Because I care (and I know you do too…) Suggestions for the HC powers that be...

[UstadKhanAli]

 

As I have mentioned time and time again, I do not put much weight in a "professional review".

 

Ken, whats makes your review professional?

 

What makes your review more valuable than mine? We can both review a guitar or keyboard or DAW or mic, etc… Whose to say your review is professional? Is it "professional" because its published in a magazine? Is that the only criteria?

 

I was asked by EQ Magazine to write a review after I showed the capacity to write well, have a balanced, intelligent approach, and the work ethic necessary to put in the long hours required to evaluate and describe DAWs. I was asked with the expectation that the review would be well written after I used and tested the many functions for over several weeks, and that I would be compensated for my time.

 

If that's not worth something to you, that's fine, but it doesn't necessarily make anyone's forum drivel more valuable. Maybe, maybe not.

 

If I review something on a forum and you review the same gear in a magazine, is yours professional and mine is not?

 

Who gives a flying f**k?

 

At any rate, neither one was influenced by a manufacturer or anyone else.

 

 

If you`re writing a review for a magazine, you have to remain politically correct. If I`m writing a review on a forum, I can be completely honest. I don`t have to make the publisher or editor happy. I don`t have to worry about the manufacturer pulling ad $$$. I don`t have to be manipulated in anyway by anyone.

 

BULLS**T.

 

What part of "I was never told what to write" don't you understand?

 

 

I wouldn`t call reviewers "liars",

 

You are calling us liars since you will not take us at our word that we are not manipulated in any way by the editorial staff or the manufacturers.

 

By the way, the term "politically correct" is misused here. I am not politically correct, I am not telling people how to think or how to feel, I am not trying to placate anyone, and never have tried to do so. I will say what I feel, whether in a review published in a magazine or here, and I will substantiate every f**king word.

 

Do you really think I am the type to mince words here? You are so bloody effin' WRONG about this I cannot even begin to tell you. And it gets really tiresome being called a liar on it over and over again.

 

So let's go through this again.

 

1. I HAVE NEVER BEEN TOLD WHAT TO WRITE WHEN I WRITE A REVIEW.

 

2. I HAVE NEVER BEEN ASKED TO CHANGE ANY OF MY FINDINGS OR CONCLUSIONS AFTER I HAVE WRITTEN A REVIEW.

 

IF YOU THINK THAT WE ARE INFLUENCED OR BEHOLDEN TO MANUFACTURERS, THEN YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE ABOVE TWO SENTENCES ARE FALSE, AND I AM LYING.

 

Simple. Done.

[UstadKhanAli]

Since you want reviews written by users, since apparently someone who gets paid by a magazine is suddenly not a user, you should read the useful reviews in YouTube's comments section. Those are all users, and perhaps you'll find those more enlightening.

[Ernest Buckley]

Please note that I was (and am) sincere about the "refreshing" perspective.

 

I've been a member (under a normy account) for over 8 years. Many of my equipment purchases have been guided or decided using the HC User Reviews - yeah I'm a guitar player of 35 years. I am honored to step up and help bring the community back to VB. You guys have someone who deeply cares. Please note that we (Nucleus) have been kicked in the teeth plenty by members of HC and stick around through thick and thin.

 

I (and the team at Nucleus) ARE here to help. We ask that the community keep that in mind when posting mean spirited messages, instead of factual stuff that helps us improve the site.

 

I don`t purchase too much gear anymore but when I do, I do check out the forums and read what actual users have said. I also check out videos on YT to see how others are using the gear. I also visit online stores for more info and the manufacturers site. If its software, I can download and use it for free for a trial period which I`ll do. If its hardware, I go to a local store and play with it. Worse case scenario, I order it from an online store and return it if I don`t like it. "Professional" reviews are not part of the decision making process.

 

With all that said, I know reviewers make peanuts for the amount of time they put in. At the end of the day, I consider the entire effort a waste of time.

 

ymmv

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Anderton]

I no longer read reviews for the reviewers honesty, I just want to get a better idea of what something does but I`m not depending on the reviewer to tell me how thy truly feel about a device. If that offends you, I don`t know what to tell you. This is why I said reviews should actually be called demonstrations… tell me what the gear does but don`t tell me how you feel about it because I`m not putting much weight in it.

 

It is hard having a discussion with someone commenting about my work who is not familiar with my work and does not read what I write in a post.

