‘I pray I never eat here again’ – restaurant review

[mrvco]

A review of a restaurant that is open to the public requires a relatively minor financial investment by the publication and can usually be done anonymously. If the audiophile press takes a similar approach and starts publishing negative reviews instead of simply returning the review unit and declining the review, then review units and potentially ad revenue are going to dry up... or more nefarious tactics could be employed by manufacturers to avoid negative reviews being published. The current system isn't perfect, but it's pretty well understood by anyone paying attention and I don't expect Consumer Reports to start reviewing audiophile gear anytime soo... err well, ever.

[whoozwah]

well maybe audiophile publications ought to start publishing honest reviews that are transparent as possible. If the items sucks then it sucks. If that results in no more review units coming in from boutique companies that charge 5 billion for a pair of speakers then maybe the publications will start buying their own gear for review and then morph into an industry for the common person's budget and the high end will have to adjust or die to stay alive.

[firedog]

well maybe audiophile publications ought to start publishing honest reviews that are transparent as possible. If the items sucks then it sucks. If that results in no more review units coming in from boutique companies that charge 5 billion for a pair of speakers then maybe the publications will start buying their own gear for review and then morph into an industry for the common person's budget and the high end will have to adjust or die to stay alive.

 

What product marketed to audiophiles in the past 10 years actually sucks? I think none, or close to none. Reviews therefore are all reviews of good products, and the only question is how they compare to one another, which are better values, or which ones are a little better than others.

Reviews don't say the products suck, because they actually don't.

[semente]

What product marketed to audiophiles in the past 10 years actually sucks? I think none, or close to none. Reviews therefore are all reviews of good products, and the only question is how they compare to one another, which are better values, or which ones are a little better than others.

Reviews don't say the products suck, because they actually don't.

If you take into account a price/performance ratio then many speakers do "suck".

[PhilR]

What product marketed to audiophiles in the past 10 years actually sucks? I think none, or close to none. Reviews therefore are all reviews of good products, and the only question is how they compare to one another, which are better values, or which ones are a little better than others.

Reviews don't say the products suck, because they actually don't.

 

I agree with this. Most truly crappy audio products are priced accordingly.

 

It's like current big screen TVs, most of what is out there is pretty good and priced according to the quality and features of the unit. If a TV manufacturer puts out a sub-prime 60" flat screen that costs 3X the price of its competitors, the market will decide how quickly it meets its fate. If a couple of bad reviews help it along, it would be well deserved, no? If a reviewer or two tests a new $60K DAC and finds out that it does not offer a significant performance difference over a $3K DAC, it would be nice to know this as a consumer. It also might encourage the $60K DAC designer to go back to the drawing board and make a product that isn't being bettered by much cheaper competition.

[mansr]

What product marketed to audiophiles in the past 10 years actually sucks?

 

Pretty much everything made by Synergistic Research for starters.

[Rt66indierock]

What product marketed to audiophiles in the past 10 years actually sucks? I think none, or close to none. Reviews therefore are all reviews of good products, and the only question is how they compare to one another, which are better values, or which ones are a little better than others.

Reviews don't say the products suck, because they actually don't.

 

Well in February 2015 Hi-Fi News and Record Report reviewed the AR-7 from the seventies and a badly matched pair with an obvious flaw got 84% on their scale. At the time the highest rated speaker got 89%. They rate a lot of speakers worse.

 

And depending on what you play there are a lot of expensive speakers that don't sound good to me. I just fire up Blonde on Blonde and you can kiss most expensive speakers good bye.

[Kal Rubinson]

I have a friend who reviews for a HiFi publication. On several occasions, he has worked with the designer to get the equipment to a point where it is good enough to review. On some occasions, he has sent the product back with no review.

One possible concern is that the company must assure that all buyers, past and future, will get product similarly corrected. Also, returning a known defective product without public report shortchanges the readers.

[firedog]

If you take into account a price/performance ratio then many speakers do "suck".

 

That's a totally different question. What you're actually saying is the product is way overpriced. It's performance doesn't suck,which was the suggestion about reviews. If a product can be matched in performance by a product way below it's price, I think that should be pointed out. In some reviews comparisons are made to other products and issues like this are pointed out.

For instance, I just read a review of Hegel equipment in which the reviewer compared the amplifier to a top of the line product by Hegel costing 3 times as much. He specifically said the improvement was there with the more expensive item, but the difference wasn't enough that it would be worthwhile for most people.

[rando]

Which is totally irrelevant if performance means performance. As in working, functioning properly, or performing.

