|
|
Post by housetech on Feb 17, 2022 11:25:12 GMT -5
I find Danny, the owner & engineer @ GR Research very informative. He did a video trying to get some facts out to the public about youtube "reviewers". Some of the snowflakes took offense to his factual criticism of them. (po babies). Listen-up snowflakes, things in audio are not always black and white, but can be gray areas and your opinions are not FACTS. What was attempted in his original video was to get consistency and scientific factual baselines for our hobby- AUDIO. Some youtube reviewers are a joke, don't have a clue what they're babbling about and provide no help for consumers. (they're just trying to make a $buck) Then there are the magazine "reviewers" who get paid (through advertising) by the same companies who's equipment they review- oh, no conflict there. There are the youtube "comparators" who shoot a video of two different products and someone is supposed to hear the difference in a room that has unknown acoustics, questionable mics, compressed audio tracks, played on a PC with crap audio. Oh, that's pure genius. Those same folks call GR Research snake-oil. ah hahahaha. Do I always agree with all of Danny's conclusions? No. But he's an engineer with decades of experimentation and proven standards based in science and I respect him for that. As someone on this forum states factually and often, "inaudible" is that, inaudible and all the oscilloscope & sound analyzers postings still doesn't make it audible to the human ear. Danny did a video of speaker wires connected to a receiver's antenna terminal to make a point about RF inductance that can interfere with sound quality, it's a scientific fact. The clueless didn't understand the purpose of the video.- RF exist in the real world. Do I have $10/ft OFC, pure silver or twisted pair speaker wires that may improve the signal or reduce interference? NO. That is just an example of what he's trying to educate people about- the sum of all parts can make a difference in their audio quality. Most of us on this forum know for a fact that the quality of components in spkr crossovers do make a difference and we know some they use cheap components- a price point to sell. I like to watch PS Audio also. I watch Andrew Robinson and like his bang for the buck approach. The more information I get from various sources, the better decision I can make for my budget. What I don't like are people on youtube who haven't a clue, no education attempting to make a $buck pretending to be audio experts to those who are trying to learn. For the record, I'm looking at one of GR's speaker designs to purchase. So... who did I offend, let's get this battle going.  |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 17, 2022 13:48:56 GMT -5
OK - I'll bite. First, the idea of a reviewer doing reviews for the purpose of making money is absurd. The YouTube guys normally don't get paid AT ALL. The magazine journalists may or may not make a living writing audio reviews (I'm guessing that most of them have another "real" job that pays the bills). The hourly rate for audio writing is somewhere between zero and $5/hour. So the idea that any reviewer would give preferential reviews for that amount of money is just plain silly.
The vast majority of people who write about audio are just enthusiasts who review audio equipment because they like audio equipment. Are some of them brain dead? Of course - the population of audio reviewers is no different in distribution than that of the general public. Some reviews are obviously over enthusiastic, some are limited by the experience (or its lack) of the reviewer, some are biased, and some are just plain dumb.
However, I still think that there is value in reviews (YouTube or otherwise). Once the reader (viewer) learns the biases and preferences of a specific reviewer, then there is value in the reviews (even if you think them wrong). My local newspaper once had a movie critic who had obviously escaped from New York or some other similar cultural venue. One of my co-workers said he LOVED to read the critic's movie reviews because if the critic absolutely hated a specific movie, coworker knew that he'd absolutely love it. So the critic served a valuable service to my coworker despite the fact that he found the critic to be profoundly wrong in his reviewing.
A smart reviewer tries to differentiate the facts from his opinions. But even the best reviewer can be wrong (clairvoyance costs extra).
Pace!
Boomzilla (aka Glenn Young from Secrets of Home Theater & High Fidelity website)
Postscriptum -
Having watched the entirety of the initial video:
An open letter to Danny R. of GR Research regarding his “Calling Out Reviewers” video:
Sir -
To take the comments of your video on a point-by-point basis:
You call out reviewers for continuously finding products “the latest and the greatest.” I’d reply that over the past decades there HAS been continuous improvement in audio gear. It is reasonable to expect progress to be reflected in reviews. Does every month introduce a new and better product (as one sometimes feels from continuous exposure to audio reviews)? No. But there is a continuous upward trend in audio performance. Audio reviews reflect this.
