Hardware vs media reviews

[Paul Heroy]

I was chatting via email with a friend today and he mentioned one of the longstanding issues with A/V published/professional hardware reviews in magazines and the big websites - you virtually never see a review that's even middling negative, much less truly negative. That's especially so for audio gear; I have seen stuff like cheap TVs get "meh" type reviews occasionally but when it comes to audio, it's really rare. Contrast that even more with reviews of music or movies - you find tons of movies getting blasted by critics even when the general audience highly enjoys them. 

Why is audio gear seemingly particularly immune to negative professional reviews?

[David Vaughn]

I was chatting via email with a friend today and he mentioned one of the longstanding issues with A/V published/professional hardware reviews in magazines and the big websites - you virtually never see a review that's even middling negative, much less truly negative. That's especially so for audio gear; I have seen stuff like cheap TVs get "meh" type reviews occasionally but when it comes to audio, it's really rare. Contrast that even more with reviews of music or movies - you find tons of movies getting blasted by critics even when the general audience highly enjoys them.

Why is audio gear seemingly particularly immune to negative professional reviews?

Paul, I think the main reason is rarely does anything sound remotely bad. While it may not be to someone's particular taste (bright versus warm), audio technology is a pretty steady technology that hasn't really changed much in the past 50+ years. 

I just reviewed some RSL inwalls that are a damn bargain and sound much better than their budget price tag. Could I get "better" for more? Marginally, but the law of diminishing return really starts to take over. 

[bmoney]

Paul, I think the main reason is rarely does anything sound remotely bad. While it may not be to someone's particular taste (bright versus warm), audio technology is a pretty steady technology that hasn't really changed much in the past 50+ years.

I just reviewed some RSL inwalls that are a damn bargain and sound much better than their budget price tag. Could I get "better" for more? Marginally, but the law of diminishing return really starts to take over.

That’s a great point. Realistically even Bose doesn’t sound bad. Just not the best way to spend your money 

[TRainH2O]

From my limited experience in reviewing and working (in the past) with several AV reviewers, David is spot on.

There is relatively inexpensive equipment out there today, that for most users, is more than adequate for their needs. Where the bigger price tags come in is usually with gear that is extremely-high-performing, or boutique manufacturers that produce high-performing gear that is truly audio jewelry. As mentioned, there is always going to be something out there that is technically better but I believe that most users wouldn't be able to fully appreciate that extra performance.

Also, these days, no manufacturer wants a bad review. I think that most will make sure that a piece is ready before sending it out into the market. 

[David Vaughn]

One other thing about RSL...I couldn't put a center channel inwall due to a damn stud (and I didn't want to rip a big patch of sheetrock out to remove the stud) so I got their top-end center channel. The fit and finish on the speaker looks like a painted Ferrari and the sound output is outstanding. Frankly, three of those speakers across the front soundstage would rival systems costing thousands more and I'd stack them up against most other bookshelf speakers in a blind test and I bet they'd be the first choice of a lot of people. Granted, it is larger than your average bookshelf speaker, but it sounds very good (although a tad warmer than my M&K S150s, which isn't a bad thing for most people). 

[TRainH2O]

One other thing about RSL...I couldn't put a center channel inwall due to a damn stud (and I didn't want to rip a big patch of sheetrock out to remove the stud) so I got their top-end center channel. The fit and finish on the speaker looks like a painted Ferrari and the sound output is outstanding. Frankly, three of those speakers across the front soundstage would rival systems costing thousands more and I'd stack them up against most other bookshelf speakers in a blind test and I bet they'd be the first choice of a lot of people. Granted, it is larger than your average bookshelf speaker, but it sounds very good (although a tad warmer than my M&K S150s, which isn't a bad thing for most people).

I'm to the point now that I'm more interested in 2-channel analog audio. I'd like to sell my GoldenEar towers and large center speaker and go with in-walls for the theater. I already have in-ceiling GE speakers (HTR-7000s) for my surrounds. It makes me wish I had gone ahead and bought three for the front soundstage while I could get a good deal on them. 

[TRainH2O]

From memory........I can only remember a couple of marginally negatively-reviewed products.

Both were home theater processors, one from a big-name manufacturer and the other from a smaller company. Both had fairly buggy software that really should have been properly dealt with before they were released. I owned one of them myself and it was easily the worst AV product that I have ever owned, sound wise.

[Paul Heroy]

Good point David & Tracy about the basic knowledge and competency that is just about universally available these days - although it's not always executed well. I realized I know of a major exception to what I mentioned - Audio Science Review. Amir and the site are on the far side of the subjectivist-objectivist spectrum, and depending on the category less than half of the reviewed devices get a recommendation. I have somewhat mixed feelings on the ASR approach where reviews are sometimes done as only measurements without even listening to a piece of gear. I have a couple of models that he tested. One of them, a phono preamp, was actually mine sent to be tested. The other is a DAC that that has been widely praised by the subjectivist review community including Stereophile, where he found a significant design flaw in testing. That brings up the point that competent measurements are available too, and to a precision greater than most people (or depending on the specific measurement and thresholds, all people) can actually perceive. 

