How can we improve?

[JCS123]

Again, have you EVER read about this in any review? Nope.

I remember one reviewer mentioning it, but that was few years ago and I don't recall who the reviewer was. That said, I don't claim to have read every review of LUMIN products. I have to believe that as well-engineered and designed as LUMIN products are, there is probably a reason for the overhang.

When Peter returns to the forum, we can ask him.

 

[Michaels HiFi]

When Peter returns to the forum, we can ask him.

Unfortunately and surprisingly it looks as though Lumin has failed to take any action to right the ship.

It's an easy fix they appear not willing to make.

 

[JCS123]

Well, at least you ended your story on a positive note. Reviewer bashing is a team sport on audio forums.

But reviewers bashing non-reviewers on the forums takes it to the next level.

 

[Mike]

I remember one reviewer mentioning it, but that was few years ago and I don't recall who the reviewer was. That said, I don't claim to have read every review of LUMIN products. I have to believe that as well-engineered and designed as LUMIN products are, there is probably a reason for the overhang.

When Peter returns to the forum, we can ask him.

I think that was my review!

 

[Kramer64]

The best source of what makes for a helpful review would certainly not be reviewers, or even dealers, it would be consumers of audio gear and consumers of reviews. Maybe its happened and I missed it, but I haven't seen any of the publications solicit in a serious way from paid subscribers what would be helpful in a review.

Most reviews that I read follow a loose pattern. A few meaningless introductory paragraphs meant to be clever. Then a usually detailed description of the products, its features, some measurements if we are lucky, nice photos, price, etc. Most reviewers do a good job of this and the information is very useful. Next we get subjective impressions. Some reviewers, I'll again tout Tom Martin, do a pretty good job of this by attempting a description that has some meat on the bones in terms of tone, soundstage, etc. Then, with a lot of reviews, you get a list of the songs the reviewer used-usually high tone stuff that is well beyond my plebeian tastes- never seen one that said ole George Jones never sounded better. The same florid language can be found over and over and, speaking only for me, represents empty literary calories. Then the inevitable "If you are in the market for a $______ amp, consider this one".

What's missing? A full disclosure of conflicts of interest so I can decide for myself if they matter. The kind of information Mike mentioned-practical stuff, small but useful features or annoyances that wouldn't be obvious at first blush. And at least comparisons with competitive products. Doesn't have to be subjective judgements about which is "better" but a comparison of features, sound quality, etc, between competing products. Reviews could tell us how specific products differ from one another without assigning rank.

Not universal truths-some reviewers provide more useful material than others and I'll again point to Martin's series on dacs. I think Soundstage does a good job and of course there are others. Maybe the publications should be explicit about the purpose of their reviews-is it just entertainment, as some suggest, or is it intended as a serious effort to aid subscribers in understanding the products?

 

[Mike]

The best source of what makes for a helpful review would certainly not be reviewers, or even dealers, it would be consumers of audio gear and consumers of reviews. Maybe its happened and I missed it, but I haven't seen any of the publications solicit in a serious way from paid subscribers what would be helpful in a review.

Most reviews that I read follow a loose pattern. A few meaningless introductory paragraphs meant to be clever. Then a usually detailed description of the products, its features, some measurements if we are lucky, nice photos, price, etc. Most reviewers do a good job of this and the information is very useful. Next we get subjective impressions. Some reviewers, I'll again tout Tom Martin, do a pretty good job of this by attempting a description that has some meat on the bones in terms of tone, soundstage, etc. Then, with a lot of reviews, you get a list of the songs the reviewer used-usually high tone stuff that is well beyond my plebeian tastes- never seen one that said ole George Jones never sounded better. The same florid language can be found over and over and, speaking only for me, represents empty literary calories. Then the inevitable "If you are in the market for a $______ amp, consider this one".

What's missing? A full disclosure of conflicts of interest so I can decide for myself if they matter. The kind of information Mike mentioned-practical stuff, small but useful features or annoyances that wouldn't be obvious at first blush. And at least comparisons with competitive products. Doesn't have to be subjective judgements about which is "better" but a comparison of features, sound quality, etc, between competing products. Reviews could tell us how specific products differ from one another without assigning rank.

Not universal truths-some reviewers provide more useful material than others and I'll again point to Martin's series on dacs. I think Soundstage does a good job and of course there are others. Maybe the publications should be explicit about the purpose of their reviews-is it just entertainment, as some suggest, or is it intended as a serious effort to aid subscribers in understanding the products?

True, but the risk is the shills. Read even those with caution. A high degree of caution. If someone is waxing poetically for pages and pages and pages - be wary. If it’s short and sweet, usually and probably legit.

