Speaker Reviews - Are They Adequates?

[Chu Gai]

Reviews for the most part tend to be fairly predictable. There's some regurgitation of information provided on the vendor's website that's sometimes augmented by additional stuff - white paper material if you will. Then there's the associated equipment, speaker positioning and listener's seating, a list of recordings, sometimes with pictures, with the reviewer's comments for the tracks which may be terse or in depth. Then you might get some actual shots of the speakers in the room instead of stock material with the obligatory 'no speaker is perfect' and 'you could spend twice as much and get less' comments. Some review sites go further and do some quasi-anechoic measurements, maybe measurements at the listening position, and so forth. But is this enough? Are the readers getting the information to make an informed buying decision because after all, people do buy strictly based on reviews? Are reviewers more concerned with not displeasing the vendor because maybe the word will go out that this guy or gal is a hard ass and they won't get further speakers to review?

It's been said that any idiot can design a loudspeaker and often do. By the same token, any idiot can write a review. So, I see some disturbing tendencies.

There can be too much friendliness. Reviewers like the press should adopt a more impartial if not somewhat skeptical approach. Too often IMO, reviews tend to read like infomercials. Criticisms should not be couched in positive sounding terms leaving the reader to try and interpret what was meant.

I'm not singling out Gene here, but he recently wrote how he found that when he was given some speakers from AV451 he discovered miswiring in the crossovers as well as incorrect values. I don't know if he ever reviewed said speakers but this would have been valuable information to be out there. Now you know why the upgraded crossovers, made in the USA had some positive impact.

There is a well respected brand of speakers that recently was found to be incorrectly and in long standing violation of FCC guidelines in labeling their speakers as Made in USA. My understanding is they're changing that to Assembled in USA. But really, if a reviewer knows the cabinets, drivers, and crossovers are made overseas, it doesn't take a Woodward and Bernstein to figure this out.

I'd like to see more measurements especially if the reviewer has a mic and software. Enough of this BS rap your knuckles. Enough of saying the design eliminates standing wanes and resonances. If a designer says they use Finite Element Analysis, then call them on it and let's dig a little deeper.

Why aren't reviewers opening up the speaker and checking things out inside. I know of at least two people who have done so and found out not only did they not receive the crossover upgrades they paid for, but were charged for an upgraded driver and received the standard one instead. Hell, when you check out a car you open the hood and trunk.

Reviewers are writing about delivery times that bear no resemblance to what customers are experiencing. A little bit of web searching easily turns up such issues. In one case there was an ID maker who wasn't supplying grills when people ordered the speakers. Supposedly rectified.

For ID makers, what's so hard with getting pics of where the speakers are made?

I've got other bitches. Maybe what we need is for two people to review the speakers. One to generate what you typically read and one who does some investigative work. However, I do think the primary reviewer needs to take a peek inside.

 

[Irvrobinson]

The only reviews I really pay attention to are what John Atkinson writes in his measurements section for all of the Stereophile loudspeaker reviews. The subjective sections vary all over the map depending on the author. Some are really bad.

 

[its phillip]

I tend to ignore the subjective portion of reviews as well. I'm much more interested in the measurements.

I also agree that speakers or whatever is being reviewed should be subject to more thorough examination.

 

[3db]

+3 on what's been said above

 

[psbfan9]

Why aren't reviewers opening up the speaker and checking things out inside. I know of at least two people who have done so and found out not only did they not receive the crossover upgrades they paid for, but were charged for an upgraded driver and received the standard one instead.
Reviewers are writing about delivery times that bear no resemblance to what customers are experiencing. A little bit of web searching easily turns up such issues. In one case there was an ID maker who wasn't supplying grills when people ordered the speakers. Supposedly rectified.

While I generally agree with what you said, in the two examples that are in bold you seem to be doing what you're railing against.
Why the secrecy? Call these people/companies out. I don't know who your talking about and don't want to do business with such people/companies.