 

No offense, but what aside from stumbling over you recounting a stumbling review were we supposed to gain there? We are actively discussing doing a very good job of being honest where someone has produced an effort not worth putting a namesake on. A thorough thrubbing if you will.

 

The difference lies in establishing a margin, as I did above, or completely marginalizing your opinion, which I did not.

[firedog]

Which is totally irrelevant if performance means performance. As in working, functioning properly, or performing.

 

No offense, but what aside from stumbling over you recounting a stumbling review were we supposed to gain there? We are actively discussing doing a very good job of being honest where someone has produced an effort not worth putting a namesake on. A thorough thrubbing if you will.

 

The difference lies in establishing a margin, as I did above, or completely marginalizing your opinion, which I did not.

 

I don't know where the "we" comes from. YOU are discussing that. I don't really know what you are talking about.

 

I am challenging the idea put forth that reviews are often about audiophile products that "suck". Price has nothing to do with whether a product "sucks" or not. Price has to do with perceived value for money, not performance. There are even people willing to pay lots of money for bling added to a certain level of performance. The product may perform like a $2K item yet cost $5k b/c of looks. Doesn't mean the product sucks. It may sound very good, just not be a good value for $5K, compared to some equally well performing, but plainer looking devices.

 

Cosmetics are often responsible for as much as 70% of the final retail price of some high-end items. That quote comes directly from Anthony Michelson of Musical Fidelity. I'd bet he understands just what he's talking about. He used that fact as the basis for his inexpensive and plain looking range of "V" products - where you are paying for sound, and not for looks.

 

Ask dealers, who will tell you that many high-end customers buy on the basis of looks and not sound and knowingly pay for the cosmetics. Sorry, but assuming that's true, it makes sense for manufacturers to cater to that market - at least with some of their products. Doesn't mean those products suck.

 

So again, I'll ask: In the last 10 years, what "audiophile" DAC or amp or speaker have you seen favorably reviewed in one of the magazines (online/print) that can be legitimately described as one that "sucks" with regard to performance, and should be given a review saying it "sucks"? Pointing out something you view as overpriced doesn't count. It has to actually have subpar performance for anything aspiring to be an audiophile product.

[mansr]

So again, I'll ask: In the last 10 years, what "audiophile" DAC or amp or speaker have you seen favorably reviewed in one of the magazines (online/print) that can be legitimately described as one that "sucks" with regard to performance, and should be given a review saying it "sucks"? Pointing out something you view as overpriced doesn't count. It has to actually have subpar performance for anything aspiring to be an audiophile product.

 

Perhaps they don't suck in the strictest sense, but a lot of bizarre widgets get rave reviews despite demonstrably doing nothing whatsoever.

[mordante]

When I review items for myself I will be honest.

 

Worst gear I reviewed was Usher Mini Dancer 2 and Tannoy DC8t. Both were sub par to my ears.

[rando]

I don't know where the "we" comes from. YOU are discussing that. I don't really know what you are talking about.

Whose who can't do

duly duel

never do well

 

Clearly someone is in the "WE'ds" here. Giving forth unwanted, tall swaying growths that go where the wind takes them to maintain some semblance of stature. The battering they take, immense, shredding in nature. Go reread the first post and lighten the hell up.

Perhaps they don't suck in the strictest sense, but a lot of bizarre widgets get rave reviews despite demonstrably doing nothing whatsoever.

 

Which is his nit with me. I referred to the bizarre widgets you mention as golf aids. Shortly thereafter the word pathetic surfaced. To personally wave off nonsense in justifying his decision to socialize a "ME" thread. Again the message was loosen up and enjoy the experience in the company it has associated you with. e̶i̶ n̶b̶e̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶m̶i̶n̶e̶d̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶a̶ ̶v̶e̶r̶y̶ ̶e̶x̶a̶c̶t̶ ̶b̶r̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶h̶i̶g̶h̶ ̶b̶r̶o̶w̶ ̶s̶a̶t̶i̶r̶e̶g̶ ̶u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶m̶i̶n̶e̶d̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶a̶ ̶v̶e̶r̶y̶ ̶e̶x̶a̶c̶t̶ ̶b̶r̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶h̶i̶g̶h̶ ̶b̶r̶o̶w̶ ̶s̶a̶t̶i̶r̶e̶

[Rt66indierock]

Go back a little further and the Wilson Watt Puppy 5 as I stated in MQA, The Press, The Industry, Consumers, etc ...comment #25 was not high performance.

 

Currently any speaker reviewed by Hi-Fi News and Record Report receiving a rating of 80% or below cannot be considered high performance. I'm not being unreasonable to say as I did in prior post that high performance or "audiophile" performance begins with the old AR-7.