Differentiating Worthwhile Reviews from Clueless Reviews
OK, I threatened to do this… so let’s try to do it without getting us all in too much trouble.
Worthwhile Review
Sound of the piece under review is actually described – in terms of what it does well and what it does not so well.
Clueless Review
Sound is not actually described and instead there is a lot of meaningless hyperbole like: Wonderful vocals, awesome bass, band XYZ sounded extremely good, etc.
Worthwhile Review
Sound is compared to competition [note that some summary of the characteristic sound of the various competition is required otherwise the comparison is worthless / clueless] and to other components from the same company – both above and below the component under review
Clueless Review
It is so common for the phrase “best I’ve heard” to slip into reviews where the reviewer has heard nothing from the competition in this price range or above – i..e this is also the most expensive component the reviewer has ever heard. This type of Clueless Review is also commonly highlighted when the reviewer insists that his modestly priced system, with the less modestly price component under review, sounds better [better is sometimes qualified as ‘highest resolution’ or ‘best dynamics’ or etc.] than any system they have ever heard in their life.
—————————
Let’s see. These two characteristics of Clueless Reviews certainly apply to 90-95% of all reviews in both print and online. Some sites only publish Clueless Reviews like this and nothing else.
Some Clueless Reviews DO have some redeeming value in that they might include historical information about – or an interview with – the manufacturer. Or cool info about the CD they are using to test with. Or whatever, something else unrelated to the supposed actual review of the relative quality of the component under review [like pricing… or photos]
Speaking from experience, writing a good review is not easy. For the most part I try to review equipment/ accessories that I feel are worthwhile and offer good sound. As you point out, all of us are limited to some extent by what we have not heard. You try to educate yourself by listening to as many different systems as you can, but there is a real dearth of good systems out there. I would add to your list that a really good review should communicate to the reader what makes a particular piece of equipment truly special and separates it from other competitive products. For me this is usually that it does a better job of communicating the emotional content. I think that it is also important to point out limitations, i.e. a small SET will not drive inefficient dynamics speakers. When I began trying to review equipment, I had no idea how much time and effort would be required.
Hi Fred,
Yes, writing reviews is hard, and the reviews I write myself have no dearth of problems.
But the post was to readers of reviews and how they can tell the worthless from the worthwhile [to whatever extent a worthwhile review is worth anything at all in the context of the reader’s particular needs and preferences]. Many sites and many famous reviewers ONLY write worthless reviews – it being so obvious that one could imagine a computer program could be written to automatically identify them – yet still people refer to them and quote them. It is so embarrassing – kind of like the cover of TAS this month – especially in the context of trying to present audiophiledom as a legit hobby to the public-at-large.
Take care,
-Mike