[TRainH2O]

I read Amir's reviews on occasion and bought my current budget DAC, based on his recommendation.

While I think that how a piece of equipment measures can be important, it's only a part of the whole, as far as I'm concerned. Amir tends to depend on measurements as the basis of his reviews. There's nothing really wrong with that but I have heard gear that measures terribly on the bench that sounds magical to my ear. I have also heard gear that measures well that I personally didn't like the sound.

Also, how a piece sounds in-room is not always dependent on good test measurements. Maybe if we all listened in an aniconic chamber.

[SRW1000]

I don't read a lot of hardware reviews in publications these days, unless it's something I'm seriously interested in, but from memory, some of past reviewers I've read had the negative aspects of the products coached in code terms.  So, what might appear as a positive review on the surface, was really negative if you read into it.  It was much easier to spot with some writers than others, and not a universal thing, but once you started to see it, it was hard to miss.

I don't envy any of the gear reviewers, but I'm glad we have them.  I'm sure it's fun to try new stuff, but all of the aspects that have to be considered and knowing that there will be some readers making their purchase decision on review has to be a lot of pressure.

Scott

[David Vaughn]

I don't read a lot of hardware reviews in publications these days, unless it's something I'm seriously interested in, but from memory, some of past reviewers I've read had the negative aspects of the products coached in code terms.  So, what might appear as a positive review on the surface, was really negative if you read into it.  It was much easier to spot with some writers than others, and not a universal thing, but once you started to see it, it was hard to miss.

I don't envy any of the gear reviewers, but I'm glad we have them.  I'm sure it's fun to try new stuff, but all of the aspects that have to be considered and knowing that there will be some readers making their purchase decision on review has to be a lot of pressure.

Scott

I've reviewed a lot of gear over the years and have some things rate better than others. One review that was recently published received a "Top Pick" designation by mistake during editorial, but if you read the review itself, you'll see how I really feel about it. I won't mention it here because I don't want to run afoul of my editor.

One other thing...years ago I reviewed an AVR (I won't name the company in public) that was utter crap. It was rated at over 100 watts per channel and there was no way it came close to that benchmark. It was the only time that a company literally pushed back and wanted the review scrapped altogether or changed. Thankfully, my editor told them "no," but agreed to a compromise. IF the AVR came back and measured it's stated output (or even came close to it), he'd have someone else review the AVR to get their impressions of it. Conversely, if the power output didn't measure to the stated output, we'd run the review "as is" with my complaints of it sounding weak and underpowered. Moral to the story--the measurements came back and they were less than half the stated power ratings and we ran the review. It was the last time I ever reviewed an AVR from that company--for some reason they didn't like what I had to say

[SRW1000]

I've reviewed a lot of gear over the years and have some things rate better than others. One review that was recently published received a "Top Pick" designation by mistake during editorial, but if you read the review itself, you'll see how I really feel about it. I won't mention it here because I don't want to run afoul of my editor.

One other thing...years ago I reviewed an AVR (I won't name the company in public) that was utter crap. It was rated at over 100 watts per channel and there was no way it came close to that benchmark. It was the only time that a company literally pushed back and wanted the review scrapped altogether or changed. Thankfully, my editor told them "no," but agreed to a compromise. IF the AVR came back and measured it's stated output (or even came close to it), he'd have someone else review the AVR to get their impressions of it. Conversely, if the power output didn't measure to the stated output, we'd run the review "as is" with my complaints of it sounding weak and underpowered. Moral to the story--the measurements came back and they were less than half the stated power ratings and we ran the review. It was the last time I ever reviewed an AVR from that company--for some reason they didn't like what I had to say

Those are interesting examples, David.  Glad to hear that the editor stood behind you on the AVR, that's lends credibly to the publication.

One has to wonder if that kind of standard extends to other publications.  For gear reviews I've been leaning more toward user posts and comments than published articles but take both into account before making a decision.  There's also risk in post from unknown sources, but they're usually a good way to find consensus and to point out things that may interest one person but not another.

It's a far different environment than it was prior to the internet where all we really had to go on were published articles.

Scott

[David Vaughn]

Those are interesting examples, David.  Glad to hear that the editor stood behind you on the AVR, that's lends credibly to the publication.

One has to wonder if that kind of standard extends to other publications.  For gear reviews I've been leaning more toward user posts and comments than published articles but take both into account before making a decision.  There's also risk in post from unknown sources, but they're usually a good way to find consensus and to point out things that may interest one person but not another.

It's a far different environment than it was prior to the internet where all we really had to go on were published articles.

Scott

Or even worse...the advice of the salesman who may have gotten a higher commission on one product versus another! 

[SRW1000]

Or even worse...the advice of the salesman who may have gotten a higher commission on one product versus another!

For sure.  I remember just rolling my eyes listening to a Best Buy guy back when they were on commission.  I didn't even bother trying to correct him since it was apparent he didn't know what he was talking about.

Good lesson there and highlighted the importance of independent opinions.