 

I have stated time and time again that the purpose of my reviews is to give someone the feeling they're looking over my shoulder as I'm finding out what the gear does by describing it so accurately they can judge for themselves whether it suits their needs or not. This is why some people reading my reviews think they're negative while others thing they're positive. One person who read my review of Kore wondered if NI had canceled their advertising because the review was so negative. Another sent an email and said they went and bought Kore based on my review because it was so positive.

 

NI's reaction? "Finally, someone was able to explain what this does." They loved the review, but not because it was positive or negative...because it was ACCURATE. Apparently that has no value to you unless it meets your criteria for having sufficient negativity.

 

Try to find something in one of my reviews that's factually inaccurate.

 

You want to know another reason why my reviews were often positive? There were two times that a product was canceled because my review was so negative and the manufacturer received the fact-check. In both cases, they addressed my complaints, fixed the problems, and re-released the products months later. And they got favorable reviews because the negative issues had been fixed. There were also plenty of software reviews that were negative because of bugs. The companies asked me to hold off on publishing the review so they could fix the bugs. If they fixed the bugs, obviously they got a better review. But this also had to do with my credibility. If I published the review and they fixed the bug between the time I sent the review in and the time it was published, I would look stupid for claiming there was a bug that didn't exist.

 

Yes, I must be a really bad person with no integrity to act as an advocate via the medium of reviews so consumers (that's you, Ernest) would get better products. No wonder you're disappointed - clearly, it would have been more beneficial to spend my time seeking out "junk" to review.

 

I also know reviewers will get lucky on occasion and get to keep the gear they reviewed. This is not the norm but it does happen. To me, this is a conflict of interest. If ABC microphones gave you their previous model after a review and they are now asking you to write a review for their new $3000.00 condenser mic, I`m not going to expect a truly honest review. There is a conflict of interest there. It may be an awful mic but the reviewer will not say that. You know that. So lets stop pretending.

 

How about you stop pretending you actually know something about how this process works? You didn't seem to mind when I was able to call in a favor and get you a bitchin' price on a piece of gear that had been destroyed during Sandy. I never got a piece of free gear, ever, from that company. But I used my good will with that company to get you a discount. Hypocrite.

 

Yes, sometimes I would get free gear. Do you know why? No, you don't. It was because of one of four reasons:

 

1. It was a cosmetic or other reject that had been through trade shows or possibly other reviewers. By the time it got to me there it couldn't be resold, it couldn't be refurbished, and it couldn't even be shown at trade shows. I would be asked if I would find it useful for future articles. If I said yes, they'd let me hold on to it. If I said no, I sent it back and it became their problem. Where do you think the gear for my applications-oriented articles come from? Do you think I went to GC to buy thousands of dollars of compressors so I could write a $300 article on how to use compressors? They would let me hold on to it for as long as I found it useful. Once I didn't feel it was useful anymore, I would offer to send it back. Sometimes they asked me to send it back, sometimes they asked me to donate it to a local school or church because they didn't want to have to deal with it.

 

Wow, we're such effing bad people.

 

2. They wanted me to hold on to it in return for consulting to them about it, or writing docs about about it for their internal use. At the rates I charge for consulting, they were the ones getting the good deal, not me.

 

3. I paid for it in some way. Typical example: I came up with patches in the process of learning a synth. I would post the patches in a pro review or send them to the company as a "thank you." Sometimes they'd say "If we let you hold on to the synth, will you use it in your projects and let us have the patches you create?" If I said yes, which was not always a sure thing, they got more out of the deal than I did, given what I would charge companies for patches.

 

4. It was based around an idea of mine or a circuit I'd published, and the company felt they owed me something. So sue me for accepting a gift that was given in appreciation for my dedicating every single one of my inventions since 1968 to the public domain.

 

With software, companies would let me keep the software so that when I was writing an article like "How to Use ReWire with Every Frigging DAW in the Known Universe" their DAW would be included. I couldn't include it if I didn't have it.

 

Finally, read carefully: ANY GEAR OR SOFTWARE THAT I WAS ABLE TO RECEIVE FOR FREE BUT WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE BOUGHT FOR USE IN MY OWN WORK, I PAID FOR. Either I paid for it outright, or I paid in services whose value exceeded that of the gear. But if the only reason I had a piece of software was to include the info in articles, NO, I did not pay for it. MOTU is a great example. I don't use DP but it's essential to write about it. So MOTU always made sure I had a copy so I could include screen shots and write technique articles. MOTU got thousands of dollars of coverage for the cost of giving me a download code. I think they made out okay on that deal, don't you? But so did I - I could write more authoritative and more helpful articles for the readers. THEY'RE my boss, not the manufacturers.

