I had an exchange of letters with a reader lately that I found thought provoking, so I thought I'd ramble on about how audio reviews work and how to read a review. But first, let's look at the actual exchange.

Uri wrote:

Hi Wes,

I'm new at this field and I'd like to learn everything related to hi-fi. I'd like to read reviews and fully understand what the reviewer is talking about (I mean technical information). Meanwhile, all I know is, "the more expensive equipment is better." So my question is, what kind of magazine would you recommend me to subscribe to? Or probably, what kind of book(s) to buy?

Thanks a lot,
Uri

And I responded:

It would be better to say "specialty" (as opposed to "more expensive") equipment is better. Many reasonably priced components offer superb performance: Creek amps, Arcam amps and CD players, the B&W DM line of speakers, Triangle Acoustics loudspeakers -- to name just a few. As for reading, I recommend the online publications GoodSound! and SoundStage! because they are good (and better yet, free). The print magazine Stereophile also is good and still covers a wide range of equipment. Bob Harley's Complete Guide to High-End Audio is still probably the best book on the basics.

Now, I feel a word of explanation is needed here. I assume that everyone who reads this site already reads SoundStage! (www.soundstage.com), so I don't need to describe its high standards, readability and reliability. I'm proud to be a Senior Editor there and, of course, I'm delighted that onhifi.com is part of the SoundStage! Network family of sites.

But what you may not realize is that, with SoundStage!'s use of the National Research Council of Canada, it's leading the way in quantifying speaker reviews with hard data -- and that its archives represent a wonderful resource for the audiophile shopper.

You also may not realize that GoodSound! (www.goodsound.com) is now part of the SoundStage! Network family (www.soundstagenetwork.com), and it's a great place to learn the basics about hi-fi. Every fortnight, GoodSound! posts a new technical tutorial (the first four have been devoted to loudspeakers), plus reviews of affordable audio gear as well as short reviews of some fascinating music -- stuff you just won't see covered elsewhere.

Do you know what a third-order crossover is? You would if you read GoodSound! And, along those lines, Robert Harley's book The Complete Guide to High End Audio is still about the best source of audio information. My only quibble with it is that I find it awkwardly organized. So, while it has everything you need to know, you might have trouble finding the information when you need it. (Years of referring to it have taught me a simple trick: Always check the Appendices if you can't find your information in the body of the book.) YMMV.

And I still think Stereophile is an essential read each month. It has the most literate writing on audio of any of the print magazines and a nifty music section to boot -- and John Atkinson's measurements have grown into the largest, most consistently reliable body of measurement of high-end components we audiophiles have. (BTW, Atkinson's AES paper "Loudspeakers: What Measurements Can Tell Us -- And What They Can't Tell Us!" AES preprint #4608 (0-5), is an essential read for any audiophile trying to make sense of the thicket of loudspeaker specs and numbers -- and don't be thrown by the fact it was an AES paper, it's awfully readable!)

So Uri responded:

Hi again,

First of all, thanks a lot for recommendations. I'm gonna buy this book. I'm a little bit disappointed that you didn't mention the NAD in the list of suggested components, because I purchased NAD's C370 integrated amp recently, based on the couple of reviews I saw on the Internet and in What Hi-Fi. Do you think this is a decent amp or should I change it for something else?

And if it's good, what kind of speakers would you recommend for it ?

Thank you very much,
Uri

Well, I do like the NAD C370, as it so happens, although I wonder why Uri didn't mention it in the first place. I have great affection for NAD precisely because the company remembers the audiophile on a budget and always offers a few products like the C370 that are aimed at passionate music lovers without a lot of cash.

But Uri's response got me thinking about the way people respond to advice. 'Cause you see, if Uri's a newbie, then he doesn't know me from Adam's off-ox. I'd like to think I've earned a reputation over the years, but if Uri's just getting into the hobby, he can't be expected to know that -- so as far as he's concerned, I'm just some guy with a website. Why should he care if I like the NAD or not?

And how can you tell if a reviewer, any reviewer can be trusted?