My biggest problem with reviews is when they are using $10,000.00+ in electronics, wires, and DAC's, ect,. even for lower to mid range speakers. They should use similar electronics and accessories to what people in the real world are using.

 

[shadyJ]

I don't much go for the subjective stuff myself, but one thing that can be helpful is if the reviewer describes the sound with respect to another speaker, preferably a well known speaker. To be sure, it isn't that helpful, not nearly as much as actual measurements, but it means something if someone reports that the highs are hotter or the bass if fatter than a speaker that is a known quantity- especially one with publicly available comprehensive measurements. At least this way you get some kind of reference point.

 

[Chu Gai]

While I generally agree with what you said, in the two examples that are in bold you seem to be doing what you're railing against.
Why the secrecy? Call these people/companies out. I don't know who your talking about and don't want to do business with such people/companies.

My biggest problem with reviews is when they are using $10,000.00+ in electronics, wires, and DAC's, ect,. even for lower to mid range speakers. They should use similar electronics and accessories to what people in the real world are using.

In one of the instances I alluded to, there is some pending/in progress litigation. Once that is resolved I intend to open up a thread about this. The other was Aerial.

 

[its phillip]

I've read about the Tekton speaker grille issues. I'm also familiar with the Aerial "made in USA" issue. Who wasn't providing driver and/or crossover upgrades?

 

[Steve81]

Are reviewers more concerned with not displeasing the vendor because maybe the word will go out that this guy or gal is a hard ass and they won't get further speakers to review?

It's complicated. Obviously Gene can't go around burning every bridge in sight as AH needs some advertisers to survive. And yes, some vendors are pretty touchy when it comes to even a hint of negativity in a review. Beyond that though, it's just not that much fun writing negative pro reviews. It's not like a user review where you're infused with righteous anger over the fact that you paid good money for a product and got a steaming pile of crap.

Maybe what we need is for two people to review the speakers.

Just need one character to answer: $

 

[Chu Gai]

I've read about the Tekton speaker grille issues. I'm also familiar with the Aerial "made in USA" issue. Who wasn't providing driver and/or crossover upgrades?

Can't say at this time but I suspect many people who bought the brand will be opening them up to see if they were upgraded for the extra money.

 

[Chu Gai]

It's complicated. Obviously Gene can't go around burning every bridge in sight as AH needs some advertisers to survive. And yes, some vendors are pretty touchy when it comes to even a hint of negativity in a review. Beyond that though, it's just not that much fun writing negative pro reviews. It's not like a user review where you're infused with righteous anger over the fact that you paid good money for a product and got a steaming pile of crap.


Just need one character to answer: $

This isn't really about Gene although I'd like to see AH reviewers open up the innards for a look see. I'm not looking for negative reviews but reviews that are fair and appropriately balanced.

Let's look at a vendor who thankfully seems to be out of the speaker/subwoofer business - Chase Home Theater. Just looking at the initial runs of the SHO speaker, the finish was abysmal - splinters, nail holes, you could see the white stuffing in the port, etc. If they'd been opened up, one would have found a stock Eminence crossover with some resistors to pad down the tweeter. Real sloppy looking. And the packaging, poor but we can always blame UPS or FedEx. The funny thing is, there's another ID company making speakers who for a long time was using the vendor's crossover and making some minor changes.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Can't say at this time but I suspect many people who bought the brand will be opening them up to see if they were upgraded for the extra money.

Hope you're not referring to Philharmonic Audio. Not only were the crossovers on those Pioneers upgraded, I occasionally threw in a free Chihuahua.

 

[Chu Gai]

Hope you're not referring to Philharmonic Audio. Not only were the crossovers on those Pioneers upgraded, I occasionally threw in a free Chihuahua.

Nope. The dogs were a nice touch but I was hoping you'd also consider tossing in some pussy for those who are allergic to dogs. Hey, how come you never named your speakers after composers?

