What do you think an audio review should accomplish? List your answers in sequence of importance. Since starting to review, has any "insider" information changed your views on that and if so, has it affected how you prioritize what a review should accomplish?

Edgar Kramer: Most importantly, a review should present thorough, practical and unbiased information. With that as a base, the reviewer can present all the facts about a component's features, build and design philosophies and of course its sound within the context of his experience, system and musical choices/tastes. As far as order of importance, I am still debating with myself whether at the end of the day, the practical elements of a review are more or less important than my subjective sonic impressions.
John Potis: I think that there are two groups of readers: those who read to be somewhat entertained (to feed the fantasy as it were) and those who are actively in the market for a new piece of gear. A successful review must somehow appeal to both groups. Those who read for the entertainment have little use for formulaic and robotic fill-in-the-blanks reviews though readers who are actively in the market will require that all those blanks be filled with accurate and useful information. I think the key to writing for both groups is to make sure to describe, as best as one can, the sound of the piece and to be as complete as possible but to also allow the piece to dictate the voice of the review. The reviews that write themselves are the ones where the reviewer is truly inspired by the component and that inspiration will hopefully be communicated through the review. That enthusiasm simply can't be communicated when filling in the blanks. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Being a reviewer doesn't mean that you are judge and jury. Our job isn't to pronounce sentence but to report on what a piece is doing in our system in hopes that the piece will find its own audience.

Insider information? Well, I'm frequently surprised by how bad some manufacturers are at fulfilling the day-to-day affairs of running a business. Since I've started writing, I fully understand the Stereophile/Musical Fidelity/All-things-French phenomenon. If you write for readers as if they were your friends, the normal inclination is to steer them toward good- sounding gear that is reliable and backed by people with good communication skills, people with good business acumen (who do what they say when they say they will do it) and people who are just agreeable to deal with. It makes the entire review process easier and it reflects well on the service that a customer can expect.

Jules Coleman: I am sure that others approach reviews completely differently than I do but I view myself as a member of a community that includes designers, manufacturers, retailers, reviewers, consumers, hobbyists and readers. My first priority is to make sure that nothing I do in a review adversely affects this community which is small, disorganized, occasionally at odds with itself and fragile at best. I believe that I have a responsibility to the high-end as well as to everyone else and for me, the high-end is about creativity, artisanship, craftsmanship, imagination and risk-taking as much as anything else. It is about designers expressing something important about themselves and what they value in a work of theirs: a creation. It may end up in someone's system and that will be the end of it from the point of view of the end user, but not from the point of view of the designer. So in each of my reviews to the extent possible, I try to let the reader know a little something about the person (if there is one) behind the product. I want to convey as best I can what the designer's aspirations were and what moved him or her. Then I want to discuss the execution and how it is similar or different from other products.

Then I want to discuss in what ways the product matters in your system. So in my reviews, I am inclined to write about the difference between high-mass and other approaches to turntables, say belt drive vs. idler drive vs. direct drive. In speakers, I am likely going to write about the difference between a Sonus Faber that puts a big imprint on the sound (however desirable) and a Beauhorn that is not just an open window but requires active engagement to organize what one hears as music and so on. I know that lots of readers just want to know how the midrange and bass sound and whether the treble is bright. Others only want to know whether you liked it or not. That's just not me and never will be. I think serious listeners want to think about issues like the so-called dichotomy between high resolution and musicality and so I want to write about those issues in the context of a review. Hell, I am in love with speakers like the DeVore Silverback and various old Tannoys. They couldn't be more different. I want a person who reads my reviews to know that when I am discussing the Silverbacks, I am helping someone understand what is seductive about that approach which the Tannoys simply have no interest in; and conversely, what Tannoys are about that explains why most listeners would do a lot better picking up a pair of Tannoy 10 Golds and putting them in even a competent enclosure than listening to the modern high- tech speakers that grace their listening rooms.

Michael Healey:

  1. Explain the success (or failure) of a product in a way that is creative and honest - "insider information"
  2. Attract and keep the reader's interest
  3. Offer suggestions about how to use the product - system recommendations
  4. Impart product information
  5. Company history/manufacturer information

The best reviewers make it look so easy. They really offer a service to readers by sharing information they might not have understood before and generating excitement to try out new products in their systems at home.

Marja & Henk: A good review should communicate what a component induces in the reviewer and brings to his system. It's a very personal description of the trip on the path to musical ecstasy. This can be poetic, technical or esoteric. In the end, a reader should be able to categorize the component as either worthwhile of a personal audition or discard it as something that will not suit his/her preferences. Some readers only go for a reassurance of a purchase already made - so-and-so also thinks this is a good piece etc.
Based on your interactions with manufacturers, what do you consider to be areas most in need of attention?

