You can give someone a job as a reviewer, but you can't make them speak plainly...

I'm with Wombat on this one - for years it's felt as if there's a bland, corporate friendly 'niceness' that washes over SOS reviews. Whether that's down to writers feeling inhibited due to instruction from on high to maintain a certain house style, or they just don't have the desire to write any other way, who knows? Much of the time though, reading a review, it just doesn't feel as if there's a human being with genuine feelings and an actual opinion, behind the words - which is surprising, because so much of the other writing in SOS is top notch in this respect. Compare this to, say, the reviews in TapeOp magazine, and it's like night and day - there's almost always a sense of an engaged, alive 'user' of the product being reviewed, who writes in much the same way as they might speak about their thoughts. Not some toned down, 'hedge your bets' code that hints at trouble ahead but dares not speak of it aloud.

Quote chirpychirpycheepcheep:

---

I'm with Wombat on this one - for years it's felt as if there's a bland, corporate friendly 'niceness' that washes over SOS reviews.

---

The editorial style of SOS, and the honesty of its reviews, hasn't changed in 26 years so there's nothing I can do if you don't appreciate what we continue to offer. I enjoy Tape Op magazine too, but I often find myself wondering if some of the reviewers even understand the product they are reviewing!

Each to their own I guess.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

FWIW - this perpetual newbie, rightly or wrongly, hasn't gotten the impression that the SOS "Caution: Proceed at your own risk" description of a product is witheld on any basis that would imply bias or a pattern of inappropriate censoring. I'll usually look for something "not quite so excellent" to be expressed in VERY polite phrasing, sort of what dear Aunt Matilda would say when she doesn't like someone, "Bless her heart, she tries so very hard, but sometimes ...".

As a timely example, there was actually a review in the last month or two, phrasing of which put me off buying it: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr12/articles/zoom-r8.htm

The key phrases I noticed were:

1) "Ultimately, the R8 is a better eight-track digital recorder and stereo interface than it is a controller, and there are drum machines and samplers that have more controls and are easier to use ...", and

2) "Unfortunately, it isn’t possible to drag and drop loops and patterns into place — as many of us are now used to doing with computer software — so setting up rhythm tracks quickly and efficiently takes practice. For some, it will seem like performing keyhole surgery,...", and

3) "Studying the R8’s features a little more closely, it is the rhythm and sampling tools that look like the ones most users will find the hardest to get to grips with, as they require the most editing and forethought .... ", and

4) "It would be useful to have more audio editing tools onboard. ...", and

5) "CONS:
- Can’t compete with a dedicated control surface.
- Rhythm sequencer and sampler don’t have dedicated tracks.
- Hardly any audio editing tools and no automation.
- As a controller/interface, may not work with every setup."

It wasn't a total trashing of the device, but I didn't think it pulled any punches either (though expressed in that exquisite British politeness). And like dear Aunt Matilda, I get the impression that, as IF out of politeness, the reviewers will often strive to say SOMETHING nice about the product, even if only "one would have to look far and wide to find a more attractive door-stop than this product!" (OK, I exaggerate somewhat, maybe). But, the point being, this review is just one of several I recall reading that, at least from my very technically unsophisticated point of view, make me think there is no systemic bias towards withholding negative comments/reviews.

Counterpoint: Cubase is the product reviewed in SOS that I have the most experience with, and my impression is there is enough under-reporting of potential negatives in Cubase reviews as to make it seem predictable. For example, I don't think the detrimental changes to the comping system introduced in Cubase 6.00, and perpetuated through (the current version of) 6.07, were addressed in enough detail in the initial Cubase 6 review - though it was written while using version 6.03 or thereabouts (at a time the Cubase forum was exploding about the subject). A suggestion, FWIW, to make these reviews more helpful would be for the authors to a) peruse the Cubase forum prior to writing the review, b) do their own independent evaluation of the usual "the world is ending" gloom and doom "bug" reports found there soon after every release, and c) spend a bit more ink on the problems that are real, perhaps even offering workarounds. And, even if these things aren't all identified at the time of the initial review (I don't envy someone having to summarize a complex DAW program in XXX words or less!), why not do so in the little grey boxes that appear in subsequent "Cubase Techniques" columns?

Finally - the other purchase I've made that have been reviewed positively by SOS have performed stellarly in my non-power user experience (M-Audio Omni I/O Delta 66 package; Motif 8; TC Helicon Voice One hardware box; RNC; Carillon AC-1 Core 3 computer) - no hint of technical inadequacies swept under the rug for the purpose of a nice review, as far as I can tell.