 

[Dennis Murphy]

"Hey, how come you never named your speakers after composers?"

Because I don't need any law suits from Vienna Acoustics or Siegfried Linkwitz.

 

[gene]

Reviews for the most part tend to be fairly predictable. There's some regurgitation of information provided on the vendor's website that's sometimes augmented by additional stuff - white paper material if you will. Then there's the associated equipment, speaker positioning and listener's seating, a list of recordings, sometimes with pictures, with the reviewer's comments for the tracks which may be terse or in depth. Then you might get some actual shots of the speakers in the room instead of stock material with the obligatory 'no speaker is perfect' and 'you could spend twice as much and get less' comments. Some review sites go further and do some quasi-anechoic measurements, maybe measurements at the listening position, and so forth. But is this enough? Are the readers getting the information to make an informed buying decision because after all, people do buy strictly based on reviews? Are reviewers more concerned with not displeasing the vendor because maybe the word will go out that this guy or gal is a hard ass and they won't get further speakers to review?

It's been said that any idiot can design a loudspeaker and often do. By the same token, any idiot can write a review. So, I see some disturbing tendencies.

There can be too much friendliness. Reviewers like the press should adopt a more impartial if not somewhat skeptical approach. Too often IMO, reviews tend to read like infomercials. Criticisms should not be couched in positive sounding terms leaving the reader to try and interpret what was meant.

I'm not singling out Gene here, but he recently wrote how he found that when he was given some speakers from AV451 he discovered miswiring in the crossovers as well as incorrect values. I don't know if he ever reviewed said speakers but this would have been valuable information to be out there. Now you know why the upgraded crossovers, made in the USA had some positive impact.

There is a well respected brand of speakers that recently was found to be incorrectly and in long standing violation of FCC guidelines in labeling their speakers as Made in USA. My understanding is they're changing that to Assembled in USA. But really, if a reviewer knows the cabinets, drivers, and crossovers are made overseas, it doesn't take a Woodward and Bernstein to figure this out.

I'd like to see more measurements especially if the reviewer has a mic and software. Enough of this BS rap your knuckles. Enough of saying the design eliminates standing wanes and resonances. If a designer says they use Finite Element Analysis, then call them on it and let's dig a little deeper.

Why aren't reviewers opening up the speaker and checking things out inside. I know of at least two people who have done so and found out not only did they not receive the crossover upgrades they paid for, but were charged for an upgraded driver and received the standard one instead. Hell, when you check out a car you open the hood and trunk.

Reviewers are writing about delivery times that bear no resemblance to what customers are experiencing. A little bit of web searching easily turns up such issues. In one case there was an ID maker who wasn't supplying grills when people ordered the speakers. Supposedly rectified.

For ID makers, what's so hard with getting pics of where the speakers are made?

I've got other bitches. Maybe what we need is for two people to review the speakers. One to generate what you typically read and one who does some investigative work. However, I do think the primary reviewer needs to take a peek inside.

While I understand your concerns, its important understand the bigger picture which I hope to outline below:

1. Manufacturers don't like negative reviews. Blasting a product will usually ensure you NEVER get a review sample from that manufacturer again.
2. Most consumers don't like negative reviews. They feel offended if you're too hard on a product that they bought and convinced themselves it was a good product for their needs.
3. Most of the press will gush over anything new. Just look at all the gushing for the Atmos-reflection speakers when they first came out. Most of the press (except us) were regurgitating Dolby press material. We took a more critical view and were slammed by fanboys at AVS. It wasn't until Dr. Floyd Toole saw all the nonsensical claims about those speakers that he kindly helped to support my arguments with scientific facts. This still didn't win us any points with Atmos fanboys but I digress.
   
4. Most of the press don't know how to critically analyze a product. They don't understand the basic engineering mechanics, how to measure what matters, and even if they can measure, usually not interpret meaningful info from the measurements.
5. We tend to choose products we know will review well to avoid the drama of reviewing a bad product.

