[chesebert]

In fairness, he does point out its shortcomings and places it in the context of other high end headphones, and explains that the Utopia isbt for everyone. It’s not a sycophantic praise-fest.

And, of course, when you get to pick and choose everything you review, why would you ever choose something you’d not like?

Review outlets don’t have to “keep the bastards honest” if they don’t want to.

Tom also said this about Benchmark headphone amp: thought the HPA4 sounded as good as any headphone amp I’ve heard for dynamic headphones, and it might be the best of the lot depending on your circumstances.

Really, Tom?

 

[Daniel Johnston]

Tom also said this about Benchmark headphone amp: thought the HPA4 sounded as good as any headphone amp I’ve heard for dynamic headphones, and it might be the best of the lot depending on your circumstances.

Really, Tom?

There no "best".

Reviews are a grain of salt phenomenon. If you generally like the reviewers preferences, great! Otherwise it's a crap shoot. I'm sure if TAS, Sterophile, etc... don't like a sponsors product, they won't review it. It's they way the Audophile world works.

 

[AussieMick]

Tom also said this about Benchmark headphone amp: thought the HPA4 sounded as good as any headphone amp I’ve heard for dynamic headphones, and it might be the best of the lot depending on your circumstances.

Really, Tom?

Yes, but you don’t what “I’ve heard” means. He’s clearly not heard ever headphone amplifier on earth, and he’s not a full time headphone reviewer. I don’t see the problem. And, indeed, depending on circumstances it might be the best option for a certain individual out there on a cost/performance/reliability/footprint/ease of use/sound quality/aesthetic metric.

Reviewers can’t possibly hear and compare everything, and mags like that are most definitely not consumer advice magazines.

 

[chesebert]

Yes, but you don’t what “I’ve heard” means. He’s clearly not heard ever headphone amplifier on earth, and he’s not a full time headphone reviewer. I don’t see the problem. And, indeed, depending on circumstances it might be the best option for a certain individual out there on a cost/performance/reliability/footprint/ease of use/sound quality/aesthetic metric.

Reviewers can’t possibly hear and compare everything, and mags like that are most definitely not consumer advice magazines.

That’s just being intellectually dishonest. TAS is one of the two largest hifi publications in the US, and Tom is one of the key persons at TAS. If all he has to do is to use “IMO”, “what I have heard”, “in my system”, “in my room”, “with my gear” “with my music collection” “based on my preference” and the like phrase and shower their ad sponsors with positive reviews as a cop out, then there is no reason for him or any reviewer to say anything bad about anything because no 2 person will have 100% identical circumstances with respect to their audio. If you pay attention that’s how all the ad sponsored reviewers operate - glorified marketing person.

Take this to the extreme, hypothetically speaking even a deaf person can review audio gear and give positive endorsement because that person felt certain pleasing vibration in their body - “the best hifi I have experienced in my life”

 

[AussieMick]

That’s just being intellectually dishonest. TAS is one of the two largest hifi publications in the US, and Tom is one of the key persons at TAS. If all he has to do is to use “IMO”, “what I have heard”, “in my system”, “in my room”, “with my gear” “with my music collection” “based on my preference” and the like phrase and shower their ad sponsors with positive reviews as a cop out, then there is no reason for him or any reviewer to say anything bad about anything because no 2 person will have 100% identical circumstances with respect to their audio. If you pay attention that’s how all the ad sponsored reviewers operate - glorified marketing person.

Take this to the extreme, hypothetically speaking even a deaf person can review audio gear and give positive endorsement because that person felt certain pleasing vibration in their body - “the best hifi I have experienced in my life”

Do you think he has access to every headphone amplifier, at all times? I don’t.

Do you think it’s intellectually honest to compare what you have in front of you to a memory from a year ago or more? I don’t.

Do you have proof of this “pay for positive reviews” culture you can share with us? Not personal opinions or things you suspect might have happened? Three examples should suffice.

Again, why would any magazine review something they don’t find, in some way or other, a “good product”? As mentioned earlier, they’re not a consumer affairs organisation and have no obligation to tell us what “sucks”.

How is making statements about how to get the best from a product or whom it might suit (neither of which requires a judgement of where it sits on the spectrum from “sucks to amazeballs”) a bad thing?

How is the absence of negative reviews at all proof of shills and dishonesty? How is a positive review proof of same?

If we want reviews to appear totally impartial then we’d better start finding ways to get stuff into the hands of reviewers and pay them a living wage to do so, and ban advertising.

The conspiracy theories live large, but like most, the ones in hifi are built on years of cynicism and hearsay.

For what it’s worth, I agreed with the review conclusions and comparisons to Susvara. If the review was lying for cash, what does that mean for anyone who happens to agree?

 

[silversurfer616]

Only know from a friend’s personal experience that most of the times big audio publications
only do a review when they get paid to do so. Even on HeadFi( according to a European headphone designer) there’s cash involved to keep the usual suspects/influencer busy shilling the product. If this is conspiracy theory to some here or not doesn’t bother me much.
A east European Facebook reviewer wrote enthusiastically about a Hifiman headphone which I personally didn’t like and I asked him if it’s really his honest opinion, only to be told that it is not…but he can keep the product. There you go…

 

[AussieMick]

Only know from a friend’s personal experience that most of the times big audio publications
only do a review when they get paid to do so. Even on HeadFi( according to a European headphone designer) there’s cash involved to keep the usual suspects/influencer busy shilling the product. If this is conspiracy theory to some here or not doesn’t bother me much.
A east European Facebook reviewer wrote enthusiastically about a Hifiman headphone which I personally didn’t like and I asked him if it’s really his honest opinion, only to be told that it is not…but he can keep the product. There you go…

Terrific. Who? When? What magazines? Who exactly gets to keep product?