Please understand my purpose in posting all this is not to contradict other people's impressions or experience ... everyone has their own viewpoint to be respected ... simply to join the conversation and put in my two cents' worth of experience.

Thanks!

Edited by Hugh Robjohns (09/04/12 11:35 AM)

Quote johnny h:

---

Quote Exalted Wombat:

---

Well, sort of. Here's the summing up from one of the quoted reviews.

"The bottom line is that this is a fine-sounding system, with good onboard effects and processors, which offers a number of unique advantages in a live performance situation. However, I feel that there are a number of significant ergonomic shortcomings which will need to be addressed before it becomes a serious contender in the recording sector of the market.".

Read that as "this is a great live mixer".

A long way short of "this is a turkey".

---

Perhaps you should brush up on your reading skills. Its says the user interface has 'significant ergonomic shortcomings'. And because of them it cannot be considered a 'serious contender' in the market. For a mixer that is a quite a major failing.

---

Brush up on your own! You're ignoring the half that doesn't suit you. The review says it has "unique advantages" as a live mixer. So it wasn't suited to recording. Lots of mixers aren't. That doesn't describe it as a turkey. Even if it was one.

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

I enjoy Tape Op magazine too, but I often find myself wondering if some of the reviewers even understand the product they are reviewing!

---

Oh, Tape Op can be fun, but they're firmly stuck at the magic-cable green-pen audiophool end of the recording trade. At least they seem to have let up a bit on the affectation of printing tiny grey-on-grey text. Perhaps the owner has got old enough to use glasses. I knew I was getting old when I started needing a magnifier to read Viz :-)

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

You can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink...

Hugh

---

Indeed. But when you're leading him to rancid water, you could make it slightly more clear!

Quote Exalted Wombat:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

Quote Exalted Wombat:

---

Well, sort of. Here's the summing up from one of the quoted reviews.

"The bottom line is that this is a fine-sounding system, with good onboard effects and processors, which offers a number of unique advantages in a live performance situation. However, I feel that there are a number of significant ergonomic shortcomings which will need to be addressed before it becomes a serious contender in the recording sector of the market.".

Read that as "this is a great live mixer".

A long way short of "this is a turkey".

---

Perhaps you should brush up on your reading skills. Its says the user interface has 'significant ergonomic shortcomings'. And because of them it cannot be considered a 'serious contender' in the market. For a mixer that is a quite a major failing.

---

Brush up on your own! You're ignoring the half that doesn't suit you. The review says it has "unique advantages" as a live mixer. So it wasn't suited to recording. Lots of mixers aren't. That doesn't describe it as a turkey. Even if it was one.

---

It is a balanced conclusion that expresses the advantages and disadvantages of the product. The advantages are presented fairly but certainly not in glowing terms and it all ends on a quite negative note. If you read it as 'this is a great live mixer' then I'd have to guess English isn't your first language.

The fact that the product was withdrawn within months suggests a large majority of people were able to correctly comprehend the meaning of the conclusion. If you still don't get it, I'd suggest sticking to Future Music - they do marks out of 10.

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Quote chirpychirpycheepcheep:

---

I'm with Wombat on this one - for years it's felt as if there's a bland, corporate friendly 'niceness' that washes over SOS reviews.

---

The editorial style of SOS, and the honesty of its reviews, hasn't changed in 26 years so there's nothing I can do if you don't appreciate what we continue to offer. I enjoy Tape Op magazine too, but I often find myself wondering if some of the reviewers even understand the product they are reviewing!

Each to their own I guess.

hugh

---

Admitting that the mindset of the magazine is stuck in 1986, speaks volumes, Hugh - it's possible you've inadvertently highlighted the root cause of what some folk find so tiresome about many SOS reviews. 26 years is a long time - certainly enough to get institutionalised to the point where an organization does things a certain way for no other reason than 'we've always done them this way' - blind to the fact that the world has turned, and readers expectations of how and what a review communicates might have changed.

Can you recommend any TapeOp reviews which fall short of an 'acceptable' standard?  In light of this discussion, it'd be interesting to go back and reread them.

Nothing wrong with 1986 Chirps!

I too find SoS reviews sometimes a bit cloying but that is due to "style" not era.

The reviews of its predecessor Studio Sound were generally more hard hitting. The likes of Terry Long and Hugh Ford were not ones to mince words! Their style also seemed more "detached" as did that of the reviewers in the earlier days of Hi Fi News but then, for example in Feb 1975 Angus McKenzie could take 3 whole pages to cover the Technics RS676US cassette recorder!