 

You only want to review gear you like? Wheres the value in that? You already like the gear! Now that I know that I don`t even need to read your reviews, I now know if you`re reviewing something, you like it! Thanks for saving me a few minutes.

 

Show me where I said I reviewed only gear I like. You can't, because I never said that. I said I get to CHOOSE what gear I WANTED to review. The purpose of the review is to find out if what looks interesting is in fact something I would like.

 

Don't waste my time responding to things you imagined I wrote.

 

The fact that you admit that really turns me off.

 

The fact you're claiming something is a "fact" when it's your own fabrication (or let's be generous, and call it a "misinterpretation") turns me off.

 

I want you to review all types of gear, including the junk. If you consider that a waste of your time then perhaps you should no longer write reviews. Again, where is the value in that?

 

FYI, I haven't written any reviews since joining Gibson so you got your wish. That could change if it's gear that's not competitive with anything Gibson does, but I don't have the time at the moment so the point is moot.

 

Anyway, I don't know if it's "junk" until I review it. I don't know if I like it until I review it.There is more gear than I could review if I did 10 reviews a day for the rest of my life. Life is about making choices and having goals. Ideally, I'd like to spotlight the stuff that's worthy of peoples' attention and will bring something positive to their lives. If something is "junk," no, I have no desire to spend time writing about it when there are quality products made by quality manufacturers who deserve a place in the spotlight. You want me to give those precious column inches not to those companies, but instead want me to seek out junk to write about. That's insane.

 

You want to talk "integrity" and say in the same post that you only want to review gear you like? There`s a disconnect in that.

 

The disconnect is in your inability to read what I wrote. Here it is again for your convenience.

 

I've sometimes been asked why my reviews were generally positive (although if there were shortcomings, they were pointed out). Simple: I chose the gear I wanted to review.Think about it for a second. Which scenario is more likely:

 

A) I see a piece of gear at NAMM that looks really cool. I'd love a chance to play with it, if for no other reason than to find out if I want to buy it. So it would be great to do a review.

 

B) I see a piece of gear at NAMM that I don't particularly care for, has no relevance to what I do, and which I think has some problems.

 

If I'm going to spend several weeks of my life getting intimate with a piece of gear, do you think it's more likely I would pick the gear in (A) or (B)?

 

Where did I say I only reviewed gear I like? I said I chose the gear I wanted to review. What's so effing weird about that? How would I know I liked the gear if I hadn't reviewed it and only seen it at a NAMM show or whatever? Granted, I've been in this industry long enough I'm pretty good at picking out winners. But not always.

 

I hope you're enjoying your interface. Some manufacturers and reviewers have a heart. Some reviewers put their heart into what they write, and some readers are hip enough to realize that and appreciate it. Some aren't. I write for those who do.

 

I'll deal with post #102, which also begs for comment, after I've cooled down a bit.

[Anderton]

And another thing about "quest for junk."

 

You've often mentioned how much you like your Equator D5s (to which I gave a highly favorable review). So why didn't you buy crap speakers so you could warn us about them? But then you'd say "That's different. I'm paying for those speakers, and they're going to be part of my studio."

 

Really?

 

Time is money, and as you've noted, what a reviewer gets paid to do a review is break-even at best, and rarely even that. My time is valuable. I'm going to spend it on what is hopefully quality gear rather than on junk. Sure, once the review is over and I've returned the gear, it's out of my life. But I'll never get the time spent on that review, which ultimately accomplished nothing because the word on "junk" gets around pretty fast, and junk products don't last very long. But I'm out those hours, just as you'd be out the money you spent on crap speakers. But hey! At least you would have something to talk about on forums instead of Equator D5s.

 

A stretch? Maybe not that much, if you consider that time has value.

[Goober(s)]

Something else to consider when you take this position. This is what you are saying:

 

WE ARE ALL LIARS.

 

By continually asserting that reviewers are bought off, you're saying that we're all covering something up. Craig, Phil, Lee, me, and whoever else has done reviews around here are all liars. We're all covering something up. Further, we've all been lying for years and years, and doing so conspiratorially in collaboration with jillions of manufacturers.

 

Does that seem likely?

 

I don't think he's saying that, and I don't think your experience is broad enough to address the problem, which is real. I have no question that the reviews you wrote were exactly as you describe. I'm also not saying this about Craig, for reasons he's stated as well as a few others I can think of, including what I can only imagine must be "gear fatigue."

