COPPER

A PS Audio Publication

Issue 77 • Free Online Magazine

Issue 77 FEATURED

Vade’s Recommended Reviewer Guidelines

Part of the fun of being an audiophile is reading reviews of audio gear. I’ve read audio reviews for 60 years, starting with Stereo Review, leading to Gordon Holt’s Stereophile and Harry Pearson’s The Absolute Sound, continuing with several print and online magazines to the present. As an author, I’ve written reviews for 14 years, starting with Positive Feedback Online and moving to the SoundStage! Network’s suite of online magazines and The Absolute Sound in print and online. In the process I’ve formed some strong views about how a reviewer should go about his or her business. I thought I’d share some of them with you.

1. Use your own system to review equipment, not someone else’s and certainly not equipment in a dealer’s or manufacturer’s facility. And forget attempting to review something in a trade-show environment—yes, some reviewers have actually done that.
2. Replace only a single item in your system with the item you’re reviewing; otherwise, you won’t be able to tell what item produces a particular sonic characteristic. Avoid testing several components at once.
3. Review the equipment exactly as the manufacturer provided it. Don’t make any sort of modification, even easy ones; they can change the nature of the sound into something unique, which may not resemble what a reader is likely to hear. If a modification makes a big improvement, write a comment or a sidebar about it after you review the item in stock form. No-no mods include:

  • Using a third-party power cord. Yeah, I know; many stock power cords are junk, but unless the manufacturer doesn’t provide any cord, the stock cord is what many readers will use.
  • Replacing stock tubes with new old stock (NOS) tubes from your personal stash. NOS tubes might make improvements, or maybe just changes, but can be expensive and the models you substitute may be impossible for readers to find. Many tubed components are optimized for the sound of the stock tubes anyhow.
  • Using aftermarket footers. These can make big improvements, but most readers won’t use them. And each footer has a different sonic, ahem, footprint.
  • Using a power conditioner. Plug the review item into your wall socket. Power conditioners can make a huge improvement, but can also degrade the sound. I might make an exception if the power coming out of the wall is trashy, but as my mother-in-law used to say, it’s making the best of a bad situation. I hope she wasn’t talking about me.

4. The reference system you use in a review should be comprised of reasonably current equipment; you need to show readers how the equipment you’re reviewing sounds in the context of a current system. That’s why reviewers get manufacturer’s accommodations, or discounts. Vintage gear is fine and fun for audiophile hobbyists but isn’t for reviewers. Who cares how good a turntable sounds with 78 RPM records? [I think Jeremy Kipnis might—check out the feature from Copper #76! –-Ed.]
5. When reviewing speakers, use an amplifier capable of driving the speakers. Don’t try to drive inefficient speakers with a 20-watt amplifier. Make sure the amp can handle the speaker’s impedance swings.
6. Use a wide variety of music to demonstrate sonic characteristics of review item, not just the stuff you like. Ideally, music should include solo instrumental, solo voice, orchestral, choral, rock, jazz, classical. Don’t just use solo singers or small vocal groups with band backings. Use currently available recordings, if possible; your review could prompt a reader to want to listen to a recording you mentioned. If you don’t own a wide variety of music, subscribe to Tidal or Qobuz.
7. Compare the review item with comparable items if possible, even if you have to do so from a spec sheet. Readers appreciate knowing how an item stacks up against its competition.
8. Be reasonably proficient using your word processor. Pay attention to spelling and grammar checkers.
9. Have a logical structure for your reviews. Don’t wander about aimlessly. Here’s the structure I like to use, although it’s not the only acceptable format. It’s essentially the format specified for SoundStage! publications.