You comment that often manufacturers purchase review + advertising packages with the expectation of receiving rave reviews. Although manufacturers may purchase such packages there is no iron-clad guarantee that the resulting review will be highly enthusiastic. After all, it isn’t the reviewer who is getting the money, it’s the website or magazine. Have some less than enthusiastic reviews been cancelled because the manufacturer was an advertiser? For sure. But the reviewer, again, isn’t to blame.
You claim that “reviewers don’t write bad reviews.” You’re wrong. Reviewers do, but their magazine or website just doesn’t normally publish them. I’d also point out that the manufacturers rarely submit equipment for review that they don’t think worthy of a positive review. So reviewers typically receive “the cream of the crop” to review – not the dogs of the manufacturer’s line.
And now to the most egregious of your claims – you say that reviewers get extended equipment loans and discount prices from manufacturers and then make money through the resale of the equipment. I don’t know how you get that idea, but in almost a decade of reviewing audio equipment, I’ve been offered an extended loan but twice and discount prices rarely. I turned down the one of the two extended loans because I wanted to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Once or twice I have purchased equipment that I thought I wanted to keep, but my wife disagreed. I ended up selling that gear at the price that I paid for it (or, in one case, less). So I don’t think that this is a valid claim. Your video implies that reviewers “work for the manufacturers” in hopes of making a profit reselling equipment, and that selling ads on YouTube is somehow more valid. I question this assertion.
You criticize YouTube reviewers for using cheap equipment, for not having room treatment, and for not having “reference systems” for comparison purposes. But consider the audience: How many YouTube watchers have expensive equipment, treated rooms, and reference systems? The YouTube reviewer, in this case, describes a listening experience that is FAR more typical of that which the viewer will actually experience. Yes, a treated room and reference-quality review components may give more insight into what a component is ultimately capable of, but what percentage of YouTube review watchers will ever be able to experience that? Most YouTube viewers do NOT have treated rooms, expensive associated equipment, or great setup expertise. So the YouTube reviewer, despite not hearing what a review component is capable of under ideal circumstances, gives a far more fair and honest description of what the potential purchaser will hear in their own home.
That said, I agree that an experienced reviewer should have experience with good equipment in good rooms so as to know what is possible. But I think that your “calling out” of YouTube reviewers (the vast majority of whom are unpaid enthusiasts) is unfair and unrealistic.
Glenn Young
|
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Feb 17, 2022 18:19:28 GMT -5
Youtubers make their money off of # of subscribers, superchat sessions, ads and a few other things - true for all Youtube content creators from Pewdiepie on down. If they have a big enough following, they could make pretty good dough. Far more than a traditional audiophile reviewer.
|
|
|
|
Post by brutiarti on Feb 17, 2022 18:35:05 GMT -5
Youtubers make their money off of # of subscribers, superchat sessions, ads and a few other things - true for all Youtube content creators from Pewdiepie on down. If they have a big enough following, they could make pretty good dough. Far more than a traditional audiophile reviewer. 1M suscribers bring around 200K a year for a youtuber. |
|
|
|
Post by DavidR on Feb 17, 2022 19:38:00 GMT -5
Danny deals in a lot of audio 'voodoo'. Just sayin'
He also only took one year of college before becoming 'the word' on speakers and ancillary equipment.
That being said he does get a lot right.