 

But I do think the relationship between reviewers and companies undermines credibility of many so-called "professional reviews." I've seen it and I'm sure you have too.

 

Companies court people they think might be reviewing their products. It happens in many fields (all of them, perhaps?) for obvious reasons. And it certainly happens in audio.

 

My very favorite example is outlined in Ruth Reichl's wonderful book "Garlic & Saphires." Reichl was the food reviewer for the New York Times, and a review in the NYT can literally make or break a restaurant. Waiters would therefore be rewarded with large cash bonuses for identifying her, so that they could ensure she recieved the restaurant's very best. Her response was to wear elaborate disguises so that the meals she was served would not be changed due to who she was. She even famously wrote one of her reviews twice (published side by side): what happened when Le Cirque recognized her, and what wonderful food and service she recieved, and what happened when she ate there in disguise, and how much worse the food and service was. She literally received smaller raspberries on her dessert when they thought she was a nobody, suggesting that the kitchen performs triage on raspberries for VIPs vs normal people.

 

So... in our little corner of the world, it's not a secret that audio companies court reviewers because a positive review can enhance sales, and give them their very best raspberries. Sending free gear, or selling it at drastically reduced prices are some of the perks.

 

I can think of specific reviews where the reviewer is evaluating some piece of dreck, but speaking about it in reverential tones... "one of the best I've ever heard..." etc. Then, at the end of the review, the reviewer receives the equipment at an accomodation price. Perhaps the review would have been the same, or perhaps not, if that hadn't occurred, but we'll never know.

 

Company personnel can also be super friendly to the reviewers, offering them stellar, attentive service. You start to feel like they're your friends, they may actually become, or be your friends, and it's harder to criticize gear made by a friend. It just is.

 

Compare that with regular users who have no relationship with the company, nothing to gain, and no strings attached that can influence what they write.

 

Sure, there's going to be outliers -- people writing that equipment is fantastic or awful for reasons that might be irrelevent to you. But by and large, I find that when I read a bunch of user reviews, reviews from people who have no relationship with the company, I get a better sense of what my actual experience will be as well.

 

I view Pro Reviews as something entirely different. I do think it's a helpful, brilliant format, I think they could be strengthened by disclosure at the beginning of each one, and I also view them as something far more robust and useful -- an expert demonstration with user feedback -- than a "review."

 

 

[Anderton]

 

I don`t purchase too much gear anymore but when I do, I do check out the forums and read what actual users have said. I also check out videos on YT to see how others are using the gear.

 

User reviews are a crap shoot. I've seen lots of factual errors, even on user reviews published by online stores. Reviews are still up mentioning problems that a firmware update fixed years ago. It's obvious some of these people haven't even read the manual. I've seen plenty of videos about some alleged "problem" in SONAR which simply documents pilot error.

 

What was good about HC's user reviews in their heyday was there were enough reviews that you could usually (but not always) tell who was clueless.

 

I also visit online stores for more info and the manufacturers site.

 

So, you discount reviews by professional writers because of your perception they're beholden to manufacturers, but you ascribe credibility to what online stores and manufacturers say. Got it.

 

For their interfaces, do they include spectral analysis of noise, THD, IM, stereo separation, frequency response, and other characteristics - under real-world conditions (i.e., with the mic preamp gain set to something reasonable instead of being turned down all the way) - like I did in my Pro Reviews and when space allowed, in my print reviews? Do they include info on compatibility with other pieces of gear? Do they analyze the workflow? Do they point out the limitations under a prominent heading that says "Limitations"? I do.

 

If its software, I can download and use it for free for a trial period which I`ll do. If its hardware, I go to a local store and play with it. Worse case scenario, I order it from an online store and return it if I don`t like it. "Professional" reviews are not part of the decision making process.

 

With all that said, I know reviewers make peanuts for the amount of time they put in. At the end of the day, I consider the entire effort a waste of time.

 

Well Ernest, it's not a waste of time to people who have open minds and find a filtering process helpful. A review can let people know if they're even interested in taking the time to download a piece of software and use it, or whether it's worth driving to a store to check out a piece of hardware. Certainly the manufacturer isn't going to point out some software limitation that would be a deal-breaker for you, but a review could save you the time of finding it yourself many hours later (if you find it at all) in your trial version - which may very well not include features and functionality in the full version that the reviewer covered.

