• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Does The Absolute Sound Do Bad Reviews?

Duckzilla

Duckzilla

"Laugh it up fuzzball"
Just got my 2nd issue of TAS in the mail today. Snowy day, so I sat down and started reading. First review gave glowing, gushing praise. On to the second review in which the product nearly walks on water. Curious, I skipped the reviews and went to the last sentence of all the reviews and, shockingly, not a bad one in the bunch. I'm not that familiar with TAS, simply because they are unlikely to review anything I can afford (I know that much about them), but still, they seem to have a lot of info within the covers. I would imagine a few AKer's get this mag; am I to understand that this is par for the course in their reviews?
 
Register to hide this ad
I don't read the magazines every month, but I probably read fifteen or more issues of various audio magazines per year and I honestly can't remember a bad review in any of them. The closest is when they do a shootout comparison where they rank several items, and even then it is a "this fantastic item is a little nicer than this great item" sort of deal.

So, yes I would call it par, and not just in TAS.
 
Stereofool occasionally offers up not necessarily bad, but not positively glowing subjective reviews. Further, in the objective testing "Measurements" side-bar, John will often comment about a product not meeting his expectations, or offering that it's performance is overall good, but such and such is a black mark. He was particularly critical of a McIntosh media server a couple years back- that one really stood out in my mind. Indeed, the Measurements section is the usually the first part I read- It can be more telling of the true character of the product, especially when he quotes the reviewers notes (i.e. "... might account for the midrange hardness MF described in his notes ..."), which the reviewer proper tries to obfuscate through clever wording.

I was gifted a subscription to TAS by a friend for Christmas, but have yet to receive a copy, so I cannot comment on their editorial style yet.
 
Of course, I wouldn't expect a $55k pre or a $77k power amp to get bad reviews, and there's two pieces that are gorgeous to look at.
 
I used to subscribe to both TAS and Stereophile but let my subscriptions elapse and never renewed. I still enjoy paging through them from time to time particularly the old digest version of Stereophile.

There pretty much like this hobby in general. Most everything you read in them (review wise) must be taken with a grain of salt and also with the ability to read between the lines ;)

RC
 
doucanoe said:
...[The subjective review magazines a]re pretty much like this hobby in general. Most everything you read in them (review wise) must be taken with a grain of salt and also with the ability to read between the lines ;)

RC
Click to expand...

Absolutely true, and it's been that way for a long time. J. Gordon Holt left High Fidelity and founded Stereophile because he disliked the former magazine's policy of always finding something positive to say about a review sample from an advertiser no matter how dreadful the product was. Stereophile under Holt had a "tell it like it is" editorial philosophy that unfortunately faded away after the magazine was sold. The few issues of TAS that I've read over the years come across as a similar read to the later Stereophile -- a bit more agonizing stylistically, but with the same general types of virtues and faults in the reviews.

Even Stereo Review, that longtime bastion of objective criticism, fell into the trap during Julian Hirsch's tenure as technical editor and lead reviewer. At the direction of his editors, Hirsch developed a fine art of hiding negativity between the lines when he disliked a product. It took a degree of skill to extract Hirsch's true opinion of a product from his printed reviews, especially when the product was sub-par.
 
Dr Tinear said:
Absolutely true, and it's been that way for a long time. J. Gordon Holt left High Fidelity and founded Stereophile because he disliked the former magazine's policy of always finding something positive to say about a review sample from an advertiser no matter how dreadful the product was. Stereophile under Holt had a "tell it like it is" editorial philosophy that unfortunately faded away after the magazine was sold. The few issues of TAS that I've read over the years come across as a similar read to the later Stereophile -- a bit more agonizing stylistically, but with the same general types of virtues and faults in the reviews.

Even Stereo Review, that longtime bastion of objective criticism, fell into the trap during Julian Hirsch's tenure as technical editor and lead reviewer. At the direction of his editors, Hirsch developed a fine art of hiding negativity between the lines when he disliked a product. It took a degree of skill to extract Hirsch's true opinion of a product from his printed reviews, especially when the product was sub-par.
Click to expand...

seems as though the only way to get a truly unbiased opinion of pretty much anything is to have it tested by a publisher who does not receive any revenue from manufacturer. ie consumers report.
 
I've been reading the issue all day, and found contradictions. I don't know how they choose the gear of the year, but their review of a pair of Martin-Logan ($13,995) speakers states proudly that "I know of no other speaker under $40k I could live with" which must really piss off the manufacturers of the product of the year speakers priced at $15K, $18k, $27k, and $37k. I know, I'm being nit-picky, but it just irks me.
 
In the spirit of a double blind protocol, shouldn't the reviewers be forbidden from knowing which products reviewed are advertised in the magazine, and shouldn't the editors be forbidden from knowing the results of those reviews prior to publication?

Wouldn't be as hard as it sounds; the reviewers have no reason to actually read their own magazine, really; and the editors have no reason to read the reviews prior to doing the layout...
 
Redboy said:
So... who's actually doing semi-objective reviews these days? :scratch2:
Click to expand...

I like the reviews on www.audioholics.com. At least for the products they don't sell in their online store. If you like reviews where the reviewers get down and dirty with the product their reviewing and use all kinds of test instruments, I think they do a good job, especially if Gene De La Salla's doing the review. He's like an uber-geek when it comes to testing things.

You have to be aware, though, when you go to their site, that they have a variety of review types. What you see most often are their "First Impressions" where, to me, it looks like they're simply going off a press release. The thing is on these First Impression reviews, they'll give a two or three word summary that falls along the lines of "Gotta Have It," "Pretty Cool," or ... I forget what the third rating is, but it's something along the lines of, "Meh..."

