[roskodan]

Ah, they censored Tyll's not so positive reviews by omitting the not so positive listening impressions and measurements...
MDR-Z1R... cough... cough... LOL...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[GREQ]

Ah, they censored Tyll's not so positive reviews by omitting the not so positive listening impressions and measurements...
MDR-Z1R... cough... cough... LOL...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Well that's just petty.

 

[gimmeheadroom]

I was going over the pages to see what was there and what wasn't. But I would probably not recognize the details you mentioned.

 

[gimmeheadroom]

Ah, they censored Tyll's not so positive reviews by omitting the not so positive listening impressions and measurements...
MDR-Z1R... cough... cough... LOL...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I thought I saw that one last night when I found the link.

 

[project86]

The Sony Z1R intro page is posted, which gives a great overview of the design and technology involved. But the article no longer contains page 2 (listening), nor does it have the measurements page - both of which are quite negative overall. Thankfully those are accessible via internet archive.

While it's tempting to conclude it was a deliberate choice to omit these less-than-flattering pages, I also notice the entire AKG K812 review made it through the transfer to Stereophile intact. The K812 page 2 as well as the measurement page contain some rather critical remarks, and overall the review is very obviously negative.

Why would they protect Sony while allowing criticism of AKG? Is it perhaps because some other staff members use and enjoy the Z1R? Or is it just a fluke that it's missing? I also note the famous Ultrasone Edition 10 negative review is missing as well, which would support the theory of deliberate omission... but I'd have to look and see how many other pages are missing to more sure of that.

 

[Anomaly2]

Why would they protect Sony while allowing criticism of AKG?

A cynic might claim it may have something to do with who is a sponsor and who is not a sponsor. But I would never make such a nasty suggestion. AVTech Media Americas cares about headphone enthusiasts. They want to help headphone enthusiasts get the best-valued headphones that are currently being sold. To this end, they are always striving to educate headphone enthusiasts with unbiased and authoritative information and advice based on science, evidence, and logic. They are definitely not in their sponsors’ pockets.

 

[gimmeheadroom]

A cynic might claim it may have something to do with who is a sponsor and who is not a sponsor. But I would never make such a nasty suggestion. AVTech Media Americas cares about headphone enthusiasts. They want to help headphone enthusiasts get the best-valued headphones that are currently being sold. To this end, they are always striving to educate headphone enthusiasts with unbiased and authoritative information and advice based on science, evidence, and logic. They are definitely not in their sponsors’ pockets.

It is rather difficult to know whether these words were said seriously or in satire without seeing your face

 

[kumar402]

The Sony Z1R intro page is posted, which gives a great overview of the design and technology involved. But the article no longer contains page 2 (listening), nor does it have the measurements page - both of which are quite negative overall. Thankfully those are accessible via internet archive.

While it's tempting to conclude it was a deliberate choice to omit these less-than-flattering pages, I also notice the entire AKG K812 review made it through the transfer to Stereophile intact. The K812 page 2 as well as the measurement page contain some rather critical remarks, and overall the review is very obviously negative.

Why would they protect Sony while allowing criticism of AKG? Is it perhaps because some other staff members use and enjoy the Z1R? Or is it just a fluke that it's missing? I also note the famous Ultrasone Edition 10 negative review is missing as well, which would support the theory of deliberate omission... but I'd have to look and see how many other pages are missing to more sure of that.

Thankfully YouTube videos are still up.
Nothing beats Ultrasone review. Those who haven’t seen it must see it

 

[project86]

A cynic might claim it may have something to do with who is a sponsor and who is not a sponsor. But I would never make such a nasty suggestion. AVTech Media Americas cares about headphone enthusiasts. They want to help headphone enthusiasts get the best-valued headphones that are currently being sold. To this end, they are always striving to educate headphone enthusiasts with unbiased and authoritative information and advice based on science, evidence, and logic. They are definitely not in their sponsors’ pockets.

Regarding sponsorship, I am positive that AKG/Harman has spent a ton of money with Stereophile and InnerFidelity over the years. Sony probably has too. I don't see either of them showing current ads at Stereophile right now but maybe the print version has some... so I can't really say if that aspect holds some influence or not regarding the MDR-Z1R/K812 discrepancy.

I can only speak based on my experience of roughly 8 years writing for IF, under various ownership during that time - Source Interlink Media, then TEN (The Enthusiast Network), then AVTech. I was never told to dial anything down, or censored in any way. I think a lot of that was Tyll and the respect he commanded, which meant nobody from corporate wanted to mess with him or his team. But I will also say the publisher is a stand-up guy who always supported us.