 

It's unfortunate you are so prejudiced against reviews and reviewers that you never even bothered to look at the Pro Reviews, which covered gear with more depth, accuracy, thoroughness, and balance than any or even all of your choices listed above. It's too bad they're a shell of their former selves and missing so many attachments, but that's a separate topic.

[UstadKhanAli]

I don't know how many times I have to say it.

 

There was NO INFLUENCE. "NO INFLUENCE" means "NO INFLUENCE". I was not courted. I did not have a "relationship" with the manufacturer. I was not offered "stellar" service, or for that matter, any sort of service. When I contacted them to ask questions about a product, which did not occur very often, I did not identify myself as a reviewer.

 

I was a guy sitting in a room evaluating gear with no other agenda but to describe a product accurately and write about it concisely and truthfully. It's that simple.

[UstadKhanAli]

I think we've pretty much ruined this thread.

[Goober(s)]

I don't know how many times I have to say it.

 

There was NO INFLUENCE. "NO INFLUENCE" means "NO INFLUENCE". I was not courted. I did not have a "relationship" with the manufacturer. I was not offered "stellar" service, or for that matter, any sort of service. When I contacted them to ask questions about a product, which did not occur very often, I did not identify myself as a reviewer.

 

I was a guy sitting in a room evaluating gear with no other agenda but to describe a product accurately and write about it concisely and truthfully. It's that simple.

 

Again, I'm not questioning that. But your experience is not typical.

 

Typically, audio companies have more of a direct relationship with the reviewers, and the reviewers are known to them.

 

Also, Ken, my comments were not meant to be personal. Please don't take them as such.

[Folder]

I've always given more credence to professional reviews than user reviews. Maybe I'm a bit naïve, but in my mind a professional likely knows more about how and what to review than some anonymous home hobbyists sitting in his bedroom.

 

User reviews can be useful but they can be all over the map and contradictory. Some people may not be that technically inclined and not fully understand the ins and outs of a particular product or even what it's supposed to do or what they need to be looking for. A good reviewer should be able to "figure out" a product and explain it in simple plain English.

 

That's why I've always liked reading Craig's reviews. Not only his reviews but also his tutorials. He is easy to understand and thorough. Isn't the reason he's asked to write all of these reviews because he is good at it? I've been reading things Craig wrote for over thirty years and I trust his opinion because he has a good track record. Plus I can come on this forum and see things he wrote and see videos of him and come to the conclusion is that he is a really good guy who has a passion for what he does. That's the kind of guy I want to read reviews by.

[Ernest Buckley]

I think we've pretty much ruined this thread.

 

The thread is about this site. Reviews are part of this site. Thats what we`re discussing here. I stated my opinion which differs than Craigs and yours. Just because we disagree on this, doesn`t mean the thread is ruined.

 

 

[Ernest Buckley]

Craig,

 

If you want the Duet 2 back or returned to Apogee, I`ll do so. Not sure what any of that has to do with any of this. Seriously, why bring that up? What does that have to do with this subject? Do I now have no right to disagree with you because you did a nice thing for me?

 

The Duet 2 was a piece of gear I owned before Sandy, a piece of gear that I purchased without reading any "professional" reviews, a piece of gear I paid for in full. A piece of gear that I enjoyed and lost due to unfortunate circumstances. A piece of gear that I replaced for a a discount thanks to the generosity of your heart.

 

I thanked you at the time, you said to keep the issue quiet which I did but now thats its public…. thanks again, you did a very nice thing. I appreciate it.

 

We`ll just disagree about reviews…

 

EB

 

 

[UstadKhanAli]

Disagreeing is fine.

 

But what you're doing is attacking someone at their word and attacking their integrity.

 

​

[Ernest Buckley]

Disagreeing is fine.

 

But what you're doing is attacking someone at their word and attacking their integrity.

 

​

 

How long have I been on this forum Ken? Have I ever attacked anyone?

 

We disagree on the subject. Its not an attack.

 

 

 

[MikeRivers]

 

I do think the relationship between reviewers and companies undermines credibility of many so-called "professional reviews." I've seen it and I'm sure you have too.

 

Companies court people they think might be reviewing their products. It happens in many fields (all of them, perhaps?) for obvious reasons. And it certainly happens in audio.

 

So... in our little corner of the world, it's not a secret that audio companies court reviewers because a positive review can enhance sales, and give them their very best raspberries. Sending free gear, or selling it at drastically reduced prices are some of the perks.

