- Joined
- Jan 30, 2011
- Posts
- 13,315
- Likes
- 24,362
So far in this little journey, I’ve looked at how I started (reviewing), the equipment I use, and the methodology / time-line. The next logical step is to look at the different parts of a review, why I include them, and what I think is important.
As in the past few chapters, you may not agree with the content I suggest. Some of you may in fact have completely opposite views. Again – that is great – let’s discuss them further as I’m always open to improvement in what I’m doing. I still have a long way to go to meet the standards of some I hold in high esteem as reviewers, and I continue to learn all the time. The great thing about Head-Fi is that so many people are willing to help.
So I have my review equipment, I’ve casually listened, critically listened, compared, measured, written my notes – now how do I put it all together and decide what to actually post?
The Mandatory "Head-Fi Stuff"
Let’s start right at the beginning, the Title, Pros, Cons and that pesky ranking thing. I know many people look at the Title and try to start with something eye-catching. I tend to try something descriptive (yes I know – boring old me). Really speaking there is no right or wrong.
With the Pros & Cons – try to just generally list the main advantages and disadvantages of the product – especially if you were a buyer. For IEMs and Headphones, I always like to look at fit, comfort, build, features, tuning, accessories, and value. For amps or sources, you’re probably concentrating more on performance than sonics. Look at it as a very quick summary of what people can expect.
For the rating – my personal way of going it is simply to equate each half star as 10%. 5 = 100%, 2.5 = 50%. I try to take into account features, tuning, ease of use – and also the position of the product against its competition. I always take value into account (some don’t and that is okay too). For me – an IEM that punches far above its price point can get to a 4.5 or 5 star status, and similarly a reasonably good IEM which is grossly overpriced can slip to a 3 star. The biggest things to remember are to be fair, and also to be consistent. A sure sign of if you are doing it wrong is if every review is 4.5-5.0 stars. I see a lot of this among newer reviewers. Remember – you’re not working for the manufacturer - you’re supposed to be providing a fair assessment of what you see in the product being reviewed.
The Introduction Section
OK – we’ve now moved onto the main body of the review – so let’s look at the Introduction, Disclaimer, and Biography (about me section). All of these are of course optional – but here are my views.
Introduction
I include one with every review. It helps set the tone and allows the reader to see a little bit about why you’re reviewing the product, what you’re looking for, maybe past experiences. If done correctly it can draw readers in – and isn’t that what we really want to do? I also often include a little blurb about the company – because it genuinely interests me, and because some of the companies may be totally new to some of the readers.
Disclaimer
Readers nowadays want to know if you have any affiliation, and if it is a free review sample, or if you own it (bought and paid for), or if it is a loaner. Although a good reviewer should not let ownership bias their viewpoint – it is best to be completely up front. For me personally, I want to know this information. I always state it.
Biography (or “about me”)
This is one of the most important parts of the whole review. It is the key by which another reader will be able to relate your thoughts to their expectation. Without it – your review is essentially useless. And yes – I feel strongly about this one. Imagine a situation where you read one of my reviews, you have no knowledge of my tastes, and you are mildly treble sensitive. I’m not – I clearly state it, but if there is no section you can’t know that. You buy based on my recommendation only to find out it is way too hot for your tastes. This section is like the key on the outside of a map – which holds the scale, the abbreviations, and all the little indicators. Without it, you may get a feel for where you are going but you get no accuracy. It will also give the reader an idea of how much experience you have and any known bias you have. I don’t believe in (or haven’t encountered anyway) burn-in making a huge difference. I’m not a believer in major sonic cable changes. To some that will be important information.
One last thing you can include in the preface sections is what you look for in the particular item you are reviewing. This is completely optional, but I do find that particularly for amps, dacs and sources, listing this helps me keep focussed on what I would be looking for as a buyer.
The Review - Basics
All of these I regard as being pretty mandatory – except maybe the graphing. I know for packaging and accessories I could look up their product page, or a youtube unboxing. But with the proper pictures this can be extremely informative, and quite frankly if I’m reading your review I don’t want to go anywhere else. Likewise for specs – if you haven’t taken the time to list them, chances are I won’t read your review. Why? Because they are important. If the manufacturer takes the time to list them – then you should be too. If it is a headphone, I want to know its sensitivity and impedance (that is important for any buyer). For an amp I need to know the output power and impedance from the headphone out. But go beyond that. I weigh every IEM. I measure cable length (if it isn’t stated). Look at what could be important to a buyer – and list it.