 

[silversurfer616]

Terrific. Who? When? What magazines? Who exactly gets to keep product?

Thought you would like it…

 

[Frankie D]

Do you think he has access to every headphone amplifier, at all times? I don’t.

Do you think it’s intellectually honest to compare what you have in front of you to a memory from a year ago or more? I don’t.

Do you have proof of this “pay for positive reviews” culture you can share with us? Not personal opinions or things you suspect might have happened? Three examples should suffice.

Again, why would any magazine review something they don’t find, in some way or other, a “good product”? As mentioned earlier, they’re not a consumer affairs organisation and have no obligation to tell us what “sucks”.

How is making statements about how to get the best from a product or whom it might suit (neither of which requires a judgement of where it sits on the spectrum from “sucks to amazeballs”) a bad thing?

How is the absence of negative reviews at all proof of shills and dishonesty? How is a positive review proof of same?

If we want reviews to appear totally impartial then we’d better start finding ways to get stuff into the hands of reviewers and pay them a living wage to do so, and ban advertising.

The conspiracy theories live large, but like most, the ones in hifi are built on years of cynicism and hearsay.

For what it’s worth, I agreed with the review conclusions and comparisons to Susvara. If the review was lying for cash, what does that mean for anyone who happens to agree?

I cannot remember a bad review in TAS. In fact, every time I check, their recommended products go by price. It would be nice if they actually picked a lower priced item over a higher priced one from a different manufacturer. Robert Harley himself has stated you have to read into the review and understand when the reviewer is not wild about a product as they pay for advertisements which is how TAS exists.

They are without question skewed. Another way to tell is how they are dead set against double blind tests. A mag like TAS could set some up. They argue against it like their life depends on it. Many are also allowed to keep what is sent for a review. All of this will skew a reviewer whether done on purpose or not.

 

[chesebert]

Besides cold hard cash and free gear, there are other ways to comp reviewers include “long term loan” or “industry accommodation price”. They think we are dumb just because they tell us they “bought” the gear… sure

 

[AussieMick]

I cannot remember a bad review in TAS. In fact, every time I check, their recommended products go by price. It would be nice if they actually picked a lower priced item over a higher priced one from a different manufacturer. Robert Harley himself has stated you have to read into the review and understand when the reviewer is not wild about a product as they pay for advertisements which is how TAS exists.

They are without question skewed. Another way to tell is how they are dead set against double blind tests. A mag like TAS could set some up. They argue against it like their life depends on it. Many are also allowed to keep what is sent for a review. All of this will skew a reviewer whether done on purpose or not.

Again, few or no bad reviews is explainable by means other than cash.

Skewed I can believe. It’d be damn hard not to be. I’m just not a believer that everything is corrupt

 

[Frankie D]

Again, few or no bad reviews is explainable by means other than cash.

Skewed I can believe. It’d be damn hard not to be. I’m just not a believer that everything is corrupt

I did not mean they are evil. TAS is an enjoyable magazine and I hope it continues. But it is at times, hard to trust their reviews.

 

[Malcyg]

Terrific. Who? When? What magazines? Who exactly gets to keep product?

I have seen many reviews where they disclose upfront that they were sent sent the product to review and were allowed to keep it afterwards. I assumed that this was generally quite common place. Some reviewers are better than others - have higher technical and communication skills - but generally, reviews are just marketing. So too are forums, even more obviously and less subtle, so we should always keep our eyes wide open.

I find reviews to be very helpful in terms of defining product specification and design and that allows me to rule an item out or in on that basis. From that point, personal assessment is the only way to proceed though and I’d be surprised if people took reviews as verbatim and made blind purchases on that basis, but maybe I’m naive? On reflection, I am actually willing to make a blind purchase where a home audition is not possible so long as I have a return option. Distance selling regs are very handy in this regard.

 

[AussieMick]

My point is just that a lot of criticism is thrown around that is based on anecdote and rumour and hearsay. Unless someone can provide proof of systemic shilling and dishonesty, it’s all just cynical fluff.
Check out Darko’s podcast with Lavorgna on “why no bad reviews?” I don’t agree with everything he says, but he makes some cogent and logical points. It’s a decent listen.

Anyway, back on topic for me.

 

[AussieMick]

Up until three weeks ago my speakers of choice have been the Focal Kanta 2. Here in Australia we’ve been fortunate of late to have access to some rather amazing deals on all things Focal, so I took the plunge and bought a pair of Diablo Utopia and matching stands.

I always enjoyed the Kanta 2 and was very happy with them for three years. However, the Utopia 2022 always gave more texture, dynamic sensitivity and detail. Well now that the Diablo have 250 hours on them, I can hear the Utopia family resemblance between it and the 2022.

I’d always wondered if the Utopia headphone was truly a proper Utopia. It really is.