  • Section 1 — Description of the equipment. Explain in easily understandable terms what the review equipment does, if it’s something unusual. It’s surprising how many manufacturers can’t manage to do this, but instead, lapses into industry slang that confuses the reader.
  • Section 2 — Setting up the equipment for the review; problems encountered. This is especially important for turntables, where the sound is quite dependent on setup. Mention what equipment you used with the review item; that has a big effect of the sound quality. Believe it or not, I saw a major reviewer review a tonearm without mentioning what cartridges he used with it, or how easy setup was.
  • Section 3 — Sound; how the equipment sounded, with plenty of musical illustrations. But don’t just list a bunch of recordings and say the review item sounded good on all of them.
  • Section 4 — Comparisons; how does the equipment stack up against its competition? Readers really want to know this information—they read reviews to help them sort out which equipment to buy.
  • Section 5 — Conclusions and recommendations; whether you’d recommend the item you reviewed, and any limitations for its use.

10. Stay on point. Readers don’t want to know a lot about your family, your hobbies, your food and drink preferences, or your pets.
11. Don’t go overboard about your emotional reaction to a review item. Emotional reactions are hugely dependent on the music played. For example, if you play hip-hop music for me, even through a fantastic system, my emotional reaction will be to puke. OK, that’s a physical reaction, but you get the point. Hey, if you like it, great, but it’s not appealing to me. There is no emotion track on a recording. Emotional responses result from how the listener reacts to some sort of sonic characteristic like timing precision, harmonic accuracy, or microdynamic tracking; discuss that instead of emotions. Yeah, I know, it’s easier to talk about how music moved you, as if everyone would react the same way.
12. If you discuss technical issues, know what you’re talking about. Get help from the manufacturer if you’re allowed to talk to him.
13. When you review an item you don’t like, try to find good points as well as bad to write about. The manufacturer didn’t set out to make a POS and a vicious review can damage his business, which can be fragile. This doesn’t mean you can’t write bad reviews.
14. For reviews published online, respond to reader comments if your magazine allows it. People took the trouble to read your review and may have further questions. Maybe you weren’t clear about something, or they’d appreciate more info on something you mentioned. But be polite. There is no excuse whatsoever for abusing those who leave comments, even obvious trolls. Just ignore them if they are just trying to stir things up.
15. Don’t use foul language in reviews or responses to reader comments. Young children might read that language. If you can’t express yourself without using foul language, find another job.
16. Provide a list of the equipment in the system you used for the review, but don’t list every accessory you own or equipment you own that you didn’t use in the review. No one besides yourself will be impressed. For example, if you’re reviewing a DAC, don’t list your turntable unless the DAC has a phono input.
17. If editors let you see the edited version of your review, take advantage and look it over carefully. They may have misunderstood something you wrote and edited it to read much differently than what you intended. Check the art they chose to illustrate your review to be sure it illustrates points you’ve made. I’ve seen reviews where the pictures shown were not of the equipment reviewed; fortunately, not any of my own reviews.
18. If the review item uses tubes, mention what types of tubes are used; e. g., 12AX7, 6922, KT88. Interested readers need to know if replacement tubes will be readily available, or if the designer used some sort of exotic, rare, and expensive tubes that may be hard to find. If exotic tubes are used, find out replacement costs.
19. If you’re reviewing a speaker, don’t use subwoofers with it. Readers want to know how the speaker performs in the bass region, not the subwoofers. The same applies to amplifiers; don’t use subwoofers, at least powered subwoofers. You’ll be listening to the amplifier built into the subwoofer, not the amplifier you’re reviewing.

OK, that’s my list. I’ll admit to violating many of those guidelines at one time or another but have generally tried to stick to them. I hope they’ve made my reviews more valuable.