I include frequency information because I think it is important – your choice if you choose to or not. I do find it adds value to a review, and it is something I do look for in a review if it is available. As important as the graphs is adding commentary to help people with your interpretation of what the graphs mean. It is vitally important if you are including that the graphs are there to support the review – and not the other way around.
The Review - Product Features
All of these are pretty mandatory nowadays. The design and build section is vital because people want to know if the product is built to last and if it is built for purpose. Try to be constructive with your photos, and use them to illustrate the points you are listing. And for me – photos are vital here. I want to be able to see padding and earcups. I want to know if a hinged mechanism is sturdy and will last. If there is good (or bad) strain relief, it is important. If I’m reviewing a source, I want to know all the inputs and outputs. I also need to know about things like rear outputs (for speakers) – is it fixed or variable for example.
Hand in hand with that is comfort (headphones / earphones). How is the long term weight? Is weight distribution even? Are the IEMs a shallow or deep fit? Are tips easy to fit? Is the housing a good or bad shape? It’s amazing how many people gloss over these features when they are as important as the sonics. I don’t care what the headphone or IEM is, if it doesn’t have long term comfort, people won’t use them.
And the same goes for sources etc. How easy are they to use? How good is the GUI? If it has serious shortfalls, then you need to articulate that clearly. The best way to do that is short commentary, and plenty of photos. If it’s a wall of text I’ll lose interest. It takes time to really cover a GUI well, but the end results are worth it.
The important thing for this entire section is that the photos shouldn't be artistic. You're not marketing the product, you're explaining it's use. If in this section you're trying to frame something perfectly to get depth, or worried about hanging it in a tree to get the right colour, then you've missed the point of the whole exercise. This is all about explaining a feature, and then giving the reader the best possible idea of what you're explaining.
The Sonics
Probably the biggest section and the part most of your readers will gravitate to. I like to preface it with a general statement about the sonics, and then go into detail. There are no hard and fast rules here – but what I would suggest is to be methodical. List your test tracks, and describe what you’re hearing. Try to imagine what you’d like to read if this was someone else’s review and you were a reader. That still remains my biggest guide – and has served me well over the last 5 years. I write primarily what I’d like to read if I was researching the gear.
A few things to be careful with in this area.
Comparisons
This is another of those vital parts of a review, and I feel a bit short changed if you haven’t at least included something similar to compare to. It’s time consuming and tedious to set-up, and it can take hours – especially with volume matching, checking, and rechecking. But it pays off. You get a much better idea of how the product compares to similar products, and that is what your readers want to know too. I’ve even been at a point where I’ve really liked something, got to the comparison stage, and realised (after close comparisons) that I was being over enthusiastic (new toy syndrome). Comparisons are a great way to bring you down to earth sometimes, and get right in your own mind where this particular product sits amongst its peers.
For sources or amps I do the same – compare it to similar sources or amps. How do different headphones perform with them? Are there noticeable differences? How important and how well implemented are the features.
The Summary and Recommendations
This essentially should be a section where you take what you’ve just written a full page about, and boil it down to a few lines. What you’re doing is listing the good points, any flaws, and establishing your reasoning for scoring. Somebody should be able to skip down to this section and get a reasonable idea of what the entire review is about. What I like to do here is also include my thoughts on who the product would suit, and who would be better to be cautious about buying.
Recommendations are the easiest part. It’s your chance to list (for the manufacturer) changes which may be able to help them make a better product.
So that (in a nutshell) is my thoughts on what to include, and a little bit about the why. Before I give you your chance to comment – one final bit (warning very personal opinions ahead).
So What Do I Dislike About Some Reviews (what I consider poor)
Some of this I’ve already covered – but I’ll list it anyway. These are some of my pet peeves.
So – those are my thoughts – what are yours?
As in the past few chapters, you may not agree with the content I suggest. Some of you may in fact have completely opposite views. Again – that is great – let’s discuss them further as I’m always open to improvement in what I’m doing. I still have a long way to go to meet the standards of some I hold in high esteem as reviewers, and I continue to learn all the time. The great thing about Head-Fi is that so many people are willing to help.
So I have my review equipment, I’ve casually listened, critically listened, compared, measured, written my notes – now how do I put it all together and decide what to actually post?
The Mandatory "Head-Fi Stuff"
Let’s start right at the beginning, the Title, Pros, Cons and that pesky ranking thing. I know many people look at the Title and try to start with something eye-catching. I tend to try something descriptive (yes I know – boring old me). Really speaking there is no right or wrong.