Forget negative reviews for a moment. Many manufacturers can't handle the slightest critical comments in reviews. I can give examples that quite frankly you wouldn't believe. I've been told by a particular manufacturer that they make the best speakers in the world regardless of price and at worst case they will be "similarly good" to a more expensive product in a blind comparison. So any criticism, including measurements we would show otherwise would automatically be invalidated based on their logic. To avoid this type of drama going forward, we are very selective of the companies we choose to do reviews for. Companies like SVS, Klipsch, Yamaha, RBH, (to name a few), are far less fussy of critical review comments. These are the type of companies that stand behind their products and are a pleasure to work with.

With all of these points considered, the consumer should also NOT be lazy. They should do their own research and use the reviews as a guideline, not a biblical source. Outside of Audio, I do just that when buying a car. I read the reviews to see how the car tests on a track. I look at the reliability ratings, maintenance costs, etc. But in the end, I don't buy a car unless I can test drive it and/or see it in person to make sure it's what I really want REGARDLESS of what the reviews claim. Fortunately it's an even easier proposition with audio since most ID companies offer generous return policies so you can try at home and send back what you don't like.

If a consumer can't make up their mind based on the data at hand and the ability to try at home, then they probably wouldn't appreciate the differences in the products they are comparing to begin with.

As for taking apart and analyzing products, we personally do that with ALMOST all products we review. When I started Audioholics I dissected everything I reviewed. It's what made us stand out from the rest of the industry that basically used stock photos and massaged press releases to describe the products and prompted this very article from a late industry insider:

http://www.audioholics.com/editorials/reviewing-home-theater-reviews

I will also remind you that while the rest of the press was gushing over the Lexicon Blu-ray player, we actually took one apart, measured and compared and revealed it was an Oppo in a fancy box. We took A LOT of heat for this from reviewers of competitor sites that tried to discredit our analysis and the audio industry in general. To this da, it's been a struggle to get Harman to advertise on Audioholics despite we have good working relations with all of their tech people and admire their non Lexicon-oppo products and have also given MOST of their products favorable reviews.

I challenge you to find another AV publication (online or in print) that would do a full expose like this on a product or a technology like Atmos-enabled speakers. Not trying to toot my own horn but just stating a truth that Audioholics generally digs much deeper into product analysis and audio stories than the rest of the press. As a result this does NOT make us rich, but it does build a loyal readership and trust among our community of readers.

Are we perfect? Definitely not. Do we make mistakes? Hell yes! But, we do our best to learn and grow our knowledge of audio to improve the quality of our content to help our readers make more educated buying decisions. However at the end of the day, it's up to you to chose what product is right for your needs. We are happy to be here as a guideline and resource and hope others find what we report as useful.

 

[3db]

Hey Gene,
Any chance youvwill be reviewing the PSB Imagine T3 anc C3 anytime soon?

 

[Chu Gai]

While I understand your concerns, its important understand the bigger picture which I hope to outline below:

1. Manufacturers don't like negative reviews. Blasting a product will usually ensure you NEVER get a review sample from that manufacturer again.
2. Most consumers don't like negative reviews. They feel offended if you're too hard on a product that they bought and convinced themselves it was a good product for their needs.
3. Most of the press will gush over anything new. Just look at all the gushing for the Atmos-reflection speakers when they first came out. Most of the press (except us) were regurgitating Dolby press material. We took a more critical view and were slammed by fanboys at AVS. It wasn't until Dr. Floyd Toole saw all the nonsensical claims about those speakers that he kindly helped to support my arguments with scientific facts. This still didn't win us any points with Atmos fanboys but I digress.
   
4. Most of the press don't know how to critically analyze a product. They don't understand the basic engineering mechanics, how to measure what matters, and even if they can measure, usually not interpret meaningful info from the measurements.
5. We tend to choose products we know will review well to avoid the drama of reviewing a bad product.