Edgar Kramer: My experiences with manufacturers as far as my audio reviewing career is concerned have been very positive. I've had no pressure or undue influence and communication has always been prompt and friendly
John Potis: This is a difficult one. Some companies need to work on the basic principles of good business but I've already gone into that. Perhaps I'd rather acknowledge some companies that are an absolute delight to deal with. Not surprisingly, these are often companies that have stood the test of time. Conrad Johnson, Magnepan and Thiel are just three that leap to mind. But there are many others.

Jules Coleman: I have enormous respect for manufacturers and the risks they take, not to mention the risk they take putting their products in our hands. Some manufacturers, however, have no business plans and don't know how to behave professionally. In my other life, I am a University Professor who has edited book series and journals. I have been asked maybe a hundred times to write letters on tenure. I have headed a University Tenure Committee. Manufacturers are not great about taking criticism. Occasionally, their representatives have tried to control reviews. I have had an experience with a designer who was completely unable to take even modest criticism. I've never seen anything like it in my other professional life.

Believe me, I feel for them. But it cannot be the case that you put a product out for review and expect others to react to it just the way you would. Manufacturers need to be able to handle criticism --- even constructive criticism -- better. They love positive reviews from any reviewer but if the same reviewer criticizes their product, he all of a sudden is a deaf, part-time non-entity. All of which may be true - but you cannot have it both ways.

Michael Healey: Each manufacturer must have a clear idea of their market. Manufacturers need to come up with creative ways to display their products in a way that encourages people to want to hear their products. Manufacturers must have a sense of humor. Not one of these suggestions is easy.

Marja & Henk: Background info on the technical ideas behind a design. Next, how did the manufacturer voice his component? What is the rest of his reference environment? Is he using a convenient Bose contraption to listen to his invention or is he just using his high-tech scope? This type of detailed and honest information is hard if not impossible to come by.
What do you think is the weakest part of your present system? If money or practicality were no issue, what would you change and why?

Edgar Kramer: The transport and DAC. What I am currently using is absolutely superb especially for the money and both units compared favorably with things far above their price range. But to be able to have the absolute best front-end would be the greatest improvement in my system. And of course, I would love a pair of Wilson X2s.
John Potis: The weakest part of my system is also the component encapsulated under the heading "be careful what you wish for". I speak of my room. It's a good room but smaller than I sometimes wish. It gets me up close and intimate with the music and it doesn't require the greatest of macrodynamics to come alive, which can be very expensive to achieve via large power amplifiers and large expensive speakers. It also lends itself to a quasi nearfield setup, which minimizes the contributions of the room in some important ways. But the trade-off is that with classical music, I never get that mid-hall perspective that is so natural to my experience of the concert hall. Classical music is best served with distance between the speakers and listener and a room that allows the music to swell.

Jules Coleman: I love my system. I do want to have two different kinds of speakers with it. The DeVore Fidelity Silverback Reference is a traditional speaker that sounds great with the system but it is not the kind of speaker the system was really meant to play through. So I want one of those, some sort of horn. If I had the money and the room, I would probably buy a pair of Klangfilm Bionors and retire from reviewing - and maybe from my academic job as well. Right now, however, I am searching for a somewhat less costly alternative.

Michael Healey: My speaker cables but not for sonic reasons - I really need shorter length cables. My system is based on what I can afford that fits in with my current lifestyle. Isn't everybody's? If money or practicality weren't an issue, I would buy a second system.

Marja & Henk: Time. Just time to listen to all the beautiful music, time to find more beautiful music. More time to listen to and meet with "new" musicians. But alas, time is the most precious and scarce commodity we have and we are running out of it more and more every minute.
Have you made upgrade changes you regret in hindsight? If so, what components stand out in memory as some you wish you had kept - and why?

Edgar Kramer: In my impetuous youth many years ago, I traded a pair of Tannoy Gold 12" dual-concentric monitors in custom Cheviot enclosures of beautiful Jarrah wood for a pair of Infinity Kappa 6.1s. The boxes were made for me by a South Australian master cabinet maker and gorgeous. The Infinities were great but the Tannoys were magical. Soon afterwards, I went to see whether the Tannoys were still available. Alas, they were snapped up by a wise audiophile who enjoys them to this day.
John Potis: Two components come to mind, one I owned, another I didn't. At one point I owned NHT 3.3 loudspeakers. No, they were not perfect. They had a slightly forward midrange that could be a little aggressive on poor recordings but when it comes to bang-for-the-buck speakers, they were just a blast to own. They reigned supreme. I eventually gave them up because they were just too difficult to move about the room or temporarily store. I sold them to a friend and don't think either of us would be surprised if at some point, I was to reacquire those speakers. The component that I didn't own was the Conrad Johnson MV 60 power amp. Based on the EL34 tube, this is one of the sweetest and most musical power amplifiers I've ever used. I often think about buying one.