It just happens to be at hand but in 2009 Matt Houghton covered the vastly more complex Liquid Saffire 56 in barely two pages! And not a specs' table or response graph to be seen.

Dave.

Quote chirpychirpycheepcheep:

---

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

The editorial style of SOS, and the honesty of its reviews, hasn't changed in 26 years so there's nothing I can do if you don't appreciate what we continue to offer. I enjoy Tape Op magazine too, but I often find myself wondering if some of the reviewers even understand the product they are reviewing!

Each to their own I guess.

hugh

---

Admitting that the mindset of the magazine is stuck in 1986, speaks volumes, Hugh - it's possible you've inadvertently highlighted the root cause of what some folk find so tiresome about many SOS reviews. 26 years is a long time - certainly enough to get institutionalised to the point where an organization does things a certain way for no other reason than 'we've always done them this way' - blind to the fact that the world has turned, and readers expectations of how and what a review communicates might have changed.

---

You are being incredibly vague here. Exactly how have the basics of reviewing changed in 26 years? Sound and sound are always on the forefront of new technology and are the first to report on things like digital recording, computers, plugins, iPad apps etc.

If I want to know what a bloke down the pub thinks about a product I'll ask a bloke down the pub. If I want a detailed and balanced evaluation of every aspect of a product then I can rely on sound on sound. The consistent style makes it easy to compare different products even if they are released many years or even decades apart.

Funny things forums. You post about something contentious like the Health & Social Care bill and it disappears without even causing a ripple. Ask a simple question & you trigger a critique of the entire magazine!

I don't really have a problem with the style or veracity of the reviews. I just think that generally the content is biased towards high-end gear, in the sense that cost often seems to equate to the amount of space devoted to a product. I realise in some cases that simply reflects the complexity of the item.

But I do think some reviewers have lost their sense of perspective in relation to cost. I appeciate it must be difficult enthusing about a product at the lower end of the market once you've left that sector behind you. Other than the odd little gem that appears from time to time it's going to feel like a chore, and sometimes that's how it comes across. It's like asking a Mercedes driver to evaluate two Kia's, he'll probably have an opinion, but he won't really be thinking of either as an investment. Perhaps the enthusiasm of a couple of less experienced reviewers who haven't been there, done that, and don't need to invest in the things which clients 'expect' to see would freshen things up?

My CV's in the post

DM

--------------------
Not much in life worth running for. Or from.

Quote chirpychirpycheepcheep:

---

Admitting that the mindset of the magazine is stuck in 1986, speaks volumes, Hugh - it's possible you've inadvertently highlighted the root cause of what some folk find so tiresome about many SOS reviews.

---

I feel sorry that you appear to believe honesty, integrity and accuracy are old fashioned values. I am at something of a loss as to why, if you find the magazine content so 'tiresome', you remain so enthusiastic to voice your negative opinions on the SOS forums as frequently as you do.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote chirpychirpycheepcheep:

---

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

The editorial style of SOS, and the honesty of its reviews, hasn't changed in 26 years

---

Admitting that the mindset of the magazine is stuck in 1986, speaks volumes, Hugh

---

Now, that's just wordplay! "Style" may have been the wrong word. But there's nothing wrong with starting out with a policy of fair reviewing and sticking to it, for 2, 26 or 200 years.

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Quote chirpychirpycheepcheep:

---

Admitting that the mindset of the magazine is stuck in 1986, speaks volumes, Hugh - it's possible you've inadvertently highlighted the root cause of what some folk find so tiresome about many SOS reviews.

---

I feel sorry that you appear to believe honesty, integrity and accuracy are old fashioned values. I am at something of a loss as to why, if you find the magazine content so 'tiresome', you remain so enthusiastic to voice your negative opinions on the SOS forums as frequently as you do.

hugh

---

You can dick around with the semantics of my post to your heart's content, Hugh, but you'll struggle to find me calling into question the 'honesty, integrity and accuracy' of the magazine - instead of re-imagining my post's blether to suit your purpose, direct your attention to the 'readers expectations of how and what a review communicates might have changed' bit, and you'll find yourself in the same ballpark as your own 'old fashioned' bit.

It's a tad worrying that you find yourself confused as to why I'm posting an opinion about SOS here. Have you forgotten where you are? This is the 'SOS Forums' part of the site! The place that positively encourages users to:

'Discuss, suggest, offer opinions, critique and help improve the magazine, website and forums, so they deliver what YOU want to see.'