A good reviewer puts everything on the table. That's why I always list the equipment I used to come to my conclusions -- if you wanted to, you could put together the same system I used and listen to the same recordings I listened to (which I also always list) to see if you agreed with me. I don't really expect many people to go to such lengths, but I list all the associated gear and describe the recording I listened to as a means of giving you a window into my thinking. If you've heard my reference amp, say, and think it sounds awful, you might not agree with my assessment. The same is true if our tastes in music are widely divergent.

The reason I describe the musical selections I play in a review is that it gives me a chance to comment on aspects of musical reproduction that I think are important. If you value other aspects of musical sound, you may find my priorities odd -- beside the point, even.

Many reviews -- and reviewers -- keep you in the dark about all this. I tend to dismiss them out of hand because those reviews leave out all the important information I need to know.

I have a dear sweet friend who is a prominent reviewer and with whom I have almost never agreed in the fifteen odd years I have known him. Yet people read him all the time and make buying decisions for really expensive components based upon his reviews. If we both violently disagree as to the merits of a specific component, doesn't one of us have to be wrong?

Not necessarily.

As I say, I don't agree with my friend's conclusions, but that in itself doesn't make him a bad reviewer. When he writes, he describes the system he uses, just as I do. He also describes the recordings he uses, just as I do. And he describes which aspects of those recordings he found telling -- again something we have in common. So I reckon he gives his readers all the information they need to make their decisions.

If a reader found his taste in music off-putting -- or disagreed with what he found valuable musically, he'd probably not put a lot of trust in my friend's conclusions. But he'd have all the information he needed to figure that out from the review. And the same is true for anyone reading me, I hope.

Finding specific reviewers you can trust to listen the way you do -- and to value what you do -- takes time. But it can pay off in the long run.

But beware the reviewer who likes to keep things general! I don't trust this, because one thing I've learned is that every component is an individual and has specific faults and good points. The worst possible review, in my opinion, is one that doesn't tell you anything you couldn't have guessed already, before having actually heard the product. I call this a "didn't open the box" review and a surprising number of reviewers are guilty of them.

A review should have its surprises. Does anybody really need to read a Krell review that has nothing to say beyond "Built like a brick outhouse?" It's not that I consider it unimportant -- it's just that after twenty years in the business, what would be newsworthy about Krell build quality is a product that lacked it. A review that can't get beyond that obvious detail is a wasted opportunity -- for the reviewer and the reader.

One of my favorite reviews was Tom Norton's piece on one of McIntosh's multichannel processors. He loved the unit -- as had every other reviewer who had covered it -- BUT he noticed that when he watched Star Trek: The Next Generation, the deep bass thrum that characterized the Enterprise's normal background noise came out distorted. McIntosh discovered that every unit they'd made did the same and instituted an in-field fix.

I love this story for a bunch of reasons, not least that the intrepid reviewer unmasked the unit's flaw and got it fixed for everyone. But I also love it because Tom actually watched TNG every week; he wasn't using some audiophile-approved source material or some exotic "test" disc. He was just using the product the way a buyer would, watching his favorite shows, examining the new movies that came his way, and just generally putting it through its paces.

If Tom had a sonic checklist or a regular series of film scenes chosen for their image quality or subwoofer excursion, he wouldn't have found that flaw. And that review would have been just one more "great job" attaboy, rather than the memorable review it was.

Because this ain't exactly rocket science. The most successful reviewers, in my opinion, aren't necessarily the ones with the best hearing, and they're not the ones who were the best musicians (or I'd have never gotten the gig), they're the ones who still have an obvious love of music and music reproducing equipment and do the best job of explaining exactly what it's like to live with the item under review.

Oh yeah, there's another aspect to the whole thing. Reviews ought to be fun to read. The most factually correct opinion in the world won't do much for me if it's boring. Take Tom's McIntosh review, for instance -- one reason I remember it is that I recognized a fellow nerd who stayed home on Saturday nights just to watch the gang save the galaxy one more time. It's not because I bought the product, for goodness sake. I have a Denon receiver that cost a tenth as much as the McIntosh. And I wasn't reading the review in the first place because of any interest in that particular component -- I was reading because I knew that Tom would amuse me while telling the truth.