With the Pros & Cons – try to just generally list the main advantages and disadvantages of the product – especially if you were a buyer. For IEMs and Headphones, I always like to look at fit, comfort, build, features, tuning, accessories, and value. For amps or sources, you’re probably concentrating more on performance than sonics. Look at it as a very quick summary of what people can expect.
For the rating – my personal way of going it is simply to equate each half star as 10%. 5 = 100%, 2.5 = 50%. I try to take into account features, tuning, ease of use – and also the position of the product against its competition. I always take value into account (some don’t and that is okay too). For me – an IEM that punches far above its price point can get to a 4.5 or 5 star status, and similarly a reasonably good IEM which is grossly overpriced can slip to a 3 star. The biggest things to remember are to be fair, and also to be consistent. A sure sign of if you are doing it wrong is if every review is 4.5-5.0 stars. I see a lot of this among newer reviewers. Remember – you’re not working for the manufacturer - you’re supposed to be providing a fair assessment of what you see in the product being reviewed.
The Introduction Section
OK – we’ve now moved onto the main body of the review – so let’s look at the Introduction, Disclaimer, and Biography (about me section). All of these are of course optional – but here are my views.
Introduction
I include one with every review. It helps set the tone and allows the reader to see a little bit about why you’re reviewing the product, what you’re looking for, maybe past experiences. If done correctly it can draw readers in – and isn’t that what we really want to do? I also often include a little blurb about the company – because it genuinely interests me, and because some of the companies may be totally new to some of the readers.
Disclaimer
Readers nowadays want to know if you have any affiliation, and if it is a free review sample, or if you own it (bought and paid for), or if it is a loaner. Although a good reviewer should not let ownership bias their viewpoint – it is best to be completely up front. For me personally, I want to know this information. I always state it.
Biography (or “about me”)
This is one of the most important parts of the whole review. It is the key by which another reader will be able to relate your thoughts to their expectation. Without it – your review is essentially useless. And yes – I feel strongly about this one. Imagine a situation where you read one of my reviews, you have no knowledge of my tastes, and you are mildly treble sensitive. I’m not – I clearly state it, but if there is no section you can’t know that. You buy based on my recommendation only to find out it is way too hot for your tastes. This section is like the key on the outside of a map – which holds the scale, the abbreviations, and all the little indicators. Without it, you may get a feel for where you are going but you get no accuracy. It will also give the reader an idea of how much experience you have and any known bias you have. I don’t believe in (or haven’t encountered anyway) burn-in making a huge difference. I’m not a believer in major sonic cable changes. To some that will be important information.
One last thing you can include in the preface sections is what you look for in the particular item you are reviewing. This is completely optional, but I do find that particularly for amps, dacs and sources, listing this helps me keep focussed on what I would be looking for as a buyer.
The Review - Basics
- Packaging/accessories
- Technical specs – both the review unit and sometimes it’s close competition for comparison
- A frequency graph and commentary
All of these I regard as being pretty mandatory – except maybe the graphing. I know for packaging and accessories I could look up their product page, or a youtube unboxing. But with the proper pictures this can be extremely informative, and quite frankly if I’m reading your review I don’t want to go anywhere else. Likewise for specs – if you haven’t taken the time to list them, chances are I won’t read your review. Why? Because they are important. If the manufacturer takes the time to list them – then you should be too. If it is a headphone, I want to know its sensitivity and impedance (that is important for any buyer). For an amp I need to know the output power and impedance from the headphone out. But go beyond that. I weigh every IEM. I measure cable length (if it isn’t stated). Look at what could be important to a buyer – and list it.
I include frequency information because I think it is important – your choice if you choose to or not. I do find it adds value to a review, and it is something I do look for in a review if it is available. As important as the graphs is adding commentary to help people with your interpretation of what the graphs mean. It is vitally important if you are including that the graphs are there to support the review – and not the other way around.
The Review - Product Features
- Design
- Build
- Features
- Use
All of these are pretty mandatory nowadays. The design and build section is vital because people want to know if the product is built to last and if it is built for purpose. Try to be constructive with your photos, and use them to illustrate the points you are listing. And for me – photos are vital here. I want to be able to see padding and earcups. I want to know if a hinged mechanism is sturdy and will last. If there is good (or bad) strain relief, it is important. If I’m reviewing a source, I want to know all the inputs and outputs. I also need to know about things like rear outputs (for speakers) – is it fixed or variable for example.