(Technically, of course, this thread is in the 'SOS Support Forum' but I think we can all agree that the balance of this thread has moved firmly into 'Magazine, Website & Forum Feedback' territory - only a pedant could believe otherwise. )

Now, all I am doing (along with other posters), is offering critique that might help improve the SOS 'experience', so that you can deliver what WE want to see. The fact that you're so quick to get on the defensive and pooh pooh folk's opinions out of hand suggests that either you as an individual are quite happy to run roughshod over SOS's well meant intentions, or SOS itself is quite insincere in declaring it's wish to hear opinions and critique from users. Which ever it is, it's a very poor show - very poor.

You do realise that when you solicit views and suggestions from people about a subject, that some of those views and suggestions might run contrary to what you want to hear? It's a tough concept to deal with, I know, but....... ah well, you'll work it out sooner or later.

Quote chirpychirpycheepcheep:

---

You can dick around with the semantics of my post to your heart's content, Hugh, but you'll struggle to find me calling into question the 'honesty, integrity and accuracy' of the magazine - instead of re-imagining my post's blether to suit your purpose, direct your attention to the 'readers expectations of how and what a review communicates might have changed' bit, and you'll find yourself in the same ballpark as your own 'old fashioned' bit

...

Now, all I am doing (along with other posters), is offering critique that might help improve the SOS 'experience', so that you can deliver what WE want to see. The fact that you're so quick to get on the defensive and pooh pooh folk's opinions out of hand suggests that either you as an individual are quite happy to run roughshod over SOS's well meant intentions, or SOS itself is quite insincere in declaring it's wish to hear opinions and critique from users. Which ever it is, it's a very poor show - very poor.

You do realise that when you solicit views and suggestions from people about a subject, that some of those views and suggestions might run contrary to what you want to hear? It's a tough concept to deal with, I know, but....... ah well, you'll work it out sooner or later.

---

But what exactly is your criticism? You haven't said anything of substance. You've said cryptic things like 'the world has turned' and 'Admitting your mindset is stuck in 1986 speaks volumes' ... exactly what the content of these 'volumes' would be is a total mystery.

To offer constructive criticism you have to be constructive and offer clear concise criticism. Not just be a little vague and complainy without saying anything.

Quote chirpychirpycheepcheep:

---

You can dick around with the semantics of my post to your heart's content, Hugh

---

I don't intend to 'dick around' with you at all. Through numerous changes of log-in name you have chosen to attack almost every aspect of SOS, the forums, the moderators in general and me personally with demoralising frequency and rarely if ever with any constructive intent. Your views have long since lost any value or credibility with me.

The SOS management team does read the forums and take on board any constructuive feedback. I'm sure if they perceive some validity in your comments they will take the appropriate action.

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote johnny h:

---

... exactly what the content of these 'volumes' would be is a total mystery.

---

Johnny, it's apparent from your contributions to the forums that many things are a 'total mystery' to you (did someone say headroom?), so let's play things safe and not dwell anymore on your post.

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Your views have long since lost any value or credibility with me.

---

And yet like a moth to a flame, you keep coming back for more - you outrageous flirt.

Quote chirpychirpycheepcheep:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

... exactly what the content of these 'volumes' would be is a total mystery.

---

Johnny, it's apparent from your contributions to the forums that many things are a 'total mystery' to you (did someone say headroom?), so let's play things safe and not dwell anymore on your post.

---

Lets not play safe and you can explain exactly the point of your posts in this thread. You clearly misinterpreted Hugh's comment that the editorial style had not changed in 26 years and claimed he admitted to being 'stuck in the 1986 mindset'. When challenged, all you've got in response is pompous bluster and diversion.

niaeve's post #981375 seems to have got "lost".

But I have it. Shall I paste it up again?

Dave.

Quote ef37a:

---

niaeve's post #981375 seems to have got "lost".

But I have it. Shall I paste it up again?

Dave.

---

Post it Dave

Quote johnny h:

---

Quote ef37a:

---

niaeve's post #981375 seems to have got "lost".

But I have it. Shall I paste it up again?

Dave.

---

Post it Dave

---

If it is not found by the morning I shall.
Dave.

Niaeve (sic) Newbie replied in a thread you have selected as one of your SOS Forum favourites:
http://www.soundonsound.com/forum/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=981375< /a>

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote Hugh Robjohns:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote chirpychirpycheepcheep:</font><hr />
You can dick around with the semantics of my post to your heart's content, Hugh

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I don't intend to 'dick around' with you at all. Through numerous changes of log-in name you have chosen to attack almost every aspect of SOS, the forums, the moderators in general and me personally with demoralising frequency and rarely if ever with any constructive intent. Your views have long since lost any value or credibility with me.