More from Issue 77

View All Articles in Issue 77

Search Copper Magazine

#231 Piano Prodigy Jude Kofie Releases His Debut Album On Octave Records by Frank Doris Jun 01, 2026 #231 Underappreciated Artists, Part Two: City Boy by Rich Isaacs Jun 01, 2026 #231 Music and the Art of Creation: Talking With Saxophonist Rob Scheps by Joe Caplan Jun 01, 2026 #231 How to Play in a Rock Band, 24: Further Adventures at the 2026 Montauk Music Festival by Frank Doris Jun 01, 2026 #231 Courtney Barnett: Creature of Habit by Wayne Robins Jun 01, 2026 #231 Angine de Poitrine: Interstellar Guitar Rock Saviors Headed for Late-Night TV Pop Stardom? by Mark Lepage Jun 01, 2026 #231 My Impressions of AXPONA 2026, Part One by Frank Doris Jun 01, 2026 #231 2026 La Jolla Concours d'Elegance: Another Aesthetic Feast by B. Jan Montana Jun 01, 2026 #231 Country Music Icon Jo Dee Messina’s Bridges: A New Beginning by Ray Chelstowski Jun 01, 2026 #231 The Luxury Dispatch Hosts a Video Podcast With Ken Kessler by Ken Kessler Jun 01, 2026 #231 The Vinyl Beat: Tracking in the Motor City by Rudy Radelic Jun 01, 2026 #231 Lots of Fun With DSP: The Ferrum Audio WANDLA DAC and Its Tube Mode by Frank Doris Jun 01, 2026 #231 From The Audiophile's Guide: Digital Source Components and Streaming Audio by Paul McGowan Jun 01, 2026 #231 Onkyo’s Monster M-510 power amplifier by The Staff at Just Audio Jun 01, 2026 #231 PS Audio in the News by PS Audio Staff Jun 01, 2026 #231 Naming Convention by Peter Xeni Jun 01, 2026 #231 Les Invisibles by Frank Doris Jun 01, 2026 #231 Wildlife Scene by James Schrimpf Jun 01, 2026 #230 Camaraderie by B. Jan Montana May 04, 2026 #230 AXPONA 2026: A Family Gathering by Paul McGowan May 04, 2026 #230 Pianist Ryan Benthall Explores Jazz Realms and Far Beyond With Divine Sky by Frank Doris May 04, 2026 #230 The Vinyl Beat in AXPONA-Land by Rudy Radelic May 04, 2026 #230 Teddy Thompson’s Musical Growth Deepens With Never Be the Same by Ray Chelstowski May 04, 2026 #230 More Fun in the Sun: Florida Audio Expo, Part Two by Frank Doris May 04, 2026 #230 CanJam NYC 2026 Show Report: Heady Sound, Part Two by Frank Doris and Harris Fogel May 04, 2026 #230 Sonic Youth On Murray Street by Wayne Robins May 04, 2026 #230 Graffeo Coffee: A Symphony of Sensory Experience by Joe Caplan May 04, 2026 #230 The Saul Authority: The Story of Hi-Fi Pioneer Saul Marantz by Olivier Meunier-Plante May 04, 2026 #230 How to Play in a Rock Band, 23: Encounters With Famous Musicians, Part Two by Frank Doris May 04, 2026 #230 An Outlier in the Rack: A Vintage BIC Beam Box by The Staff at Just Audio May 04, 2026 #230 PS Audio in the News by PS Audio Staff May 04, 2026 #230 A Cautionary Tale by Rich Isaacs May 04, 2026 #230 Reel-to-Reel Roots, Part 33 (Revised): Ken Kessler Reports On the 2026 (British) AudioJumble by Ken Kessler May 04, 2026 #230 Text Messaging by Frank Doris May 04, 2026 #230 The Audiophile Rat Race by Peter Xeni May 04, 2026 #230 On the Rocks by Rich Isaacs May 04, 2026 #229 The Earliest Stars of Country Music, Part Three by Jeff Weiner Apr 06, 2026 #229 The Healing Power of Music and Sound at the Omega Institute by Joe Caplan Apr 06, 2026 #229 CanJam NYC 2026 Show Report: Heady Sound, Part One by Frank Doris Apr 06, 2026 #229 Florida Audio Expo 2026: Warming Up to High-End Audio, Part One by Frank Doris Apr 06, 2026 #229 Quick Takes: Anne Bisson, Sam Morrison, The Velvet Underground, and the Stooges by Frank Doris Apr 06, 2026 #229 The Vinyl Beat: New Arrivals, and Old Audio Show Demo Scores to Settle by Rudy Radelic Apr 06, 2026 #229 Harvard Gets a High-End Audio Education by Frank Doris Apr 06, 2026 #229 No Country for Old Knees by B. Jan Montana Apr 06, 2026 #229 How To Play in A Rock Band, 22: Encounters With Famous Musicians, Part 1 by Frank Doris Apr 06, 2026 #229 The Soulful Grooves of Guinea-Bissau by Steve Kindig Apr 06, 2026 #229 Four-Hand Piano Performance at Its Finest by Stephan Haberthür Apr 06, 2026