Hand in hand with that is comfort (headphones / earphones). How is the long term weight? Is weight distribution even? Are the IEMs a shallow or deep fit? Are tips easy to fit? Is the housing a good or bad shape? It’s amazing how many people gloss over these features when they are as important as the sonics. I don’t care what the headphone or IEM is, if it doesn’t have long term comfort, people won’t use them.
And the same goes for sources etc. How easy are they to use? How good is the GUI? If it has serious shortfalls, then you need to articulate that clearly. The best way to do that is short commentary, and plenty of photos. If it’s a wall of text I’ll lose interest. It takes time to really cover a GUI well, but the end results are worth it.
The important thing for this entire section is that the photos shouldn't be artistic. You're not marketing the product, you're explaining it's use. If in this section you're trying to frame something perfectly to get depth, or worried about hanging it in a tree to get the right colour, then you've missed the point of the whole exercise. This is all about explaining a feature, and then giving the reader the best possible idea of what you're explaining.
The Sonics
Probably the biggest section and the part most of your readers will gravitate to. I like to preface it with a general statement about the sonics, and then go into detail. There are no hard and fast rules here – but what I would suggest is to be methodical. List your test tracks, and describe what you’re hearing. Try to imagine what you’d like to read if this was someone else’s review and you were a reader. That still remains my biggest guide – and has served me well over the last 5 years. I write primarily what I’d like to read if I was researching the gear.
A few things to be careful with in this area.
- Don’t rely on graphs as an indicator of sound. The impressions should be what you are hearing, and use the graphs to support it. One of my biggest mistakes was in my review of the Noble Savant. I was influenced by a graph. I will never make that mistake again. Always listen before measuring (the exception of course is that you measure to volume match).
- Be realistic. If I read about a source, and you start talking about night and day differences with other gear, then chances are you’re exaggerating. Nothing turns me off more. When you actually start comparing similar gear volume matched – the differences are often very small. So don’t overstate it. You’re not selling the product – you’re reviewing it.
- Also be realistic about any glaring faults. If there is bass bleed, you should have a test for it, and be noting it. If there is sibilance, you should be noting it. You should also have consistent tests for staging and imaging. This allows you to be consistent in your descriptors over whether the stage is wide or narrow, deep or shallow, expansive or intimate.
Comparisons
This is another of those vital parts of a review, and I feel a bit short changed if you haven’t at least included something similar to compare to. It’s time consuming and tedious to set-up, and it can take hours – especially with volume matching, checking, and rechecking. But it pays off. You get a much better idea of how the product compares to similar products, and that is what your readers want to know too. I’ve even been at a point where I’ve really liked something, got to the comparison stage, and realised (after close comparisons) that I was being over enthusiastic (new toy syndrome). Comparisons are a great way to bring you down to earth sometimes, and get right in your own mind where this particular product sits amongst its peers.
For sources or amps I do the same – compare it to similar sources or amps. How do different headphones perform with them? Are there noticeable differences? How important and how well implemented are the features.
The Summary and Recommendations
This essentially should be a section where you take what you’ve just written a full page about, and boil it down to a few lines. What you’re doing is listing the good points, any flaws, and establishing your reasoning for scoring. Somebody should be able to skip down to this section and get a reasonable idea of what the entire review is about. What I like to do here is also include my thoughts on who the product would suit, and who would be better to be cautious about buying.
Recommendations are the easiest part. It’s your chance to list (for the manufacturer) changes which may be able to help them make a better product.
So that (in a nutshell) is my thoughts on what to include, and a little bit about the why. Before I give you your chance to comment – one final bit (warning very personal opinions ahead).
So What Do I Dislike About Some Reviews (what I consider poor)
Some of this I’ve already covered – but I’ll list it anyway. These are some of my pet peeves.
- Reviews with no disclaimer
- Reviews with no personal information about the reviewers bias
- Reviews which concentrate solely on pictures and specs, with very little actual information (i.e. they could be mistaken for advertisements)
- Reviews with no comparisons (this is especially so for those who have a lot of review samples available). If you’re not comparing, you’re being lazy.
- Reviews without pictures. You don’t have to be excellent with a camera, and even a smartphone will take decent pictures nowadays.
- Reviews where it is obvious the reviewer hasn’t put a spell check or grammar check through the review. I miss stuff, but I always do this before I post.
So – those are my thoughts – what are yours?