<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Oh don't be ridiculous Hugh. How absurdly over the top.

Chirpy has been making a valuable contribution on here for years. In fact, as an award-winning music person of some renown, he is one of the few posters on here to actually possess any real credibility at all. However, knowing chirpy as I do, what I can confirm is that he doesn't suffer fools and/or pomposity gladly and perhaps this comes across a little at times.

Considering all those wonderful pros that have long since departed this forum to start their own because of the victorian sensibilities on show here (4 forums and approx. 30 musos), may I suggest you attempt to engage more positively with the talent that chooses to remain here, long after the virtual lights have gone out.

Or or you on a mission to drive everyone away? It certainly seems so.

As promised
Dave.

--------------------
#They did not listen, they are not listening still...Perhaps they never will?#

Though a Naive Newbie myself (though not THE Navie Newbie!) ... I can see something is going on here (Captain Obvious !), and I wanted to "chirp" in a bit.

I have no formal training in music engineering and production, everything I know is from reading and far too few hours in my bedroom studio. By far and away, almost without comparison, the VAST majority of my knowledge has come from reading SOS, AND reading these fora. I remember when I started out I forced myself to read and understand the reviews, practically sentence by sentence ... no cheating! ... because that was such a good way to learn the language. Though still the Naive and Perpetual Newbie, I've come along a bit in figuring out what is going on, but SOS is still, by several orders of magnitude, my go to journal. I actually kind of like the humorous way things are written about (is that the "stodgy" part that others don't like?), and I don't expect all or even most of the reviews to be about gear in my price range. It's all educational and fun for me, and I have the utmost confidence that I'm getting the straight scoop on whatever it is between the covers (based on the good performance of the gear I bought that had good reviews, and reading the occasional "Steer Clear, unless desirous of a very handsome door stop" type of review.) Every gear article has a "Pros/Cons", and almost all have a "here's what the competition is" section. How great is that!

But what completely floors me is that I have the opportunity to interact regularly on these fora with people I consider royalty of the field. They will spend time helping out anybody and everybody who respectfully asks for help, no matter how far down the "musical food chain". Reading their resumes/CVs, I find the fact that they are around to answer dumb old newbie questions ( moi??? ) as often as they do astounding. This extends to the incredibly knowledgeable non-SOS forum members - helping out newbies with grace and humor - as everyone knows it's not like that at every other music forum, and I have to believe the attitude started at the top, and still comes from there.

These guys, and the mods, are just human, and maybe not everything they write on the fora in the course of their otherwise busy days is perfect. That's OK by me. In general, I'm very happy with the admins and mods here, and really I don't know what I'd do if I couldn't come here and continue to hang out, read, ask questions ... maybe one day I'll even be able to give back and help someone else out (not likely, it's not like this is the XXX DAW forum, whoops!).

Thanks, !

--------------------
Alexis -Cubase 6.5.0/SX3.1.1.944, XP SP2, 4GB RAM (1GB not accessible, but used just to balance the computer so it doesn't tip over); Delta 66 in Omni i/O Studio; Motif8; UAD-1

Nothing breaks my heart more than watching two good men quarrel about god knows what.
I of course blame Max for everything but details are not important right now.
What I suggest is that Hugh and the other guy get together and watch Pineapple Express on a big screen. A nice joint for everyone will enhance the experience immensely, but brandy or scotch whiskey will also do the job. Then you two can play Yamaha CS-80 together.
Isn't it wonderful?
What is important is that Hugh Robjohns and the other guy and myself and pretty much everyone who posted in this thread are all good men.
Don't you understand what it means?



Max Saks Cox.

Alexis I pretty much agree with most of what you say (and I think Jen is sorting your cheque as we speak!)and I am in some respects in a very similar "state" to yourself.

I am also a great admirer of SoS and all it stands for and have followed its evolution for far longer than most here. I do not always agree with everything "they" say here and certainly not sometimes the way "they" say it but someone once said "Democracy is a terrible way to run a country but all the alternatives are worse".

In general SoS does a good job but we must not let their feet sleep.

Dave

Quote ef37a:

---

niaeve's post #981375 seems to have got "lost".

---

I believe he removed it himself. Both he and 'chirpy' have also asked to have their user-accounts closed.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Quote ef37a:

---

niaeve's post #981375 seems to have got "lost".

---

I believe he removed it himself. Both he and 'chirpy' have also asked to have their user-accounts closed.

hugh

---

Curious...