 

FYI, I have to beg companies to send me gear to review. Why? Because I publlish my reviews on my web site, at no cost, and with no sponsorship. Unlike Mix magazine or even Gearslutz that gets thousands of reads. I average about 20 visitors a day on my web site, and no matter how positive or informative a review is, that's just not enough exposure for most companies to bother with.

 

I don't know why I haven't gotten more famous. Probably because, like with music, if you don't keep churning out new work, people stop looking at you. And until I get my hands on more gear to review, I won't be cranking out much new work. One thing is that I don't enjoy trying to write about "sounds," and that's what a lot of new products are about. Readers want to know how well the product achieves what they perceive, usually from advertising, is its goal.

 

I don't believe there's much value to a review of a microphone or preamp because how they perform is so subjective and so variable - your snare drum doesn't sound like my snare drum so how can you know how yours will sound through this microphone? If I'm going to write about a microphone, it's got to be one that's interesting because of its technology, for example how effective an unusual (or usual) directivity pattern is in controlling leakage or supressing reflections, or how the phantom power is used to control a filter in the mic or its polar pattern. I'm not going to write about how it sounds warm because of the tubes or transformers, but maybe because it has the ability to swap out transformers or change from fully class A to class AB at the flip of a switch.

 

I write reviews for fun, because I enjoy tinkering with new gear, and because I write my reviews in ways that teach you something about the principles behind the gear. You may not be interested in a particular interface that I've written about, but if you read the review, you'll get a better understanding of what "latency" means, when it affects your work, when it doesn't, and the practical meaning of such latency specifications as "very low," "zero," and "64 samples." I like to think that what I do is valuable to the readers, and I do often get thanks for the level of detail I include, though every once in a while I'll get a comment from a visitor to my web site asking why they have to download an 18 page PDF from my web site. when they can read a one page review on line somewhere else.

 

I used to write reviews for Pro Audio Review and Recording. They don't let me do it any more because I can't write what I want to write without greatly exceeding their greatly shrinking word budget. And the things I like to write about are getting more complex, so they require more explanation. A web site is good for that because there's no paper cost. And with only me writing reviews, there's no pay-per-word. It's always zero.

 

Oh, and I don't get any free gear either. Fooey!

 

[UstadKhanAli]

 

How long have I been on this forum Ken? Have I ever attacked anyone?

 

We disagree on the subject. Its not an attack.

 

 

 

 

Someone is saying that they have integrity with reviews.

You continually say that they do not.

 

We are saying that we are not told what to write for reviews.

You say that we are lying and insist: "the truth is pro reviewers have to be politically correct even if the gear they`re reviewing sucks."

 

I dunno....is that an assault on someone's character or no?

 

Let's turn this around.

 

Let's say that I say, "Ernest, you professional musicians are all the same, you're all cheaters, screwing around on your wives and swiping funds from the church coffers."

 

You say, "Wait a minute, I don't do that! I'm a loyal, loving husband, and I don't do that kind of thing, and furthermore, there's lots of people who play music professionally that don't do that." You take the time to explain how the transfer of funds for music equipment and your salary work, and how all of the church musicians you know don't cheat or steal money from the church.

 

But I keep going on, saying that all professional musicians do this, you included, and that all of you are cheaters and thieves.

 

How am I not attacking your character? How is this any different?

 

Now, I want to be clear with this. I'm sure you are not purposely saying, "Craig, Lee, Phil, and Ken are all liars and cheats." But I want to point out why both Craig and I take huge exception to what you are saying, and why you are pissing us off.

 

 

 

[Ernest Buckley]

 

 

Someone is saying that they have integrity with reviews.

You continually say that they do not.

 

We are saying that we are not told what to write for reviews.

You say that we are lying and insist: "the truth is pro reviewers have to be politically correct even if the gear they`re reviewing sucks."

 

I dunno....is that an assault on someone's character or no?

 

Let's turn this around.

 

Let's say that I say, "Ernest, you professional musicians are all the same, you're all cheaters, screwing around on your wives and swiping funds from the church coffers."

 

You say, "Wait a minute, I don't do that! I'm a loyal, loving husband, and I don't do that kind of thing, and furthermore, there's lots of people who play music professionally that don't do that." You take the time to explain how the transfer of funds for music equipment and your salary work, and how all of the church musicians you know don't cheat or steal money from the church.

 

But I keep going on, saying that all professional musicians do this, you included, and that all of you are cheaters and thieves.

 

How am I not attacking your character? How is this any different?

 

Now, I want to be clear with this. I'm sure you are not purposely saying, "Craig, Lee, Phil, and Ken are all liars and cheats." But I want to point out why both Craig and I take huge exception to what you are saying, and why you are pissing us off.