I've had bad experiences with editors at other sites over the years, who basically scrapped extensive reviews I had done because of "negative tone". It was enough to make me quit, and it made me appreciate Tyll all the more. I didn't work with Rafe long enough to know how it would go if I had tried to give a bad review or point out significant flaws in a product.

 

[SilverEars]

Ah, they censored Tyll's not so positive reviews by omitting the not so positive listening impressions and measurements...
MDR-Z1R... cough... cough... LOL...

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Censorship, sponserships, doesn't build my trust. Politics don't build my trust. We see examples of China doing this globally.

Freedsom of expression is valuable! We need more reviewers like Tyll in the industry. I don't care for reviews that tell me nothing. I need at least one's honest expressions, not remarks affected by sponsor control. Bias doesn't cause useful reviews.

The fun time in this industry was when people like Tyll was putting out reviews. I have no interest in reviews anymore to be honest. These days just feel like massive spamming.

 

[kumar402]

Censorship, sponserships, doesn't build my trust. Politics don't build my trust. We see examples of China doing this globally.

Freedsom of expression is valuable! We need more reviewers like Tyll in the industry. I don't care for reviews that tell me nothing. I need at least one's honest expressions, not remarks affected by sponsor control. Bias doesn't cause useful reviews.

The fun time in this industry was when people like Tyll was putting out reviews. I have no interest in reviews anymore to be honest. These days just feel like massive spamming.

I stopped watching reviews long time back. If I'm interested in any product I get it from some dealer with return policy or take part in loaner programs. Reviews from magazines are waste of time unless it's from someone you trust.

 

[SilverEars]

I stopped watching reviews long time back. If I'm interested in any product I get it from some dealer with return policy or take part in loaner programs. Reviews from magazines are waste of time unless it's from someone you trust.

You said it. I couldn't recommend people to buy based on reviews influenced by sponsors/companies. But, also generally impressions of flavors may not align with ones preference.

Hearing it themsleves is the highest recommendation in my books. I mean how much can you get from wordings that have relative meanings?

So, I hope to see the industry going toward open-ness to demo before purchase or demo tours for trial.

 

[roskodan]

What was nice about Tyll's work, was that he was subjective in his preferences but also pretty much spot on in consistency with his assessments, thanks to measurements, but also for sticking to a meaningful concept of what could be perceived as neutral sounding. So it was easy for one that followed his work, to figure out how much weight Tyll's criticism carried in regard to one's, perhaps different, subjective preference.

Basically, if a reviewer doesn't have a consistent subjective sound preference, and, or, is unable to portray it clearly and meaningfully to the readers, the resulting reviews are gonna be useless, either because of lack of critical information and, or, the readers not being able to gauge where their subjective preferences fall in relation to the reviewer's impressions.

Basically one's reviews can be consistent and meaningful even without measurements, well, as long as they are consistent and meaningful that is. Good luck with that.

 

[chesebert]

What was nice about Tyll's work, was that he was subjective in his preferences but also pretty much spot on in consistency with his assessments, thanks to measurements, but also for sticking to a meaningful concept of what could be perceived as neutral sounding. So it was easy for one that followed his work, to figure out how much weight Tyll's criticism carried in regard to one's, perhaps different, subjective preference.

Basically, if a reviewer doesn't have a consistent subjective sound preference, and, or, is unable to portray it clearly and meaningfully to the readers, the resulting reviews are gonna be useless, either because of lack of critical information and, or, the readers not being able to gauge where their subjective preferences fall in relation to the reviewer's impressions.

Basically one's reviews can be consistent and meaningful even without measurements, well, as long as they are consistent and meaningful that is. Good luck with that.

I have found over the years that most professional and amateur reviewers are full of crap (including all the popular YT reviewers). Art Dudley and Tyll are/was the only two reviewers whose reviews I trust. This trust was developed over years after demoing numerous reviewed gear and coming to the same conclusion as Art/Tyll. All other reviewers would have these head scratching reviews from time to time where I would be like What is this person smoking, this thing sounds far from the praises received in the review.

 

[chesebert]

Thankfully YouTube videos are still up.
Nothing beats Ultrasone review. Those who haven’t seen it must see it

I admire Tyll’s dedication and perseverance. I put those damn cans on and promptly took off within 10 seconds. My only feeling at the time was these cans must have been designed by someone with deficient hearing.