|
|
|
|
Post by donh50 on Feb 17, 2022 20:55:56 GMT -5
...And a lot wrong... I am not sure his engineering credentials, seems like he picked up on speaker design but lacks a sound foundation in some of the fundamentals based upon other videos I have seen and/or read about. I did not click this one, too much else going on, not enough interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Feb 17, 2022 21:23:15 GMT -5
...And a lot wrong... I am not sure his engineering credentials, seems like he picked up on speaker design but lacks a sound foundation in some of the fundamentals based upon other videos I have seen and/or read about. I did not click this one, too much else going on, not enough interest. Any specifics? What are your credentials? |
|
|
|
Post by donh50 on Feb 17, 2022 22:19:37 GMT -5
...And a lot wrong... I am not sure his engineering credentials, seems like he picked up on speaker design but lacks a sound foundation in some of the fundamentals based upon other videos I have seen and/or read about. I did not click this one, too much else going on, not enough interest. Any specifics? What are your credentials? No, look at some of his videos from an engineering perspective. There have been numerous threads on other sites over the years. I don't keep up. My day job for the past few decades has been as a degreed EE designing analog and mixed-signal ICs at the transistor level, more recently helping to design and test high-speed SerDes circuits. Most of my career since college has been in the RF/mW world, not audio, and I have almost nil experience designing speakers though have done a few in the past. |
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Feb 17, 2022 23:49:09 GMT -5
Any specifics? What are your credentials? No, look at some of his videos from an engineering perspective. There have been numerous threads on other sites over the years. I don't keep up. My day job for the past few decades has been as a degreed EE designing analog and mixed-signal ICs at the transistor level, more recently helping to design and test high-speed SerDes circuits. Most of my career since college has been in the RF/mW world, not audio, and I have almost nil experience designing speakers though have done a few in the past. You have no specifics, yet you insinuate that you do? Now you say you don’t keep up and you have no credentials related to Danny Richie’s work?You owe Danny a public apology. |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Feb 18, 2022 5:59:36 GMT -5
Maybe time to ease up on Donh50, who does in fact appear to have a deep understanding of all this....
|
|
|
|
Post by donh50 on Feb 18, 2022 7:42:10 GMT -5
No, look at some of his videos from an engineering perspective. There have been numerous threads on other sites over the years. I don't keep up. My day job for the past few decades has been as a degreed EE designing analog and mixed-signal ICs at the transistor level, more recently helping to design and test high-speed SerDes circuits. Most of my career since college has been in the RF/mW world, not audio, and I have almost nil experience designing speakers though have done a few in the past. You have no specifics, yet you insinuate that you do? Now you say you don’t keep up and you have no credentials related to Danny Richie’s work?You owe Danny a public apology. I don't see any point in going back and reviewing every vid, blog, post whatever. This has been going on for years and no I do not watch every video, am not a subscriber, etc. What I have seen I question since there have been fundamental errors, why should I spend my time watching more stuff I feel is inaccurate? I don't remember every detail, just not important to me. Life's too short. My quibbles have nothing to do with the details of speaker design, just basic theory and practice. If you know the science and engineering it is obvious, but without such a knowledge base it is impossible to tell, so you rely on experts you trust. Now and then I find an article on Wikipedia that has some fundamental flaws, and it makes me wonder how many other articles about subjects (about which I do not have years of experience) have some details wrong. Meh. There is a wealth of information on the 'net, some great, some not so much. Nor do I have any interest in posting all my info online -- there's enough ID theft going around without me helping (been there, done that). Besides, how would I prove it? Post my degrees, my CV, pictures of me at work? I encourage you to look at other sources of information, compare for yourself, and decide what you want to believe. I learned long ago, when I first worked in audio(*), that most do not understand the technical details and have no interest in doing so, particularly if it is counter to their beliefs. I was no different and my first few years of blind listening tests and measurements were revealing and very humbling. I am sure I am no more immune to bias now, it is just in different areas. Regards - Don (*) I have had a life-long interest in audio and audio circuits, but my career took a different path. Does not make me ignorant of basic physics. |
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Feb 18, 2022 12:05:54 GMT -5
I love YouTube, but for another purpose. YouTube is in my “Toolbox”.
Case in point, (2) capacitors showed up in my mailbox yesterday, but not for an amplifier.
I have 2 garage door openers and one of them crapped out in the beginning of the week.
Using YouTube and seeing redundancy in multiple videos, I had certainty that I had a capacitor failure.