Jules Coleman: I wish I never sold my last pair of European Holophone Soprano speakers. I would never have them in my current reference system but I would have them somewhere. They make music. Period. And they are based on an approach to design I like, which is a thin-walled and tuned cabinet. I certainly don't believe in heavily braced and deadened cabinets for the low frequencies. It gets trickier after that but I favor (and this is just me now) voiced and tuned equipment. I like speakers that are tuned like musical instruments are. Not every such effort succeeds but the EHS sure did.

Michael Healey: No regrets! However, I really enjoyed the Meadowlark Kestrel2 loudspeakers which returned to their maker after my review.

Marja & Henk: All our upgrades are reversible with a soldering iron and no components were swapped during the last 8 years or so.
What is your favorite acquisition in recent memory?

Edgar Kramer: My Wilson WATT/Puppy System 6.
John Potis: My '72 Fender Thinline Telecaster would be my favorite material acquisition. After that, I can't point to any single component in my system as a favorite. Each has brought something important and none operate in a vacuum.

Jules Coleman: The Shindo WE 300B Ltd mono block amplifiers. These are the best amplifiers I have heard in my system or any other system I know well.

Michael Healey: The Bel Canto DAC2 followed closely by the Shunyata Research Guardian 4-HT.

Marja & Henk: Censored for now.
What do you consider to be your particular strengths and weaknesses as a reviewer? What are some of the writers you admire or try to emulate, and for what specific qualities?

Edgar Kramer: Strengths: an open mind, years of experience as a listener, exposure to tons of equipment from all over the world, my extensive exposure to live music. Weaknesses: maybe as above because there's always something coming around the next bend. No arse licking here but I admire Srajan. His reviews are intelligent, incisive, beautifully written, entertaining and thorough in the sonic descriptions. He calls it as he sees it and I trust his ears. Also enjoy Michael Fremer and Jules Coleman. I write from the heart with a natural flow and do little pre-planning. I don't think I consciously emulate anyone. I'd like to think I have my own style.
John Potis: My view on my own writing is a reflection on the comments I get from readers. The three most common threads are that people sense my enthusiasm and they can tell that I'm having a good time; that my reviews take them through the entire review process and make them feel part of it; and that the reviews are easy to read. I take these as the greatest of compliments. Of course, the occasional e-mail telling me that I nailed the review subject is nice, too. Weaknesses? I'm a nuts-and-bolts writer and I don't have the knack for flowery language that some others do. If I did, I'd work hard not to overdue it but there are times when such abilities would help to convey some of the less tangible qualities of a component.

Jules Coleman: My strengths are that I know music, know what it sounds like, care, can describe what I hear reasonably well, worry about larger issues in audio reproduction and am very patient in putting a system together to get the most out of a product under review. Putting a product in a position where it has a chance to perform as the designer intended means a lot to me. My weaknesses are that I can get carried away and be long-winded and sometimes distracted from the product at hand to the larger issues that are more interesting to me.

I admire Jean Hiraga who invented the vocabulary of modern reviewing and brought back the SET to Western Europe. I used to put more stock in the products he endorsed than I do now. But he is unrivalled as a philosopher of audio reviewing. I admired Harry Pearson who developed further the vocabulary of the discourse and who continues to think about the larger issues. Unfortunately, he has long since reached a point where he has become a caricature of himself. He is nearly unreadable at this point and I have no faith in his judgment of equipment. I don't much go for what he listens to musically either. But there would be no real high-end in the US without him. It's a shame that he has diminished his own stock over time and worse, that others are so anxious to diminish it for him. I admire Michael Fremer for his versatility and honesty. And I think of all the reviewers we have at 6moons, I most appreciate John Potis for his directness and Paul Candy for his growth and modesty.

Michael Healey: My strengths are my descriptive abilities and use of metaphors. My weaknesses include keeping the review cohesive and getting the facts straight from a marketing spec sheet. I admire Art Dudley for his cheeky humor; Sam Tellig for his ability to immediately put the reader at ease; John Marks for the rightness of his facts; Robert Harley for putting it all down in a book for the rest of us; Jim Bosha for his ability to hang cool with the absurd; Hemingway for cutting through all the crap; Hunter S. Thompson for those raw moments of agonizing brilliance; Boethius and St. Augustine for offering directions to the same restaurant from completely different parts of town; and Dylan Thomas for making me see the world as a poem.

Marja & Henk: We're trying to think out of the box and stay away from any audiophilisms as far as possible. Jules has a writing style we like - a bit teachy but based on years of listening. Harvey, though never objective (on purpose) had a certain eclecticism combined with an overactive fantasy. That same eclecticism is found in Srajan's style. Other writers -- be it in print or on the web -- are too serious: dry without bubbles. A good reviewer/writer should have a broad interest and quite some self-knowledge (self humor).