct to the publisher, and the company withdraws its products (and tries to coerce its associates to do the same). Worse, the company will refuse to reconnect with the magazine until such time as the reviewer who wrote the review is removed. An advertiser merely adds that to the mix and threatens to pull their advertising.

Somewhere down the line, manufacturers - especially the smaller manufacturers - have come to view magazines as their Public Relations officer. This is not helped by a common view held by magazines and manufacturers alike that - because there are currently so many products out there - there's little point in a magazine printing a bad review.

With the downturn in the affairs of the audio industry, the amount of money available to reviews has dropped away. That makes the possibility of multiple listener and lengthy blind test reviews too expensive to run these days. Worse, it also precludes the possibility of lengthy measurement. The long-form review is also largely lost to history, too. As people seem to want to read five 1,000 word reviews instead of one 5,000 review, and the amount paid on each review gets less and less, so the chances of someone 'digging into' a review are remote. Which is why most reviews these days spend a lot of time discussing the functionality and not much about the sound and system matching.

[Spectral Morn]

A review is nothing more than a finger pointing the way. If you agree or disagree with the reviewer - and do it consistently - you have a frame of reference. Usually that means the reviewer might have a similar room, tastes and equipment to you, or it means the reviewer has a room, tastes and equipment diametrically opposed to you.

The problem is not necessarily that advertisers dictate the shape and nature of reviews any more than they ever have, but there is a heightened sensitivity to negatives these days, far more than ever before. The old fashioned way of dealing with criticism was to look carefully at the review; if the review was fair, take it on the chin and learn from it... if it was unnecessarily damaging, speak to the editor for explanation and possibly a retraction... if it was a complete attack on the company and the product, speak to the publisher and possibly consider legal action. Today, the mildest criticism leads direct to the publisher, and the company withdraws its products (and tries to coerce its associates to do the same). Worse, the company will refuse to reconnect with the magazine until such time as the reviewer who wrote the review is removed. An advertiser merely adds that to the mix and threatens to pull their advertising.

Somewhere down the line, manufacturers - especially the smaller manufacturers - have come to view magazines as their Public Relations officer. This is not helped by a common view held by magazines and manufacturers alike that - because there are currently so many products out there - there's little point in a magazine printing a bad review.

With the downturn in the affairs of the audio industry, the amount of money available to reviews has dropped away. That makes the possibility of multiple listener and lengthy blind test reviews too expensive to run these days. Worse, it also precludes the possibility of lengthy measurement. The long-form review is also largely lost to history, too. As people seem to want to read five 1,000 word reviews instead of one 5,000 review, and the amount paid on each review gets less and less, so the chances of someone 'digging into' a review are remote. Which is why most reviews these days spend a lot of time discussing the functionality and not much about the sound and system matching.

I was afraid this was the answer you would give. I had thought this was the reasons, but dreaded a clarification.

We live in sad days.

The long-form review is really the only kind, imho, which have any broad value; which is why my reviews here on AOS are nearly all long-form. I can of course do this as they are a labour of love and not being paid for (obviously it would be deferent if I was being paid for my work....some day). I have the time and passion to continue, so long as I am lent gear to write about and/or can source it for small cost.

However Alan, the long-form review has been an endangered animal for a very long time as it began to vanish around the mid 90's except for + of course, until now that is. I would ask that you do your best to keep at least some long-form write ups in the magazine as frankly not all of us have short attention spans and are interested in gaining insight and knowledge about the products in for review...short-form is useless for this imho.

Thanks for the contribution to this thread and the forum.


Regards Neil

[Alex_UK]

Thanks for the contribution to this thread and the forum.

Seconded - and also for being remarkably candid - much appreciated, Alan.

[MartinT]

The trouble with this is that some people refuse to believe imaging has any relevance & some refuse to admit that different image heights are possible.

Those people are generally the ones whose systems don't image. Once you hear image width, depth and height there is no need to 'believe' because the effect is quite real.

[MartinT]

However, if being honest, wouldn't you say that you are (or have been) influenced by, for example, Russ Andrews and the whole RATA/Kimber cable system building methodology?

Chicken and egg. Was I influenced before I was convinced? I am influenced now, but that's because I've tried lots of Kimber products and am convinced.

That doesn't mean I like the prices, though