1) Confining this to speakers or transducers, I pretty much doubt we'd be seeing reviews that completely blasted a speaker. But honesty and disclosing information that can be material to a purchaser has to factor into the review.

2) True. There's no explaining why there are devotees of that POS Yugo. But if you're equally at ease complimenting the fit and finish, then you should be equally at ease in pointing out deficiencies.

3) And I respect your hesitance in the Atmos matter. Myself, I'm rarely an early adopter.

4) Sure. At another website some time back the reviewer did some measurements of a fairly new ID speaker and correctly deduced one FR anomaly as being a floor bounce. However there was another anomaly, a fairly significant dip that didn't receive any mention. It was briefly discussed at another website which had manufacture participation but the manufacturer stated they were aware of it but their listening evaluations didn't detect anything deleterious.

5) Yes, you do. As I said in my original post, there's a lot of people reviewing speakers that mostly have to do with ID brands. It's mostly them that need to step up their game. In your case, Gene, I'd like to see internal pics of the speaker.

Forget negative reviews for a moment. Many manufacturers can't handle the slightest critical comments in reviews. I can give examples that quite frankly you wouldn't believe. I've been told by a particular manufacturer that they make the best speakers in the world regardless of price and at worst case they will be "similarly good" to a more expensive product in a blind comparison. So any criticism, including measurements we would show otherwise would automatically be invalidated based on their logic. To avoid this type of drama going forward, we are very selective of the companies we choose to do reviews for. Companies like SVS, Klipsch, Yamaha, RBH, (to name a few), are far less fussy of critical review comments. These are the type of companies that stand behind their products and are a pleasure to work with.

Yes, it's like being in a hospital looking at newborns. Somehow only yours is the most beautiful. I also welcome space for a manufacturer to insert their comments in a review. Point, counterpoint.

With all of these points considered, the consumer should also NOT be lazy. They should do their own research and use the reviews as a guideline, not a biblical source. Outside of Audio, I do just that when buying a car. I read the reviews to see how the car tests on a track. I look at the reliability ratings, maintenance costs, etc. But in the end, I don't buy a car unless I can test drive it and/or see it in person to make sure it's what I really want REGARDLESS of what the reviews claim. Fortunately it's an even easier proposition with audio since most ID companies offer generous return policies so you can try at home and send back what you don't like.

Most do. In the cases where I'm considering a product, I actively search out if there are problems.

If a consumer can't make up their mind based on the data at hand and the ability to try at home, then they probably wouldn't appreciate the differences in the products they are comparing to begin with.

As for taking apart and analyzing products, we personally do that with ALMOST all products we review. When I started Audioholics I dissected everything I reviewed. It's what made us stand out from the rest of the industry that basically used stock photos and massaged press releases to describe the products and prompted this very article from a late industry insider:

http://www.audioholics.com/editorials/reviewing-home-theater-reviews

I will also remind you that while the rest of the press was gushing over the LexiCon Blu-ray player, we actually took one apart, measured and compared and revealed it was an Oppo in a fancy box. We took A LOT of heat for this from reviewers of competitor sites that tried to discredit our analysis and the audio industry in general. To this day Harman hasn't ponied up a single cent of advertising on Audioholics despite we have good working relations with all of their tech people and admire their non lexicon-oppo products and have also given MOST of their products favorable reviews.

I challenge you to find another AV publication (online or in print) that would do a full expose like this on a product or a technology like Atmos-enabled speakers. Not trying to toot my own horn but just stating a truth that Audioholics generally digs much deeper into product analysis and audio stories than the rest of the press. As a result this does NOT make us rich, but it does build a loyal readership and trust among our community of readers.

Are we perfect? Definitely not. Do we make mistakes? Hell yes! But, we do our best to learn and grow our knowledge of audio to improve the quality of our content to help our readers make more educated buying decisions. However at the end of the day, it's up to you to chose what product is right for your needs. We are happy to be here as a guideline and resource and hope others find what we report as useful.

I appreciate the exposés. In the case of Lexicon I heard it rationalized as the clientele that is predisposed to buy Lexicon is willing to spend more for cosmetics so their products match.
Now, does this means that when it comes to AH speaker reviews we will start to get pictures and comments of the insides?

 

[PENG]

I may be the only one but I would like reviewers use mostly unamplifiered music and try their best to reference the sound to live music, relying on memory, unfortunately. Pictures of the inside, more details of the drivers and crossovers will be great but I doubt you will see much of those for the expensive ones.

The root of the issue is probably the fact that this is just a hobby, the point of diminishing return on sound quality can be easily reached for the huge majority of the population. So there is no compelling reasons or demands for third parties (non manufacturers) to conduct purely scientific research and reviews on home audio equipment let alone just speakers. How many real authoritative scientists and engineers specialized in home audio? I can only name a few and a couple of those well know to this forum are not totally technical and I would trust that their bias are not affecting their views. Just a crazy example, if an US government institution, or a reputable university such as the MIT wants to prove to the public whether 99% of the population can hear the difference (let alone better or worse) between a 300W class AB ATI amp and a 300W class A amp that costs 3 times more, we won't need to debate this over and over again on various forums. Certainly the MIT will have, or will be able to acquire the needed resource to prove it both in theory and by experiments. They obviously have no trouble doing so with drugs, for the obvious reason.

To me, the bottom line is that measurements done by JA, AH, and Soundstagenetwork.com on speakers are probably the best we can rely on whether they are far from being adequate or not. I will continue to read the subjective part of any audio equipment review including those on speakers mostly for fun, and only if I have nothing else to do.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I may be the only one but I would like reviewers use mostly unamplified music and try their best to reference the sound to live music, relying on memory, unfortunately.

I agree and do this myself, but I doubt I'd trust what most reviewers would say about the results. It's something you have to hear first-hand, IMO. When it comes to reviews all I really care about are:

1. Measurements. Speakers are different than electronics, unfortunately. You really need a set of historical measurements made in the same way to understand what a particular reviewer's measurements really mean and how they compare. This is why I like reading John Atkinson's work so much. He's measured a very large number of speakers in a similar manner, in a small number of rooms.

2. Build quality assessments. These comments are especially useful for ID products.

3. Expert assessments on component quality. This was one of the most interesting aspects of the old Audio Critic reviews. Aczel had electronics experts do assessments of components like boards, ICs, power supplies, etc. Some designers of very expensive electronics choose some very cheap ICs, for example, when better choices are available, thinking they can get away with it. Some high level BoM assessment is also useful. This is especially useful for speakers, but often a PITA, I'd guess. And if I were a manufacturer and the reviewer told me he was going to disassemble a $10K speaker to see what's inside I would be somewhat reticent to okay that, unless the reviewer agreed to cover any damage they caused.

4. From the right reviewers I do care about subjective opinions, but I can easily count the number I care about with three fingers. And Peter Aczel, oddly, was never one of them, even though I enjoyed many of his philosophies and writing. If someone regularly records (or otherwise hears) live acoustic instruments in small rooms (small meaning anything in a residential home) I'll probably listen to what they have to say. Otherwise, most subjective opinions are wasted on me.

 

[Irvrobinson]

While I understand your concerns, its important understand the bigger picture which I hope to outline below:

1. Manufacturers don't like negative reviews. Blasting a product will usually ensure you NEVER get a review sample from that manufacturer again.
2. Most consumers don't like negative reviews. They feel offended if you're too hard on a product that they bought and convinced themselves it was a good product for their needs.
3. Most of the press will gush over anything new. Just look at all the gushing for the Atmos-reflection speakers when they first came out. Most of the press (except us) were regurgitating Dolby press material. We took a more critical view and were slammed by fanboys at AVS. It wasn't until Dr. Floyd Toole saw all the nonsensical claims about those speakers that he kindly helped to support my arguments with scientific facts. This still didn't win us any points with Atmos fanboys but I digress.
   
4. Most of the press don't know how to critically analyze a product. They don't understand the basic engineering mechanics, how to measure what matters, and even if they can measure, usually not interpret meaningful info from the measurements.
5. We tend to choose products we know will review well to avoid the drama of reviewing a bad product.

Forget negative reviews for a moment. Many manufacturers can't handle the slightest critical comments in reviews. I can give examples that quite frankly you wouldn't believe. I've been told by a particular manufacturer that they make the best speakers in the world regardless of price and at worst case they will be "similarly good" to a more expensive product in a blind comparison. So any criticism, including measurements we would show otherwise would automatically be invalidated based on their logic. To avoid this type of drama going forward, we are very selective of the companies we choose to do reviews for. Companies like SVS, Klipsch, Yamaha, RBH, (to name a few), are far less fussy of critical review comments. These are the type of companies that stand behind their products and are a pleasure to work with.

With all of these points considered, the consumer should also NOT be lazy. They should do their own research and use the reviews as a guideline, not a biblical source. Outside of Audio, I do just that when buying a car. I read the reviews to see how the car tests on a track. I look at the reliability ratings, maintenance costs, etc. But in the end, I don't buy a car unless I can test drive it and/or see it in person to make sure it's what I really want REGARDLESS of what the reviews claim. Fortunately it's an even easier proposition with audio since most ID companies offer generous return policies so you can try at home and send back what you don't like.

If a consumer can't make up their mind based on the data at hand and the ability to try at home, then they probably wouldn't appreciate the differences in the products they are comparing to begin with.

As for taking apart and analyzing products, we personally do that with ALMOST all products we review. When I started Audioholics I dissected everything I reviewed. It's what made us stand out from the rest of the industry that basically used stock photos and massaged press releases to describe the products and prompted this very article from a late industry insider:

http://www.audioholics.com/editorials/reviewing-home-theater-reviews

I will also remind you that while the rest of the press was gushing over the LexiCon Blu-ray player, we actually took one apart, measured and compared and revealed it was an Oppo in a fancy box. We took A LOT of heat for this from reviewers of competitor sites that tried to discredit our analysis and the audio industry in general. To this day Harman hasn't ponied up a single cent of advertising on Audioholics despite we have good working relations with all of their tech people and admire their non lexicon-oppo products and have also given MOST of their products favorable reviews.

I challenge you to find another AV publication (online or in print) that would do a full expose like this on a product or a technology like Atmos-enabled speakers. Not trying to toot my own horn but just stating a truth that Audioholics generally digs much deeper into product analysis and audio stories than the rest of the press. As a result this does NOT make us rich, but it does build a loyal readership and trust among our community of readers.

Are we perfect? Definitely not. Do we make mistakes? Hell yes! But, we do our best to learn and grow our knowledge of audio to improve the quality of our content to help our readers make more educated buying decisions. However at the end of the day, it's up to you to chose what product is right for your needs. We are happy to be here as a guideline and resource and hope others find what we report as useful.

I agree about negative reviews... why waste time and energy on them? Some people think they give a reviewer credibility, but I don't agree. Great measurements and weighty technical comments give a reviewer credibility. A great review teaches me something new.

IMO, AH's most useful reviews are the subwoofer reviews by Josh Ricci, who does almost everything on the most wanted list. In fact, I think his reviews are equal to the best reviews on any audio equipment I've read anywhere.

AH's electronics reviews are pretty good, but often the subjective portions are not very useful. More comments on fit and finish and component choices would be welcome.

More blunt feedback:

Reviews without measurements aren't very useful, like the one for the Legacy Focus. I remember a few of us asking the equivalent of "Where's the beef?"

Most of AH's previews aren't all that useful. You personally wrote a very good one on the latest Revel sub, but that was, unfortunately, mostly an anomaly. A few more like that one and I'll change my tune.