 

[BendingWave]

There are obviously differences in what things sound like and what people prefer. That is the nature of the beast.
Compromise is also a built in factor since everyone has different budgets, spaces , listening choices and esthetic decisions.
However there is one major thing missing IMO from the review process and that is there are zero constants, Constants you ask? Yes
There are no standards as to set up of speakers for example. No process. No minimum degrees of competency. Its just WTF. Well to me WTF just means that there is not enough knowledge.
I ask this question, If you don't know how to set up a pair of speakers then why do I care about your conclusion of how they sound?
With over 50 years experience in this business/hobby I can confidently state that if you don't know how then should find someone that can. This IMO can't be more important than if you are reviewing since if the set up is wrong then what are you commenting on? the product? or the fact that its improperly set up.
Just building a room, buying room treatment, getting high end electrical work and spending serious cash on gear does not mean the system will sound amazing.
The differences are in the details, the small details, the even smaller details.

 

[2FarGone]

I thought it was self evident. Audiophiles scream for comparative reviews. First of all, what audio product is "perfect?" None is the answer.

Because you review two products that are possible competition in their price and category would never invalidate either review. Each product stands on its merit.

I could go on, but I hope you see the fallacy in the logic.

I suspect that the phenomenon of reviewer bashing has its roots in the contentious culture this hobby has produced. There are two camps, both deeply contemptuous and dismissive of each other, with reviewers stuck in the middle. Add to that the fact that some reviewers are far more competent than others, not to mention that I have had serious reservations about some “reference” systems that I question are really adequate to the task. Toss some shills into the mix, and we have a good recipe for an online free-for-all.

To further muddy the waters, on YT anyone can be a reviewer - just tell ‘em what they want to hear and the clicks will come. B&M stores where enthusiasts can actually audition equipment are getting increasingly scarce, so people entering this hobby have little option other than to brave those waters because there’s little else for them to turn to.

It’s unsurprising that the whole thing is a mess.

 

[Phil A]

Unfortunately basically everything is about money these days. Whether it is ad revenue or the garnering of views to get more of them or something might offend a company giving accomodation sales which often impacts what a reviewer really may think. It is no different in any other field, whether it is something like https://www.opensecrets.org/ or NIL money for amateur athletes or a TV show (news or otherwise) attracting sponsors.

For me, I usualy wait until I'm seriously thinking about an upgrade and I go listen for myself. I don't get someone taking someone elses review as the last word. I have a friend who does reviews and he told me a story about a reviewer whose listening room was in an unattached room near the pool. When he evaluated an amplifier, he needed an extra outlet and used a 50 foot cheapo extension cord from the main house to plug in an amplifier to do a review.

 

[Mike]

I suspect that the phenomenon of reviewer bashing has its roots in the contentious culture this hobby has produced. There are two camps, both deeply contemptuous and dismissive of each other, with reviewers stuck in the middle. Add to that the fact that some reviewers are far more competent than others, not to mention that I have had serious reservations about some “reference” systems that I question are really adequate to the task. Toss some shills into the mix, and we have a good recipe for an online free-for-all.

To further muddy the waters, on YT anyone can be a reviewer - just tell ‘em what they want to hear and the clicks will come. B&M stores where enthusiasts can actually audition equipment are getting increasingly scarce, so people entering this hobby have little option other than to brave those waters because there’s little else for them to turn to.

It’s unsurprising that the whole thing is a mess.

Well said. It’s challenging for B&M these days. Unfortunately, there is a reluctance to have serious conversations in the industry.

I can’t tell you the number of times the name “Jay” comes up. Just the other day I had a prominent dealer/distributor call me to bemoan Jay. I told him “this industry created Jay!!” He was taken back and asked me to explain. I explained to him some of the reasons and he agreed.

We also haven’t addressed HOW and WHY people buy in our industry. I went on a YouTube panel to discuss this topic along with the effectiveness of magazine ads (and reviews) and it turned into a show unrelated to what I was asked on the show to discuss.

Oh well….we just stay in our lane, head down and work hard.

 

[Michaels HiFi]

Well said. It’s challenging for B&M these days. Unfortunately, there is a reluctance to have serious conversations in the industry.

I can’t tell you the number of times the name “Jay” comes up. Just the other day I had a prominent dealer/distributor call me to bemoan Jay. I told him “this industry created Jay!!” He was taken back and asked me to explain. I explained to him some of the reasons and he agreed.

We also haven’t addressed HOW and WHY people buy in our industry. I went on a YouTube panel to discuss this topic along with the effectiveness of magazine ads (and reviews) and it turned into a show unrelated to what I was asked on the show to discuss.

Oh well….we just stay in our lane, head down and work hard.

There are two competing camps:

The consumers (and a few smart industry people) who want change;

And a majority of the industry who is too stuck in the past and likes things just the way they are with no care or regard for the damage they are causing.

Hopefully someday both sides will wise up and mimic more of the headphone world (and I don't like headphones) - but they seem to have a positive and fantastic future.

 

[GSOphile]

For those of you who bemoan the influence/integrity, etc. of reviewers and the lack of believable comparisons, take a listen to Tom Martin's YouTube series on DACs. He doesn't throw previously reviewed products under the bus. Rather, he talks about strengths/differences in the context of his sound model and which product(s) might hold the most appeal for listeners with different sound/music preferences. Very effective in my opinion.
Tom Martin is the Chairman & CEO of Nextscreen and their Chief Digital Content Officer. Nextscreen is the parent company and publisher of TAS.