Which audio reviewers do love/ hate?

[David Matz]

For all of the bashing of reviews and reviewers, there are some great reviewers and equipment reviews out there. To me, a great review captures the essence of a component in words. It helps the reader understand its strengths, weaknesses, and issues. More importantly, truly great reviews help derive and predict the emotional meaning of the musical experience the audio component will provide.

<O
Personally, I like Tonepub (Jeff), Ken Kessler, Jonathan Valin, Roy Gregory, and Martin Collums- all appreciate stats and/ or CJ. After auditioning the component (and sometimes before auditioning – depending on my experience), these guys’ writings really make sense.

<O
Also I occasionally like to read Mikey Fremer and Marc Mickelson of Soundstage, because they do a great job of analyzing and describing what they hear. However, my tastes and their tastes don’t always coincide.
<O
I could care less for: John Atkinson, Art Dudley, Wes Phillips, Sam Telleg, and R Harley. These guys like very analytical equipment. It’s not personal, but I can’t connect (or yet haven’t connected) to these guys.

So who do you really listen to or enjoy reading? Which of these guys really speak to you? Who has the same tastes as you? Likewise, which guys to you hate or care less about? Why?

 

[amey01]

I really can't stand Fremer with his analogue bias. When you're trying to read a review of a CD player or amplifier or loudspeakers and the review is littered with subtle little comments about "LP version better this", "analogue more realistic that" it really starts to tire. Yes Mikey, we know your bias, now get on with the fr1ggin' review!

 

[wrat]

I enjoy reading Tellig and I used to enjoy Corey Greenberg, Not that I really care about there opinion I liked the style and tone they use/used.
Martin G Dewulf can be interesting.
Enid Lumley was a hoot
Don't care for Valin's style, Atkinson is hot and cold
Art Dudley was kind of interesting when he had The Listener

 

[tonepub]

Corey Greenberg was always my favorite, he brought the fun back to this world... A little wacky sometimes but always good for a laugh.

Even though he wasn't running the ship anymore by the time I got there,
I was always an HP fan. I still have the first issue of TAS and I enjoyed Harry because he really pushed the boundaries in pursuit of "the absolute sound".

Again, a little too wacky for me at times, but I always appreciated his dedication to what he believed high end audio was about.

Always very fond of Sam Tellig, because he often spent more time talking about food than hifi! And I like the sound of a lot of the same stuff he likes!

 

[User211]

Whilst Jeff's free publication is cool, I'd really like to see more technical info in his mag... from the lab/engineering perspective. I think it's interesting to see both the tech and the subjective input, and try to make correlations between the two.

I am an out-and-out KK/Hi-Fi News fan. And whilst I don't share tastes with Martin Colloms, he writes a mean article.

 

[tonepub]

W I think it's interesting to see both the tech and the subjective input, and try to make correlations between the two.

Except there really aren't any....

 

[User211]

Well, there are... like speakers with obviously bizarre frequency response curves, really poor signal to noise ratios etc etc... anyway, I know what you were trying to say, if you know what I mean

It's also cool when manufacturer's claims for power output, sensitivity etc are shown to be fiction, or conversely better than rated, say.

It's nerdsville, but that is why it's cool:rocker:

 

[David Matz]

Well, there are... like speakers with obviously bizarre frequency response curves, really poor signal to noise ratios etc etc... anyway, I know what you were trying to say, if you know what I mean

It's also cool when manufacturer's claims for power output, sensitivity etc are shown to be fiction, or conversely better than rated, say.

It's nerdsville, but that is why it's cool:rocker:

I never pay any attention to the measurements. I figure anything at moderate and high price points these days will measure well. I can't imagine CJ, BAT, Ayre, ML, Quad, etc., measuring too poorly. Furthermore, whatever small kinks the equipment may have, the room effects will be much bigger. 25 years ago when the equipment was much more shaky, yes. Today, from the well established brands, no.

Am I missing something?

 

[DTB300]

Whilst Jeff's free publication is cool, I'd really like to see more technical info in his mag... from the lab/engineering perspective. I think it's interesting to see both the tech and the subjective input, and try to make correlations between the two.

People have tried for YEARS to correlate technical information, measurements, etc. to subjective perceived sound. While some of these measurements can be duplicated for sound produced, they still have not proven if a group of measurements, say X,Y,Z,A,B, etc. exist, the sound produced will be "_______"

 

[User211]

I never pay any attention to the measurements. I figure anything at moderate and high price points these days will measure well. I can't imagine CJ, BAT, Ayre, ML, Quad, etc., measuring too poorly. Furthermore, whatever small kinks the equipment may have, the room effects will be much bigger. 25 years ago when the equipment was much more shaky, yes. Today, from the well established brands, no.

Am I missing something?

If that's all you look at (the major brands) it's almost true. But ML's sensitivity figures, for example, have always been exposed as fiction by Hi-Fi News. I think ML should just come clean on it...

Plus, there's more to life than the major brands for some people who want something a bit different.

I don't like being lied too/being taken for a sucker. If an amp is rated at 100 Watts/channel. I want that or more. If it only measures 80 Watts in reality, I'm not interested.

Not taking measurements is irresponsible. If no magazines did it, the manufs. could spout all forms of BS about their products and get away with it.

 

[User211]

People have tried for YEARS to correlate technical information, measurements, etc. to subjective perceived sound. While some of these measurements can be duplicated for sound produced, they still have not proven if a group of measurements, say X,Y,Z,A,B, etc. exist, the sound produced will be "_______"

Correct. I'm talking in more general terms where correlations are obvious... like reduced HF (dull sounding) or excessive LF (bass boom) response for a loudspeaker, for instance. Or the distortion profile of an amp - is it primarily even (generally found to be smoother/warmer sounding) or odd harmonic (nasty, gritty, unpleasant)? Or S/N ratio - this is EXTREMELY relevant if you use very sensitive loudspeakers like Lowther, because you WILL hear the noise if it's below par. Not so relevant for inefficient beasts like MLs, however.

But you have to take a step back - if I was that bothered about specs, would I really be running an SET amp?

 

[risabet]

I like HP, AHC, Fremer and JV. I always liked JGH reviews back in the day. I like Sam Tellig for his cheap products and curmudgeonly style.

 

[MiTT]

I like HP, AHC, Fremer and JV. I always liked JGH reviews back in the day. I like Sam Tellig for his cheap products and curmudgeonly style.

Almost exactly my choices too. I also used to really enjoy Jonathan Skull when he was with both the abso!ute sound and Stereophile. I know more than a few folks who absolutely detested him, but I always enjoyed reading his stuff. I've run into him more than once since he left Stereophile roaming the halls of the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest and he's a genuinely nice guy - as is Michael Fremmer for that matter.

I also really like Roy Gregory from HiFi+.

Never cared much for Julian (all amplifiers sound the same) Hirsh. I also once had a subscription to "The Audio Critic" back when it was still a print magazine (still available on line much like Tone Audio). After a few issues I came to the conclusion that I thought Peter Aczel was a condecending jerk and I never read any of his stuff again.

 

[mrlowry]

I've heard many products reviewed by John Atkinson and Wes Phillips and not only do I find their descriptions to have a lot of over lap with what I hear, their conclusions also match my tastes. JA's, "just the facts Ma'm" approach is refreshingly free of overblown hyperbole. Wes also seems pretty down to earth and level-headed. No matter how good it is if it's really expensive WP will at least acknowledge it.

 

[Bernard]

One TAS writer I disliked was a guy called Mike Silverton. He had a very convoluted way of expressing himself, using bombastic language, and in the process saying, "See how clever I am".

 

[Mantana]

I like Barry Willis at Absolute Sound...his review of the PBN Montana SPII and EPS2 prompted me to buy without hearing them and he was dead on accurate with his description of the speaker's sound. He also reviewed the
Summit in 2006 i believe and gave another accurate review. I like
Sam Tellig's writing style, but don't really feel he and i are on the same
page. I agree with another's comments about Michael Fremer...his obvious bias for analogue
becomes tiresome after awhile but then i have no interest in buying another expensive
piece of equipment and collecting albums again.

 

[MDSPHOTO]

I always liked Cory Greenburg and hated any reviewer that ever said "for $20K this component is a bargain"!

BTW, I have not bought or subscribed to an audio magazine for many years preferring to let my ears tell me what is worth purchasing.

 

[RichTeer]

Interesting set of opininons here!

Reviewers I like (in no particular order): Harry Pearson, Ken Kessler, Martin Collums, Michael Fremer (I share his analogue bias, so no surprises there!), Jon Valin, Wayne Garcia, Jeff Dorgay, Roy Gregory. That said, I rarely read Stereophile and I've been a subscriber to TAS for about 15 years.

Reviews I don't like that much: Malcolm Steward, Paul Messanger, Alvin Gold, REG, anyone who only uses digital sources, and most PRAT Linn-worshippers!

I like the reviewers I like because of their ability to describe the sound of gear well (perhaps in an enteraining manner), and because I find a lot of similarities between what they hear what I hear.

I dislike reviewers who waffle on about stuff for ages, summing up a piece of equipment's sound in one or two short paragraphs. Yes, I'm interested in the background and technology, but I also want read about how the gear performs!

I guess we could have a related thread about the mags...

 

[Waboman]

I like Corey Greenberg and remember Brent Butterworth? He was the first editor of HT mag way back when. I enjoyed reading his work. Say, anyone know what happened to him? Last I heard he was working for Dolby labs. Geoffrey Morrison too.

 

[David Matz]

Thanks for the tips on Corey Greenberg. I just looked up his last review in Stereophile - it's a riot!

http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/1194snell/

He was the personal electronics guru for the NBC Today show. Unfortunately, he got caught taking cash from companies like Apple to put their products in a positive light during his TV segments.

Too bad there are so few excellent writers in audio.