Within 20 minutes of the mailman showing up….my garage door was running again.
|
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Feb 18, 2022 12:51:55 GMT -5
You have no specifics, yet you insinuate that you do? Now you say you don’t keep up and you have no credentials related to Danny Richie’s work?You owe Danny a public apology. I don't see any point in going back and reviewing every vid, blog, post whatever. This has been going on for years and no I do not watch every video, am not a subscriber, etc. What I have seen I question since there have been fundamental errors, why should I spend my time watching more stuff I feel is inaccurate? I don't remember every detail, just not important to me. Life's too short. My quibbles have nothing to do with the details of speaker design, just basic theory and practice. If you know the science and engineering it is obvious, but without such a knowledge base it is impossible to tell, so you rely on experts you trust. Now and then I find an article on Wikipedia that has some fundamental flaws, and it makes me wonder how many other articles about subjects (about which I do not have years of experience) have some details wrong. Meh. There is a wealth of information on the 'net, some great, some not so much. Nor do I have any interest in posting all my info online -- there's enough ID theft going around without me helping (been there, done that). Besides, how would I prove it? Post my degrees, my CV, pictures of me at work? I encourage you to look at other sources of information, compare for yourself, and decide what you want to believe. I learned long ago, when I first worked in audio(*), that most do not understand the technical details and have no interest in doing so, particularly if it is counter to their beliefs. I was no different and my first few years of blind listening tests and measurements were revealing and very humbling. I am sure I am no more immune to bias now, it is just in different areas. Regards - Don (*) I have had a life-long interest in audio and audio circuits, but my career took a different path. Does not make me ignorant of basic physics. Still, not one specific. Nothing. Just a general condemnation that means nothing since it cannot be addressed. Convenient. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Feb 18, 2022 12:54:43 GMT -5
I don't see any point in going back and reviewing every vid, blog, post whatever. This has been going on for years and no I do not watch every video, am not a subscriber, etc. What I have seen I question since there have been fundamental errors, why should I spend my time watching more stuff I feel is inaccurate? I don't remember every detail, just not important to me. Life's too short. My quibbles have nothing to do with the details of speaker design, just basic theory and practice. If you know the science and engineering it is obvious, but without such a knowledge base it is impossible to tell, so you rely on experts you trust. Now and then I find an article on Wikipedia that has some fundamental flaws, and it makes me wonder how many other articles about subjects (about which I do not have years of experience) have some details wrong. Meh. There is a wealth of information on the 'net, some great, some not so much. Nor do I have any interest in posting all my info online -- there's enough ID theft going around without me helping (been there, done that). Besides, how would I prove it? Post my degrees, my CV, pictures of me at work? I encourage you to look at other sources of information, compare for yourself, and decide what you want to believe. I learned long ago, when I first worked in audio(*), that most do not understand the technical details and have no interest in doing so, particularly if it is counter to their beliefs. I was no different and my first few years of blind listening tests and measurements were revealing and very humbling. I am sure I am no more immune to bias now, it is just in different areas. Regards - Don (*) I have had a life-long interest in audio and audio circuits, but my career took a different path. Does not make me ignorant of basic physics. Still, not one specific. Nothing. Just a general condemnation that means nothing since it cannot be addressed. Convenient. Probably Danny's RF claims are the suspect ones. Don is a technical expert AFAIK. |
|
|
|
Post by donh50 on Feb 18, 2022 13:12:03 GMT -5
Still, not one specific. Nothing. Just a general condemnation that means nothing since it cannot be addressed. Convenient. If you have a physics or electrical engineering background, you can see for yourself. I have not the time to teach college courses online, or review old material already shown to be erroneous. It is simply not worth it to me to go back and dredge up old videos and nitpick them to satisfy your distrust. I don't know if you have extensive technical background and feel Danny is correct in all his previous videos, or simply feel he is more credible than I based on what you believe. If the former, then we can debate the technical details, but again I am not willing to spend my time dredging up old videos and wading through them. It has been done by many people on other fora in the past. Currently you could check out ASR (https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php), as I think there are a few threads there, and I contribute on ASR now and then. If the latter, then there is really no point in arguing, as you will believe whom you choose, purely a personal choice. |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Feb 18, 2022 13:24:23 GMT -5
Still, not one specific. Nothing. Just a general condemnation that means nothing since it cannot be addressed. Convenient. If you have a physics or electrical engineering background, you can see for yourself. I have not the time to teach college courses online, or review old material already shown to be erroneous. It is simply not worth it to me to go back and dredge up old videos and nitpick them to satisfy your distrust. I don't know if you have extensive technical background and feel Danny is correct in all his previous videos, or simply feel he is more credible than I based on what you believe. If the former, then we can debate the technical details, but again I am not willing to spend my time dredging up old videos and wading through them. It has been done by many people on other fora in the past. Currently you could check out ASR (https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php), as I think there are a few threads there, and I contribute on ASR now and then. If the latter, then there is really no point in arguing, as you will believe whom you choose, purely a personal choice. In the interest of maybe having some resolution here, would you mind posting an example of Danny's credibility or lack thereof? I understand you don't have the time or inclination to go back and review everything, but one example that has specifics as to why his claim(s) are erroneous would be helpful. |
|
|
|
Post by donh50 on Feb 18, 2022 13:42:50 GMT -5
In the interest of maybe having some resolution here, would you mind posting an example of Danny's credibility or lack thereof? I understand you don't have the time or inclination to go back and review everything, but one example that has specifics as to why his claim(s) are erroneous would be helpful. Here are some threads on ASR -- I have not looked at these, they just popped up with a quick search: www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/a-new-argument-for-speaker-cables.28561/#post-993050www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/gr-research.26853/www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/tube-connectors-wtf.27053/#post-928197www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/trusting-audio-companies-that-dont-submit-products-for-3rd-party-testing.30877/#post-1088238www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/a-new-argument-for-speaker-cables.28561/#post-993050www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/gr-research-reputation.12880/www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/speaker-designer-danny-richie-gr-research-directly-attacks-asr.20510/And so forth... There is a lot of back and forth in the threads, with people for and against Danny's claims, like anyplace else. Danny does hit back at ASR and other technical sites at times, and he has done some good things from what I read, but a number of statements contradict what I see as valid engineering, physics, science. All IMO, of course, and in the opinion of a number of experts whom I respect. I don't expect any of that to sway anyone either way; you'll believe or not, and choose for yourself who is credible. Clearly, it will not be me for the OP. HTH - Don |
|
|
|
Post by DavidR on Feb 18, 2022 14:00:01 GMT -5
What of Danny's dislike for PVC jacketed internal crossover wires that he seems to think are all under sized. I've never heard why he dislikes PVC. I do know that all the AR audio engineers, who are graduates of MIT, calculated the gauge and length of the crossover harness wires to the design. Danny would find them inadequate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 18, 2022 14:15:46 GMT -5
I find both ASR and GR Research to be good sources of information. What info I can't use or that I disagree with, I just ignore (unless it later shows signs of truth that I missed on the first pass). For examples:
ASR standardizes their amplifier testing at 5W. Mose people listen at 1W or less (which is where I think tests should be made), but it is what it is. I'm OK with 5W.
GSR doesn't like the wires in most speakers. I don't think they much matter. But I'm OK with their replacements.
NEITHER the ASR guy nor the GR Research owner are dumb, uneducated, or malicious. In fact, I welcome their info, even if it's occasionally imperfect. And it's fair to say that I learn things from both.
So thanks, Danny and Amir - I appreciate you both!
|
|
|
|
Post by DavidR on Feb 18, 2022 14:32:36 GMT -5
I find both ASR and GR Research to be good sources of information. What info I can't use or that I disagree with, I just ignore (unless it later shows signs of truth that I missed on the first pass). For examples: ASR standardizes their amplifier testing at 5W. Mose people listen at 1W or less (which is where I think tests should be made), but it is what it is. I'm OK with 5W. GSR doesn't like the wires in most speakers. I don't think they much matter. But I'm OK with their replacements. NEITHER the ASR guy nor the GR Research owner are dumb, uneducated, or malicious. In fact, I welcome their info, even if it's occasionally imperfect. And it's fair to say that I learn things from both. So thanks, Danny and Amir - I appreciate you both! It has to do with resistance. Too big is as bad or worse than too small. |
|
