2. misc-audio
  3. 1145489401

what are your views regarding reviewing styles ?

at the risk of being simplistic, i would say there are two broad categories of reviewing--criticism and reporting and the connotations of subjectivity and objectivity.

a reviewer can present an opinion of a component,providing evidence from listening, as to its quality relative to other compoents of the same class and then express a preference for that component relative to other components of the same class, often using ornate phrases.

alternatively a reviewer can describe his perceptions without using adjectives, not indicating a preference in an attempt to be factual. the idea is not to influence the reader by using words which may have a positive or negative valence associated with them.

much of today's reviewing is what i would call advocacy reviewing. there are very few instances where reviewers try to strictly inform without influencing.

what do you think ?
mrtennis

Showing 1 response by stevecham

stevecham
3,340 posts
 
Try to imagine a magazine that offers only negative reviews of equipment the reviewers deem unattractive, bad sounding and of poor value.

There would be no advertising. It would have to survive on subscriptions alone. It would hurt the industry even though it might help some of us avoid making "mistakes." In short order, the reviewers would be subject to the same criticism that overly "positive" reviewers endure. Many would call them on their perceived lack of objectivity. Measurements would only show or emphasize the worst results and performance weaknesses.

I don't want to hijack this thread, but sometimes taking the anti-advocate position can shed valuble light on that which is nominal.
More to discover