Vade’s Recommended Reviewer Guidelines

Part of the fun of being an audiophile is reading reviews of audio gear. I’ve read audio reviews for 60 years, starting with Stereo Review, leading to Gordon Holt’s Stereophile and Harry Pearson’s The Absolute Sound, continuing with several print and online magazines to the present. As an author, I’ve written reviews for 14 years, starting with Positive Feedback Online and moving to the SoundStage! Network’s suite of online magazines and The Absolute Sound in print and online. In the process I’ve formed some strong views about how a reviewer should go about his or her business. I thought I’d share some of them with you.

1. Use your own system to review equipment, not someone else’s and certainly not equipment in a dealer’s or manufacturer’s facility. And forget attempting to review something in a trade-show environment—yes, some reviewers have actually done that.
2. Replace only a single item in your system with the item you’re reviewing; otherwise, you won’t be able to tell what item produces a particular sonic characteristic. Avoid testing several components at once.
3. Review the equipment exactly as the manufacturer provided it. Don’t make any sort of modification, even easy ones; they can change the nature of the sound into something unique, which may not resemble what a reader is likely to hear. If a modification makes a big improvement, write a comment or a sidebar about it after you review the item in stock form. No-no mods include:

  • Using a third-party power cord. Yeah, I know; many stock power cords are junk, but unless the manufacturer doesn’t provide any cord, the stock cord is what many readers will use.
  • Replacing stock tubes with new old stock (NOS) tubes from your personal stash. NOS tubes might make improvements, or maybe just changes, but can be expensive and the models you substitute may be impossible for readers to find. Many tubed components are optimized for the sound of the stock tubes anyhow.
  • Using aftermarket footers. These can make big improvements, but most readers won’t use them. And each footer has a different sonic, ahem, footprint.
  • Using a power conditioner. Plug the review item into your wall socket. Power conditioners can make a huge improvement, but can also degrade the sound. I might make an exception if the power coming out of the wall is trashy, but as my mother-in-law used to say, it’s making the best of a bad situation. I hope she wasn’t talking about me.

4. The reference system you use in a review should be comprised of reasonably current equipment; you need to show readers how the equipment you’re reviewing sounds in the context of a current system. That’s why reviewers get manufacturer’s accommodations, or discounts. Vintage gear is fine and fun for audiophile hobbyists but isn’t for reviewers. Who cares how good a turntable sounds with 78 RPM records? [I think Jeremy Kipnis might—check out the feature from Copper #76! –-Ed.]
5. When reviewing speakers, use an amplifier capable of driving the speakers. Don’t try to drive inefficient speakers with a 20-watt amplifier. Make sure the amp can handle the speaker’s impedance swings.
6. Use a wide variety of music to demonstrate sonic characteristics of review item, not just the stuff you like. Ideally, music should include solo instrumental, solo voice, orchestral, choral, rock, jazz, classical. Don’t just use solo singers or small vocal groups with band backings. Use currently available recordings, if possible; your review could prompt a reader to want to listen to a recording you mentioned. If you don’t own a wide variety of music, subscribe to Tidal or Qobuz.
7. Compare the review item with comparable items if possible, even if you have to do so from a spec sheet. Readers appreciate knowing how an item stacks up against its competition.
8. Be reasonably proficient using your word processor. Pay attention to spelling and grammar checkers.
9. Have a logical structure for your reviews. Don’t wander about aimlessly. Here’s the structure I like to use, although it’s not the only acceptable format. It’s essentially the format specified for SoundStage! publications.

