Reviewers resumes need to be like:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zero

Zero

New member
Joined
Oct 15, 2013
Messages
636
Location
Virginia
  • Needs to have published hundreds of articles or else - not a real reviewer.



  • Needs to have been employed by TAS or Stereophile or else - not a real reviewer.



  • Must carry a degree in electronics engineering, journalism, and acoustic engineering or else - not a credible reviewer.



  • Should own a couple dozen components at all price points because – references!



  • Should never buy any equipment they've reviewed because – conflict of interest!



  • If they do, they should pay beyond MSRP because if they don't - conflict of interest!



  • For full disclosure purposes, pictures of a receipt should be posted because – conflict of interest!



  • Probably shouldn't even have friends within the industry because – conflict of interest!



  • Should publish hearing test results during the first day of every quarter of every year.



  • Should not accept any form of payment for services rendered that comes from the industry because – conflict of interest!



  • Should take no less than a month but no more than three months to a review a product because – conflict of interest!



  • Even if all qualifications are met, the reviewer should be held to the highest criticism and his or her assessment should only be regarded as “just another opinion”.



    Secondary qualifications shouldinclude:


    • Having been knighted by British royalty within the past 5 years
    • Should be willing to disclose yearly tax information because – credibility!
    • Should be able to re-design every single product they review because – credibility!
    • Should own at least two-dozen components at all price points because – references!
    • Should own a room that can be verified, by 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] party, to be flat from 20Hz to 20kHz.


 
I'm still waiting to be knighted. :) Could I get a temporary apprenticeship? Pretty please?

But honestly you left out should be able to upload meaningless after meaningless graph and chart in addition to owning 70K worth of test equipment.
 
Zero said:
[*]Even if all qualifications are met, the reviewer should be held to the highest criticism and his or her assessment should only be regarded as “just another opinion”.
Click to expand...

Your last point says it all. It wouldn't give any more weight to a resume that checked every one of your boxes. In the end only one opinion counts when I decide to lay out my money.
 
Ease up fellas. This is a tongue n' cheek post that's designed to poke fun at an amusing topic. And, for the record, the aforementioned thread was *not* closed when I crafted the most "intelligent thread of which all AS members can be proud of". :D
 
Zero said:
Ease up fellas. This is a tongue n' cheek post that's designed to poke fun at an amusing topic. And, for the record, the aforementioned thread was *not* closed when I crafted the most "intelligent thread of which all AS members can be proud of". :D
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether the aforementioned thread was closed or not when you "crafted" this one could easily be misconstrued. Then the B.S. would start all over again and we don't need it.

Let it go.
 
I see where you're coming from Toobs. Next time, I'll refrain from posting silly jokes that involve "being knighted" and references to having "no industry friends".
 
Two more requirements:

1) Should be wheat as opposed to chaff.
2) Should be Tier 1 as opposed to all the other lowly Tiers.

:rolleyes:

Cheers,
Al
 
Man, this is a tough crowd. My opinion is audio publications have one primary goal, profit. Their number one goal is to generate income that exceeds expenses. From the publishers to the editors to the contributors, profit and paychecks are paramount. Having a way to write off expenses for traveling to audio shows and factory visits is a nice perk, too. Everything else is secondary to cash flow and profit. In no way am I impugning anyone's character, intentions, or integrity but remove the money and the rest of the activities will vanish.

Thinking that there is actually an unbiased reviewer is a pipedream. Every person who has ever reviewed anything brings to the table their life's experiences, likes, dislikes, and prejudices. These things can be tempered to a degree but to believe they don't influence the end results in some fashion is a fantasy. We are humans. Our imperfections are part and parcel of the package. It is an unavoidable fact of life.

I view audio equipment reviews as entertainment with the hope of gleaning some useful information about functions, designs, and build quality. That's where it ends for me. Reviewer's opinions of sound quality are interesting but I place no true value on what a reviewer's thoughts are on the sound because he or she does not have my ears and the gear isn't being auditioned in my room. The ultimate review for me is to personally audition equipment I am interested in owning. The rest of it is just a case of he said, she said.

Others may place greater emphasis on the value of reviewers opinions and technical measurements. I often just thumb through the publications I subscribe to without finding any gear that captures my attention enough to read the review. To each there own. We all have our own priorities and interests. I wouldn't want it any other way.
 
Well said Dan.

The other thing missing for me, is that most reviews I read, the reviewer does not listen to the types of music that I do. So describing a typical female vocal track in no way tells me what a specific guitarist or bassist will sound like. Some times I am surprised by a disk or track that is used, but that is more rare than common for me.
 
Double D,

Wait, so you're telling me there are people out there who actually seek a financial return for services rendered? Crazy! :D

So, let's pretend that every Hi-Fi publication and E-Zene were to suddenly receive zero dollars in exchange for their time and effort. What do you think would happen then? If anybody did stick around, would you suddenly view those few publications as a more legitimate source of information, or would you still thumb through a bulk of the material with the same disregard?

This leads me to your point on reviewer bias. You're correct of course. We are all human and subsequently all have an inherent bias. Where you and I disagree however, is the ability of a person to "turn off" that bias during the evaluation of a product. It's possible. I'm not saying that it's commonplace or even easy, but it is possible. I know that because I do it all the time. Whenever I evaluate a component, I find it fun to completely disregard my own bias for the sake of appreciating what a component can and cannot do. Even if I don't end up caring for the gear, it's interesting to gain an appreciation for why others would. Believe it (or not), this isn't a tough thing to do once you change your mindset.

Anyway, beyond those two points, I agree with the crux of your post. A review, be it from 'professional' or not, should never be taken as the gospel, and people are free to interpret a review however they please.
 
A
Double-D said:
Man, this is a tough crowd. My opinion is audio publications have one primary goal, profit. Their number one goal is to generate income that exceeds expenses. From the publishers to the editors to the contributors, profit and paychecks are paramount. Having a way to write off expenses for traveling to audio shows and factory visits is a nice perk, too. Everything else is secondary to cash flow and profit. In no way am I impugning anyone's character, intentions, or integrity but remove the money and the rest of the activities will vanish.

Thinking that there is actually an unbiased reviewer is a pipedream. Every person who has ever reviewed anything brings to the table their life's experiences, likes, dislikes, and prejudices. These things can be tempered to a degree but to believe they don't influence the end results in some fashion is a fantasy. We are humans. Our imperfections are part and parcel of the package. It is an unavoidable fact of life.

I view audio equipment reviews as entertainment with the hope of gleaning some useful information about functions, designs, and build quality. That's where it ends for me. Reviewer's opinions of sound quality are interesting but I place no true value on what a reviewer's thoughts are on the sound because he or she does not have my ears and the gear isn't being auditioned in my room. The ultimate review for me is to personally audition equipment I am interested in owning. The rest of it is just a case of he said, she said.

Others may place greater emphasis on the value of reviewers opinions and technical measurements. I often just thumb through the publications I subscribe to without finding any gear that captures my attention enough to read the review. To each there own. We all have our own priorities and interests. I wouldn't want it any other way.
Click to expand...

Dan what exactly do you think reviewers get paid per review and make in a year?

You do realize that legally you are only allowed to write off expenses for three years after which you need to show you are making money. Not to mention doing that is a red flag for IRS and you can just about guarantee getting audited. Let me tell you that outside of a few full time magazine writers like Valin, Harley and Fremer, nobody is getting rich. In fact, no one is quitting their day job.
 
Mikey is cashing on on his book and appearance fees for lectures and seminars. Robert has been cashing in on his book too (for years). Jon maybe his non-audio books. Maybe we should be looking at these and not the reviews that come out periodically and get posted on line for free a few weeks later than print. :weird:

Maybe a certain self proclaimed savior of lost audio souls got hip to this and that's why he wrote his own book. Much better than getting banned practically everywhere!
 
I still want to know what people think the average reviewer makes for writing a review.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top