 

 

 

I`m sure there are professional church musicians out there doing as you say.

 

Ken,

 

I never said "professional" reviewers were ever told what to write. I said that "professional" reviewers often hold back what they really want to say about a piece of gear. Maybe you have never had that experience, thats great. Craig said he likes to review gear that he is interested in because it would be a waste of time to review something he didn`t use. I can see his point there but if you`re a reviewer and its your job to review gear, I would think it would be best to review things that you have little interest in as well because you`re more objective.

 

I`ll give you an example… I pre-ordered the Prophet 6. I`m really psyched about it. If I were to review it, I can see myself being a bit bias towards liking it more than someone who has no interest in purchasing it but still has some knowledge of keyboards. I would not be the ideal person to review it. However, on the other hand, I really have no interest in the new Korg Kronos but I appreciate what it does. I would probably be a very good candidate to review it because I would have a very objective POV. I don`t pre-like it or pre-dislike it. Does that make any sense?

 

That was my entire point with Craig.

 

I really have no interest in pissing people off.

 

Peace,

EB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ernest Buckley]

I don't believe there's much value to a review of a microphone or preamp because how they perform is so subjective and so variable - your snare drum doesn't sound like my snare drum so how can you know how yours will sound through this microphone?

 

Exactly.

 

If I'm going to write about a microphone, it's got to be one that's interesting because of its technology, for example how effective an unusual (or usual) directivity pattern is in controlling leakage or supressing reflections, or how the phantom power is used to control a filter in the mic or its polar pattern.

 

Exactly.

 

I'm not going to write about how it sounds warm because of the tubes or transformers, but maybe because it has the ability to swap out transformers or change from fully class A to class AB at the flip of a switch.

 

Yes, thats an interesting piece of info that I would like to know about and if there was a difference in that specific mic between settings would be good info.

 

I write reviews for fun, because I enjoy tinkering with new gear, and because I write my reviews in ways that teach you something about the principles behind the gear. You may not be interested in a particular interface that I've written about, but if you read the review, you'll get a better understanding of what "latency" means, when it affects your work, when it doesn't, and the practical meaning of such latency specifications as "very low," "zero," and "64 samples." I like to think that what I do is valuable to the readers, and I do often get thanks for the level of detail I include, though every once in a while I'll get a comment from a visitor to my web site asking why they have to download an 18 page PDF from my web site. when they can read a one page review on line somewhere else.

 

Mike, I find your writings very useful and unusual. I wish more publications would take your approach.

 

I used to write reviews for Pro Audio Review and Recording. They don't let me do it any more because I can't write what I want to write without greatly exceeding their greatly shrinking word budget. And the things I like to write about are getting more complex, so they require more explanation. A web site is good for that because there's no paper cost. And with only me writing reviews, there's no pay-per-word. It's always zero.

 

The truth is most people reading reviews are reading the 1st and last paragraphs so magazines should take that approach… 1st paragraph gives a basic description, 2nd paragraph gives us the "professional" reviewers opinion.

 

Oh, and I don't get any free gear either. Fooey!

 

I don`t know if you were referring to me but whatever… I never said reviewers keep all the gear they review but it does happen. And when it does, there is a conflict of interest there the next time that reviewer is reviewing that manufacturers next piece of gear. Just saying...

 

[Folder]

I`ll give you an example… I pre-ordered the Prophet 6. I`m really psyched about it. If I were to review it, I can see myself being a bit bias towards liking it more than someone who has no interest in purchasing it but still has some knowledge of keyboards.

 

 

And this is another reason why I tend to trust pro-reviews over user reviews. When someone has paid for a product they really want to like it. They may overlook certain flaws in a piece of gear because they made that choice and they want it to be the right choice.

 

I think some people reading product reviews may even subconsciously look for positive qualities and ignore the negatives if it is something that they think they really would like to have and want to purchase. Of course if it turns out to be a piece of junk they feel ripped-off. That's why you see so many user reviews that are either one star or five stars.

[Goober(s)]

 

 

Someone is saying that they have integrity with reviews.

You continually say that they do not.

 

We are saying that we are not told what to write for reviews.

You say that we are lying and insist: "the truth is pro reviewers have to be politically correct even if the gear they`re reviewing sucks."

 

I dunno....is that an assault on someone's character or no?

 

 

Ken, with all respect, you're misreading what he's saying. Also, you are not part of the "we" he is talking about. Your own experience is limited, and you even said when you spoke with the company they had no idea you were reviewing the product.

 

As someone who has also reviewed some audio gear, I can tell you that I had a very different experience.

 

What he's saying doesn't call into question my integrity, it calls the system into question, and as someone who experienced it firsthand, I think he makes a good point.

 

[MikeRivers]

 

And this is another reason why I tend to trust pro-reviews over user reviews.

 

Around here, "pro review" has (or rather, used to have since they seem to have faded into the sunset) a special meaning. Craig Anderton, who certainly qualifies as a "pro" reviewer, wrote interactive product reviews on this forum. The initial post was a fairly detailed overview of the product, and then he'd add to that as he dug into it. In addition, readers could ask questions that he'd either answer promptly or investigate and answer when he worked it out. Also, others who have used the unit under review were able to contribute their thoughts and observations. Some of them went on for a few months, but it was a great way to get a very good look at a product from several directions.

[Ernest Buckley]

 

And this is another reason why I tend to trust pro-reviews over user reviews. When someone has paid for a product they really want to like it. They may overlook certain flaws in a piece of gear because they made that choice and they want it to be the right choice.

 

I think some people reading product reviews may even subconsciously look for positive qualities and ignore the negatives if it is something that they think they really would like to have and want to purchase. Of course if it turns out to be a piece of junk they feel ripped-off. That's why you see so many user reviews that are either one star or five stars.

 

I agree with you but I return gear if I don`t like it. And I`ll post something about it online if i see a thread on that piece of gear. But I won`t start a thread about a specific piece of gear to "review" it. I`ll usually end a post about a piece of gear with something like, "don`t take my word for it, you should try it yourself"…

 

If you go to the Sweetwater site and see a piece of gear that was previously opened… it was most likely me… or someone like me who doesn`t mind paying a re-stocking fee if they don`t like something. I rather lose some $$$ than own something I`m not happy with.

 

 

 

[Anderton]

 

Ken, with all respect, you're misreading what he's saying. Also, you are not part of the "we" he is talking about. Your own experience is limited, and you even said when you spoke with the company they had no idea you were reviewing the product.

 

As someone who has also reviewed some audio gear, I can tell you that I had a very different experience.

 

What he's saying doesn't call into question my integrity, it calls the system into question, and as someone who experienced it firsthand, I think he makes a good point.

 

 

The system, any "system," should be called in question, and as I said - yes, there are magazines that do "pay to play." But one can choose to be part of the system or not. Granted I had more leverage than most people, but I was able to play by my own rules. All I needed were publishers who would support the reality that there was always a risk of advertisers canceling their ads.

 

Part of my "system" was giving personal opinions a lower priority than accurate descriptions. This is why I think it is very, very difficult to find factual inaccuracies in any of the reviews that I wrote. I also felt people were adult enough to make up their own minds whether something would be of interest to them if they were presented with a decent data set.

 

I did feel that once print started to fade and the length of reviews was cut to a minimum, it was not possible to go sufficiently in-depth with most products, especially with a moving target like software which could change within days after the review was sent to the publisher. Hence the idea to create Pro Reviews. I then saw print reviews even more as "filters" with descriptions that would let people know whether they might want to pursue things further.

 

[Anderton]

Craig,

 

If you want the Duet 2 back or returned to Apogee, I`ll do so. Not sure what any of that has to do with any of this. Seriously, why bring that up What does that have to do with this subject?

 

I brought it up as evidence of a relationship with a manufacturer, which I did indeed exploit. So in that respect, you're right - I did exploit a relationship with a manufacturer. But not for myself, for YOU. That's a significant difference.

 

Do I now have no right to disagree with you because you did a nice thing for me?

 

No, but obviously you have the right to ask rhetorical questions that fail to address the issue under discussion. And you are entitled to disagree with me all you want, but any disagreements would be more effective if you had facts to back them up. I gave you facts. You still choose to disagree, even you didn't even bother to look at something you're disagreeing about, so I don't consider that an informed opinion.

 

thanks to the generosity of your heart.

 

No, I just made the phone call. It was Apogee's generosity. They're the ones who did the nice thing.

 

We`ll just disagree about reviews

 

You're not just disagreeing, you said you're disappointed in my personally, maybe I should stop writing reviews, and gave me a thumbs down. You decided to take this in a personal direction.

 

You can believe whatever you want, you're the reader. I'm the reviewer, so I know the truth about my reviews, and have presented it for those who place a priority on fact over speculation. Like my reviews .