  • Section 1 — Description of the equipment. Explain in easily understandable terms what the review equipment does, if it’s something unusual. It’s surprising how many manufacturers can’t manage to do this, but instead, lapses into industry slang that confuses the reader.
  • Section 2 — Setting up the equipment for the review; problems encountered. This is especially important for turntables, where the sound is quite dependent on setup. Mention what equipment you used with the review item; that has a big effect of the sound quality. Believe it or not, I saw a major reviewer review a tonearm without mentioning what cartridges he used with it, or how easy setup was.
  • Section 3 — Sound; how the equipment sounded, with plenty of musical illustrations. But don’t just list a bunch of recordings and say the review item sounded good on all of them.
  • Section 4 — Comparisons; how does the equipment stack up against its competition? Readers really want to know this information—they read reviews to help them sort out which equipment to buy.
  • Section 5 — Conclusions and recommendations; whether you’d recommend the item you reviewed, and any limitations for its use.

10. Stay on point. Readers don’t want to know a lot about your family, your hobbies, your food and drink preferences, or your pets.
11. Don’t go overboard about your emotional reaction to a review item. Emotional reactions are hugely dependent on the music played. For example, if you play hip-hop music for me, even through a fantastic system, my emotional reaction will be to puke. OK, that’s a physical reaction, but you get the point. Hey, if you like it, great, but it’s not appealing to me. There is no emotion track on a recording. Emotional responses result from how the listener reacts to some sort of sonic characteristic like timing precision, harmonic accuracy, or microdynamic tracking; discuss that instead of emotions. Yeah, I know, it’s easier to talk about how music moved you, as if everyone would react the same way.
12. If you discuss technical issues, know what you’re talking about. Get help from the manufacturer if you’re allowed to talk to him.
13. When you review an item you don’t like, try to find good points as well as bad to write about. The manufacturer didn’t set out to make a POS and a vicious review can damage his business, which can be fragile. This doesn’t mean you can’t write bad reviews.
14. For reviews published online, respond to reader comments if your magazine allows it. People took the trouble to read your review and may have further questions. Maybe you weren’t clear about something, or they’d appreciate more info on something you mentioned. But be polite. There is no excuse whatsoever for abusing those who leave comments, even obvious trolls. Just ignore them if they are just trying to stir things up.
15. Don’t use foul language in reviews or responses to reader comments. Young children might read that language. If you can’t express yourself without using foul language, find another job.
16. Provide a list of the equipment in the system you used for the review, but don’t list every accessory you own or equipment you own that you didn’t use in the review. No one besides yourself will be impressed. For example, if you’re reviewing a DAC, don’t list your turntable unless the DAC has a phono input.
17. If editors let you see the edited version of your review, take advantage and look it over carefully. They may have misunderstood something you wrote and edited it to read much differently than what you intended. Check the art they chose to illustrate your review to be sure it illustrates points you’ve made. I’ve seen reviews where the pictures shown were not of the equipment reviewed; fortunately, not any of my own reviews.
18. If the review item uses tubes, mention what types of tubes are used; e. g., 12AX7, 6922, KT88. Interested readers need to know if replacement tubes will be readily available, or if the designer used some sort of exotic, rare, and expensive tubes that may be hard to find. If exotic tubes are used, find out replacement costs.
19. If you’re reviewing a speaker, don’t use subwoofers with it. Readers want to know how the speaker performs in the bass region, not the subwoofers. The same applies to amplifiers; don’t use subwoofers, at least powered subwoofers. You’ll be listening to the amplifier built into the subwoofer, not the amplifier you’re reviewing.

OK, that’s my list. I’ll admit to violating many of those guidelines at one time or another but have generally tried to stick to them. I hope they’ve made my reviews more valuable.

0 comments

Leave a comment

0 Comments

Your avatar

Loading comments...

🗑️ Delete Comment

Enter moderator password to delete this comment:

✏️ Edit Comment

Enter your email to verify ownership: