"Ty Ford" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 13:32:55 -0400, Zigakly wrote
(in article ):


"It looks just like a Telefunken U47" "With leather?"

I think the comparison between browsing amateur reviews of microphones
to
fondling male genetalia in the dark is a bit much. What's wrong with
renting
a mic that's well-regarded among anonymous reviews?

That's a great idea. I thought Dreamhire had closed, but apparently they
are
open. The other issue is that mics sound different with different preamps
and
who knows what the actual monitoring or acoustics issues may be....then
can
the listener keep from being distracted by the brighter is better
phenomenon

Gee, thanks mom. I would never have considered that. Is that what makes
for good reviews? Treat the reader like an ill-equipped incompetent
neanderthal?

Well you might have a point. It took me two phone calls to find a place
that rents out AT2020's. I have to walk a whole 9 blocks.

In article , Zigakly wrote:

Maybe the reviewers need reviewing...

Absolutely! That is your job as editor!

I think in this regard you're somewhat spoiled by the rappore you have with
Ty. Because of it you can take more advantage of his work than a typical
review. I don't think it's a reasonable expectation of reviews on such a
casual basis as the website in question.

I don't know, I can name perhaps ten reviewers for various magazines
and their basic attitudes about gear. Just from reading reviews. I
read Ty's reviews for years before I met him, and when I did finally
meet him, I had a pretty good idea of who he was and what he did.

There are many aspects to mics
that don't require such fine detail and assurance of accuracy. If user
reviews are publishable for cars, they're valid for mics to a similar
degree. Godspell? No. Useful? Sure, why not.

I wouldn't trust user reviews of cars either, personally. What is even
worse about microphones is that so many people buy them on the word of some
reviewer without even a test drive. THAT terrifies me as a reviewer.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

As a magazine publisher myself, and somebody who writes a LOT of reviews, I
have strong feelings about this subject. Now that we're getting to the
nitty-gritty, I'll toss in a few thoughts:

Most reviews are dreadful because the reviewers either are opinionated,
incompetent, or afraid of offending the manufacturer. When you review a
product, it is crucial for your evaluation to consider the manufacturer's
intent. And you must rise above your personal preferences.

You can't directly compare a $20 dollar mic, for example, with a DPA or
Schoeps unless, through some amazing technological breakthrough, it actually
sounds in the same league. If you do make such a comparison between
dissimilar categories, be very specific about what aspect you think merits
comparison, why, and in what way(s) it might compare. You also must then
point out the differences so the reader draws the proper conclusion.

You can't criticize something because you personally prefer something else.
For example, it would be asinine to condemn Mozart as boring because you
prefer the Rolling Stones. Yet such stupidity occurs all the time in
reviews.

If the product is disappointing, you'd better say so or nobody will believe
you in the future. If it's a piece of junk, then say so in a diplomatic way.
My standard approach with every review is to send the text to the
manufacturer for technical corrections but, if he doesn't agree with my
conclusion, he can write a rebuttal as part of the article. In the past
fifteen years, only two people have written responses and only one of those
disagreed with my evaluation. He went out of business the following year.

Most reviews are really just free publicity for the product (and we all know
that); many products require no formal review. When one does, it is the
reviewer's responsibility to evaluate it objectively, fairly, accurately,
and in proper context. And to be very clear about what he says and why he
says it.

It also helps to have a standard rating scale (such as five stars or
specific words) so the reader may compare your evaluation to similar
products.

I read very, very few helpful mic reviews.

"Uncle Russ" Reinberg

WESTLAKE PUBLISHING COMPANY
www.finescalerr.com
WESTLAKE RECORDS
www.westlakerecords.com

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
In article , Zigakly wrote:

Maybe the reviewers need reviewing...

Absolutely! That is your job as editor!

I think in this regard you're somewhat spoiled by the rappore you have
with
Ty. Because of it you can take more advantage of his work than a typical
review. I don't think it's a reasonable expectation of reviews on such a
casual basis as the website in question.

I don't know, I can name perhaps ten reviewers for various magazines
and their basic attitudes about gear. Just from reading reviews. I
read Ty's reviews for years before I met him, and when I did finally
meet him, I had a pretty good idea of who he was and what he did.

There are many aspects to mics
that don't require such fine detail and assurance of accuracy. If user
reviews are publishable for cars, they're valid for mics to a similar
degree. Godspell? No. Useful? Sure, why not.

I wouldn't trust user reviews of cars either, personally. What is even
worse about microphones is that so many people buy them on the word of
some
reviewer without even a test drive. THAT terrifies me as a reviewer.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Uncle Russ wrote:

If the product is disappointing, you'd better say so or nobody will believe
you in the future. If it's a piece of junk, then say so in a diplomatic way.

The usual thing to say about anything that isn't really top quality is
"it's really good for the price." I suppose that with all the good
$2,000+ mics out there, you wouldn't say that about a U87, however.

What's the price above which reviewers stop making that statement? And
should those reviews be the only ones we should really care about? The
cheap stuff is getting better all the time, so I would expect that
today's $100 mic would be better than last year's $100 mic, but that it
also wouldn't be as good as any $2,000 mic that I can't afford anyway.

I guess the point of a reveiw of a low-end product is just to find out
that it doesn't completely suck, or learn about any unusual quirks that
might make it particularly unsuitable for a particular user. But to say
"it's good for male vocals and gave a nice sheen to the cymbals and a
full sound on a bass amp" is pretty meaningless.