Based on my recall of these First Impressions reviews, it seems to me that they balance the reviews pretty evenly along all three categories.

But, for their big, full-on reviews, they're very detailed, and they have a lot of empirical data behind their claims.

Granted, most of what they're looking at is home theater gear, but they do two channel stuff, too.
 
I only read a recording/studio oriented mag; Sound On Sound
(they have a lot of great articles on soundproofing, monitors vs. HiFi speakers, etc, etc online too)...
http://www.soundonsound.com/

And read a firmly analytical German HiFi mag for a while but the name eludes me at the moment.
 
Most magazines rely heavily on the income they get from advertisers, to survive. Whatever you pay for a subscription is a relative drop in the bucket, that doesn't come close to paying for the actual cost of the magazine. The advertisers are where the money is at.

Now if you are an editor, are you going to "bite the hand that feeds you," and write a scathing review of a crappy product that one of your advertisers had produced? One of those guys whose money keeps you in business? One might say one of those manufacturers, for whom your magazine exists in the first place? Yes, most mags today exist as a marketing vehicle for manufacturers, more than as any kind of service for readers.

This isn't true only for audio magazines, either; it is true for automotive mags, computer mags, even fitness magazines! In many fields, the manufacturers actually OWN most of the popular magazines, ensuring that the mags will never publish anything damaging to their reputations.

It's just a fact of life. If you want opinions from people with no vested interest, read the comments on places like AK. MOST of the comments here at least will be from neutral parties.
 
Arkay said:
Most magazines rely heavily on the income they get from advertisers, to survive. Whatever you pay for a subscription is a relative drop in the bucket, that doesn't come close to paying for the actual cost of the magazine. The advertisers are where the money is at.

Now if you are an editor, are you going to "bite the hand that feeds you," and write a scathing review of a crappy product that one of your advertisers had produced? One of those guys whose money keeps you in business? One might say one of those manufacturers, for whom your magazine exists in the first place? Yes, most mags today exist as a marketing vehicle for manufacturers, more than as any kind of service for readers.

This isn't true only for audio magazines, either; it is true for automotive mags, computer mags, even fitness magazines! In many fields, the manufacturers actually OWN most of the popular magazines, ensuring that the mags will never publish anything damaging to their reputations.

It's just a fact of life. If you want opinions from people with no vested interest, read the comments on places like AK. MOST of the comments here at least will be from neutral parties.
Click to expand...

You said it better than me.
 
The other thing too, especially in a down economy like this one, is that manufacturers are looking to cut costs in any way they can. It costs them significant money to take a perfectly good product out of the sales cycle and a) pack it up to be delivered safely and securely to a reviewer (and pay for return shipping) and b) no longer be able to sell that sample product as new.

While it may not affect the big name manufacturers as much, the audio world is full of tiny manufacturers who really can't spare the product sample from their line-up.

It's not as big an issue as the potential for loss of ad sales revenue (my wife works for a high-end lifestyle magazine in the Detroit area - I'm always pushing her to propose high end audio stories, but so far, no luck), but it still is a significant cost, especially to smaller companies.
 
68custom said:
seems as though the only way to get a truly unbiased opinion of pretty much anything is to have it tested by a publisher who does not receive any revenue from manufacturer. ie consumers report.
Click to expand...

Then we'd all be madly in love with the Bose Waveradio, because after that, you really don't need anything else...

But, if I remember my history correctly, Stereophile did not accept advertisements in the beginning (being entirely subscriber supported), and when eventually they did include ad's to subsidize the rag, they did so only from retailers, presumably to minimize manufacturer influence (though, of course, if your relying on retailers, they're not going to be happy if you poo-poo a product they happen to sell...).

In any event, Holt never really seemed to take issue with giving less than stellar review. Indeed, he seemed to approach the opportunity with earnest glee.

But, here's the flip side. Even in my own experience, I've not yet run into a single product where I could not find some virtue, redeeming or otherwise. Even certain things I've really reviled have had some good point to them, even if it wasn't enough. So, I think it would be equally disingenuous to simply write bad reviews for the sake of appearing "balanced". That doesn't, in my view excuse blatant brown nosing (for instance, Stereophile's aural fixation with Musical Fidelity), but it does put it more into perspective.
 
Both Stereophile and The Absolute Sound tend to review gear that has already intrigued them at shows or in their own travels. And it's gear that has intrigued them in a positive way. They've stated this many times in their letters section, because many people ask them this same question all the time. They are not in the business of introducing people to stuff that they don't like. They hear stuff that they think is pretty good or great, then ask for a demo of it over a long period of time. This leads to, in my experience, either somewhat positive or very positive reviews. There is a lot of new gear out there and to waste space just bashing a product that could be used to introduce somebody to something they think is worthwhile, has little point. At least to me, and apparently them.

They also must know that a single really bad review can ruin some of these manufacturers and take away the good products with the one bad.

If you don't agree with this, don't read the magazine and get your reviews of new high end gear from the internet, because it's such a bastion of unbiased, completely informed, information.

Some British mags to blind tests, I think HiFi Choice is the name of one. The British mags seem more willing to review stuff they don't like.
 
I can't remember exactly how much 1 full color page add in Stereophile costs, but it's a lot for the little or average audio company. Especially when that add has to be in the magazine for a whole year before people will even consider it. So for that advertising you want a good review too. I think it was $7500 for a page or 1/2 page......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom