I've avoided doing paid gear reviews because it feels inherently dishonest, I don't want my opinion or seal of approval to be for sale. A few companies have sent me things totally free, no strings attached, and I've given them shoutouts and posted their links, that feels fine to me. I'd suggest starting a Patreon- the support I receive from my subscribers means I don't have to rely on sponsored ads or deals, and i can focus my effort on making the content I want (which has never been gear reviews). If you start one I'll be the first to sign up!
Love your videos dude! As long as your properly disclose it and are unbiased in your opinion, there's no need to feel dishonest about it. It doesn't have to be a review. You can offer an option to do a 10-second mention at the start of your video where you clearly say "Today's video is sponsored by x!" or something like that. Brands will pay anywhere from $500 to $10,000 for something like that, depending on your audience size and demographics. I highly recommend watching this video from Linus Tech Tips on how they handle sponsorships with 100% unbiased reviews. It's a masterclass on how to do endorsements right: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-t73wXF8IF-8.html
I'd rather read people's opinions for free on forums and not have to pay for yet another subscription. No wonder everyone is poor these days, subscriptions nickel and diming you to death.
I find Phil McKnight to be one of the most open reviewers. He always makes it clear if he was sent something he could then keep. He also tries to capture the sound as he hears it in the room although that's not easy with RU-vid. He also suggests using his reviews as examples with companies if you should have an experience less than the one he received. His live show on a Friday is well worth a watch. However anything that has that Chapman fella associated with it results in the opposite from me. The more he likes something the more likely I am not to buy it....
Idk if you've heard of Darrell Braun but he does very good reviews and he's pretty unbiased very straight forward with what he does and doesn't like and not everything he reviews was sponsored he tried to get stuff on his own too anything that he finds interesting
Tbf before we had all these youtubers and our parasocial relationships with them, all we had was guitar magazines with their extremely vanilla almost exclusively positive "reviews". It was a joke back then, years before youtube reviews became a thing.
Yeah, but we knew those were paid adverts. So we could read between the lines, or even just look at the product and decide if it suited us or not. With youtube reviews, some are being peddled as being unbiased, or unpaid, which gives a totally different idea of the perspective of the reviewer.
Back pre-internet, we also had local music shops where we could try products out for ourselves. At least one in every town. Since 2000 almost every one of them in my region of the UK has long gone out of business. Even the local 2nd hand junk shops where we could find unexpected great bargains are gone. All that's left now are dodgy Cash Converters..
@@garycrant4511 fortunately in the city where I live there still are four or five musicshops, two of which belong to a regional chain with shared warehouse and therefore quite big sortiment. That being said, you can't compare them. Other than the few mayor players, those local shops had maybe two, three dozen instruments, covering everything from bodyshapes to pricepoint plus maybe a dozen amps and maybe 12 Boss pedals plus one other "exotic" brand. The only thing they would have a metric shitton of different options on was cables, strings and plecs, since that basically made their living. Of course, you would browse through all of that and get to play it, but its not even close to the range and variety of options we are used to today. You could order close to anything through that shop but that would take quite a while and depending on the shop even result in an expectation of you actually buying the thing, and not just ordering four guitars to fiddle around. Yes, the golden nostalgia colours everything in rosy light but in my memories, most of the instruments in those shops were (and mostly are to this day) pretty basic and mostly uninteresting low- to midpriced stuff and the actual range of choice disappointing.
I noticed a trend lately within the RU-vid community of guitarist. That trend seems to revolve around them getting free gear from vendors to push their brands.
Which is fine, as long as they're open about it. A guy pretending like he's bought this guitar and adores it when he got it for free to promote it... that's a problem.
This has been going on for years. HP42 channel Henning Pauly has a yearly sale where he takes all the freebies given to him that he does not want and sells it for cash. Last year or the year before I think he had over 200 guitar pedals for sale. That's just guitar pedals. There were amps, recording gear, mics, guitars, speaker cabinets and on and on. He banks large every year as so many companies send him stuff hoping he will do a review on it. All of the major RU-vidrs in the guitar review channels bank large on sale of the freebies they get and no longer want!
@@Maxim89Il I don't know how many are though. My biggest issue is how nonchalant some are with the bounty of free stuff. They get jaded fast. A musician would have to actually work for a string endorsement, real work, nevermind multi-thousand dollar guitars, processors and amplifiers. They may have received a bottom tier artist contract. Now it's anyone with 50k or more subs gets free stuff. It's the new endorsement sans a binding contract
It's sickening to me. It literally makes me feel motivated to kill and steal someone's shit. I pay for gear and it's been 13 years and I still can't replace a guitar I lost that stayed in tune. I'm still struggling to tinker with my jackson (indonesian made) until I can afford to replace it. But, i'm not a luthier, nor do I know any so i'll just sit here out of tune. that's what the $$$ in this goddamned business means to me. That's right I'm not made of money.
@@franks471 it's one thing to be a recording or touring artist. Endorsement deals come along with the territory. Its another to do "reviews" for free shit. It's dishonest. These "reviewers" shouldn't get to keep the gear.
One would think that a platform thats free for all to upload to would result in more earned media than owned and paid media 😅 This landscape of mixing review and advertisement together just means I cant trust the youtuber. So the brands loose nothing whilst the youtubers loose their credibility. This is more a problem with the word “review” having been very effective as clickbait. Just call an advert for what it is! Making a living is not the same as selling out 😅 Your audience will let you know if they wanna watch you for your creativity or your ability to speak to their consumerist needs, haha. But if I am ever to trust a youtubers opinions, I dont want to find out later that those opinions where for sale.
Your last sentence is the key. For me, opinions are never for sale. You should see the eMail exchanges I have with brands. I just told a MASSIVE brand that they wouldn’t be able to see my video ahead of release, because I just don’t do that. They pay for my time, expertise, audience and video production, NOT for my opinion... that is mine alone and never for sale. This works and wether or not someone says something they don’t believe for money is purely up to them. It doesn’t mean that getting paid means you have to lie. I took money from Fender and clearly said the guitars I got had no setups and needed works and even replaced the string trees in the video. It was an honest review AND it was paid for. I don’t see why the two things can’t happen at the same time.
@@EytschPi42 You're doing it right and that's why I respect and trust your videos. Being paid and giving your 100% unbiased opinion can co-exist. Just disclose properly! Linus Tech Tips has proven that it can be done. They are the de facto example: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-t73wXF8IF-8.html
Most RU-vidrs get to the postion of being able to do a paid review by buying the company's products for years and years and using them extensively. First of all that doesnt happen if it isnt an actual good product. Secondly most music gear is completely subjective. What works for them may not work for you. That doesnt mean the product is bad
@@mbgmail5911 That is absolute bs. Those people do the review to actually show the product. Not because they get paid for it. Demoing stuff is part of a music RU-vidrs job these days. So they deserve to be paid for it. Music RU-vidrs are not like travelling salesmen who are trying to sell you a pile of shit for an absolute fortune. Yes there might be the odd one here and there who's trying to do that but they get called out on it REALLY quickly. 99% of paid revies exist because the creator has been using similar products or maybe even that exact product for ages or they have just started using it but think its very good. As HP said opinions arent for sale. They'll never be.
I don't trust RU-vid reviews/demos from anyone that has a big channel. The guy in his living room with an iPhone mic or very primitive recording rig is always going to be the closest to reality.
@@jpvvandermerwe87 well that's a bad move, because he's being paid to present products in the best possible light. No matter how good (or bad!) the product actually is.
Exactly - I feel the minute you start getting paid, or endorsed, or stuff starts showing up in your mail, thats the end of the truth. I mean, if a company starts sending you gear, FREE gear, are people really going to tell it like it is? I agree, when views/monetization gets involved, its hard to tell what is real.
Yeah tbh the only reason I started watching Tyler from music is win, more regularly is because I needed more material but he literally just makes videos for views they are not educational at all.
So true! I am into amp sims. A couple years back when Joey Sturgis came out with his Misha Mansoor plugin, everybody jumped on the wagon. And to be honest, half of the videos you could tell that they were struggling to get a good tone - one guy even made a face, apologized, and said "that's about as good as I can get it". And he still gave a raving review and endorsed the plugin! Or, guys like Ola Englund say how much they love the plugin, demo it (and they know it sounds like shit), and then put it in a mix and EQ the HELL out of it. So frustrating.
Want to know something about Panama Amps? One of the RU-vidrs who was pushing it so hard and so often was actually working for them/with them and he never disclosed it in any of the review videos. If I recall correctly, he mentioned it in one of his FAQ videos and that's when I un-subbed. I'm not going to mention the name because maybe I'm recalling it incorrectly.
To be fair, Music Man guitars are on another level of quality. I've had ESPs, Schecters, PRS SE and for the past 10 years only Gibsons. Recently I got an EBMM Majesty and the quality is insane. I do agree that nowadays they are looked like douchebag guitars, especially with Jared Dines. I can't stand that guy
It's worth pointing out that when you were looking for the Laney, the only thing you could fine were things made by Laney and by Laney artists... you dismissed these because of COURSE they're going to tell you a product is great... You wanted something impartial. We're in a place now where the channels you go to for your reviews are making so much cash that they're even less trustworthy than the official channel... because the lack of disclosure has already shown you that they're happy to mislead you. Plus, if I buy a Laney for $2000 and you ask what I think of it, I can absolutely guarantee you I'll have a different opinion than if I was given the amp along with $1000 and the promise of more gear next month...
You are so right! They can’t be called reviews now. They are the typical infomercial where artists/reviewers are fed a script. I won’t mention names, but I have been very disappointed on a few youtubers that I sincerely admired - lost quite a few $$ for trusting their “honest” reviews. No more.
Music AfterOldAge even in the age of magazines you couldn’t trust shit. When I would review stuff and worked in editorial we were never paid for good reviews... but you rely on advertising to stay open, so you’re not going to say anything bad about the company that it’s you 5k a month...
The only RU-vid guitar channel I'd consider using/buying the things he'd recommend is Phil McKnight from Know your gear. Dude just straight up recommends things he thinks are good. Or Jeff Loomis, his tone is crunchy af. I'm a fan.
I 100% agree with you. The problem is not paid gear reviews, it's the fact that it's not readily disclosed. Same for Internet Tracking, I do not mind that company wants to track me... But they should ask for it instead of just doing it in the most creepy way possible. If I give my consent, the party can continue, but if I say no, and they continue to track me, it should be illegal.
Any gear review I find where their playing is so pristine and perfect and clearly edited post in a DAW I instantly distrust. Have the raw audio, your screw ups and all the string noise and all that. If I can't even trust that the playing hasn't been touched post recording how am I supposed to trust review? I get wanting to showcase the best licks you can play and making them sound perfect but save that for studio recordings, nobody wants to watch/listen to someone nail some 32nd note wild arpeggios that are really a DAW edit mashup of their 4th, 12th, and 17th takes on a gear review video.
A valid opinion well made. I unsubbed from a lot of guitar based youtube channels when they became little more than advertising platforms for gear and plugins. Fluff, Rabea, Fricker and CSG to name just four. I don’t mind paid demos, but what I’m not prepared to tolerate is people who pretend to have integrity when they have none.
Gotta agree with you. Been a fan of these guys way back when they were getting started, and things were cool. Ola would just play an map, not say anything about it and let the sound do the talking. These days he can barely keep up with the free shit coming in that he owes some company a video for. Same with Fricker. Used to back him too - he claims "fearless gear reviews". I have a feeling the only thing he gives an honest (or negative review) are those companies who wont give him free stuff.
Are you going to do a video on Csguitars? His channel has changed over the last 18-24 months and every video is now an ad for different products usually very poorly disclosed. I think Colin had great content before but now it's the home shopping network for guitar related stuff.
My favorite rhetoric is always "so they gave me this for free, but this totally not an ad. They don't even know I'm making this video" Yes they do know, that's why they gave it to you. Not only is it an ad, but you totally got ripped off to make it.
For gear reviews, mainly guitar reviews, I check Agufish’s channel first. Homeboy seems pretty honest with his reviews. Got my Agile because if his review. Haven’t regretted it.
Agreed. I love his reviews because he is honest and picky! I wanna now if my next 300€ guitar will have bad fretwork as i wanna know if my next 1300€ or hell even 3000€ guitar has bad fretwork etc and he tells us. Also he makes mistakes and shows us, which is human and relatable.
Agree or disagree I appreciate you and your channel. I havent been able to check out your playing yet ( except for that in the dozen or so videos Ive seen thus far) but must say to your credit, you are an excellent investigative reporter. Having done some followups and investigations of my own on several of your topics and actually, as reaction to several others, your observations and potential corrections or solutions are all accurate, truth, and responsible/ethical. Thank you and, well done Sir.
I had to unsub from many guitar channels because of the non-disclosure. I'm a professional copywriter who is sensitive to stuff like this because I've worked for brands and lawyers to write disclosures that keep people out of trouble. I don't have a problem with paid gear reviews as long as the person is properly disclosing that it's sponsored in a clear and conspicuous manner. Some RU-vidrs don't do this, even though they're legally required to by the FTC. Besides the fact that it can land them a monetary fine, it hurts their reputation and the reputation of the brands they are doing the sponsorship for. One example: Riffs, Beards & Gear. There's a post on the GGD Facebook page where they write "Fluff got his hands on our newest library" and "shares his thoughts on the library, and gives his opinion..." and links to a video "review" by Fluff. The thing is, GGD paid or gave him the software for free for the purposes of the review. GGD does not disclose this in the Facebook post, and Fluff uses an improper discloser in the description of his RU-vid video. He writes, "This video brought to you by GetGood Drums!" According to the FTC, disclosers can be missed if a person is required to click more, and he is legally required to disclose in the video that it's sponsored, of which he doesn't do. He also didn't click the "includes paid product placement" checkbox option in RU-vid which would've displayed on screen that same text. Another example: Rabea Massaad. A giveaway for if he's doing a sponsored video is the the titles he writes "I'm BLOWN AWAY" - "ONE OF THE BEST x EVER" etc. He doesn't give any discloser in the video, in the description, or anywhere for that matter. You may say, well, he's in the UK and the American FTC laws don't apply to him. That's incorrect. According to the FTC, if you believe that an American audience may potentially watch your video, you have to disclose it. Another example: SpectreSoundStudios - he doesn't disclose anything anywhere when he gets paid to do a "review" or is given a product for free. Check out one of his latest videos for an example "The LAST OVERDRIVE demo I'll EVER DO! Nobels ODR1" One RU-vidr I have respect for with disclosers is Ola Englund. I made a comment on one of his videos stating he isn't disclosing properly, and he asked me what he needs to write in order to do that, so I wrote him a clear, simple, and specific to his brand disclosure that he now uses on his sponsored videos. It's still below the fold at the bottom of the description, but hey, it's a start, right? I hope that the RU-vidr's I've mentioned read my comments and understand that I'm coming from a place of help and education. If you're a RU-vidr guitar influencer, please take the time to read these two sites from the FTC so you can learn how to properly disclose your sponsorships and retain the integrity of your brand, and trust of your audience: www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/disclosures-101-social-media-influencers www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking I also super highly recommend watching this video from Linus Tech Tips where Linus goes into detail about how they're paid but 100% unbiased in their reviews. This is a masterclass on how to do sponsorships right: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-t73wXF8IF-8.html
Every time I watch one of your posts I find myself quietly thinking about Chapman and how if it wasn't for his and his apostles douchery I wouldn't be here listening to your wonderful uploads. I don't in any way celebrate it, I know the terrible things that you went through, I am though fairly certain that without it I wouldn't be subscribed or even aware of you. 'Every cloud........' 😎🎙🎸✅
Chapman has now moved to Malta. His channel is dying slowly as he's not getting the views he had when he was posting Andertons videos on his personal channel. Lee Anderton told him to stop as he was taking revenue away from Andertons RU-vid channel. I don't think Chapman guitars is doing much better either. A lot of the original long time employees have left (Matt Hornsby). Malta. He's really moving up in the world eh?
@@joeltaylor4821 what? Matt's no longer part of the equation? He was the biggest, most pompous, officious douchebag working for Chappers. Nice guy most of the time but hellish to deal with if you wanted a pre-launch glimpse of Chapman product at NAMM or indeed if you give a negative review of a Chapman (Henning Pauly did both and twice incurred Matt's wrath, as I believe did Phil McKnight).
also I want to point out that I really appreciate your videos for touching on topics like this where no one honestly approaches them out of fear of alienation or losing sponsorships. major props on that.
I think Glenn reached out to him and took the criticism on-board so he removed it. Unfortunately I also didn't see the video so I can't verify this is the case.
Excellent topic of discussion. In India I pray this culture of reviews becomes more popular than the paid demos. With the company heads we have here am not so hopeful. Always comes down to controlled positive promotions with paid hitmen.
My strategy when reviewing gear online, I watch the "company's" video for the "features and specs" then I watch the amateur (unpaid) guy in his living room for his opinion. Oddly I watch the most poorly produced videos first (I know, I'm just assuming and hoping he/she is not being paid). It has worked for me so far!
Thats because the person just using their camera mic gives you an honest "in the room" sound. If you mic up a cab properly you can make almost anything sound good.
@@misterknightowlandco I had trouble finding a good video for the Blackstar Fly mini amp, because almost everyone just put a microphone on it. It’s a tiny amp so I wanted to know how loud it actually gets. I eventually found a good guy in his living room demonstrating it with camera audio from multiple distances away, none of the bigger review channels did that though
I can't see how anyone would think you are completely against advertising. You make your position abundantly clear. 100% on this. Where I also take issue with advertising is if an individual or channel is endorsing a brand for cash that they otherwise normally wouldn't. If a channel were paid to rave about "Bear-In-Grrr" pedals, but would never actually use them, well, that's just vulgar.
Now that I know you have an affiliate link with thomann, I've been looking at a few guitars and amps. I will definitely be using your link. I'll support the cause. You honestly are the only RU-vidr that give a bare bones, cut and dry, no bullshit review/ interview/ comment or whatever you are doing. I like that. To the point and fuck all who don't like it. Just good business in my book.
Honestly the only one I know who clearly marks his paid promotions are Phil McKnight. I'm sure there are others but that's what I've noticed. People are getting hip to it. Rhett Shull (not knocking or singling him out, just the instance I saw) had a video for I think the Helix or something, and he was even getting called out a little bit in the comments for being so high on it but it coming off slightly hollow and a little bit of a shill...Rhett Shill? sorry man lol.
@@alar2266 Exactly and the more we take in the guitar gear content on youtube we pick up on trends and transparencies across the board of the reviewers and creators. In the age of the internet the only option is transparency after a while, one way or another.
Sometimes I think that the reviews have the opposite of the desired effect. Whenever I see a new gear review and it comes up in my stream with Rebea/hennig/fluff/5 other guitars I kinda just feel like everyone is shilling for a product and usually don't end up watching the review unless it's a piece of gear I was already looking forward to. I'm not being holier than thou when I say that because I would totally review a pedal myself if companies were sending them to me. I get it. However, I miss when gear reviews were legitimately about products that players were excited for or secret finds. When there's no negativity for a new product across the board, I'm always dubious. I'm sure we all have piles of gear we've bought because of hype and later weren't blown away by it. I just watch some reviews with a jaded eye when I do watch now.
I agree completely. I want to be told whether the review is paid for or not- not to discredit the reviewer, but to ensure I can trust them. In Fluff's case, I thought he was a regular guy with a heartwarming story about "going for it." Then the advertisements started happening every week, and Fluff outright refused to check the little box that said, "This Content Includes Paid Promotion." All it would've taken for Fluff to maintain credibility as a reviewer is his disclosing that the content he was putting up was being done because he was being paid. When RU-vidr's fail to disclose paid promotion (or they lie about it), everything they say becomes disingenuous because I'm not sure they can be trusted to tell the truth.
Trogly is the GOAT in this category. That dude is so wholesome and so easy to watch, but without being condescending or outright deceitful. He's bought brand new guitars and slated the hell out of them and I really respect that
There was a guitar I've been looking to buy but have been unable to find any reviews or videos on it. So one day when I'm at a local guitar shop I see that exact type of guitar and get playing it, it sounded and felt amazing. Next thing I know I'm looking at the Reverb page and realize it's the exact same guitar that I've wanted was the one at the local shop.
I agree 100% and I thought your stance seemed pretty clear in your previous videos. There are quite a few 'guitar youtubers' I just refuse to watch because of this very topic. It's one thing to do an advertisement or endorsement and be completely upfront and honest about it, and another thing to not mention the affiliation at all, which is what's happening more times than not. A lot of the time these videos are super clickbait-y as well like 'CANT BELIEVE THIS GUITAR ONLY COST X AMOUNT', or 'THIS GUITAR BLOWS A GIBSON OUT OF THE WATER', type titles. Seems like these videos are popping up more and more by the day. The worst to me are the serial offenders that seem to have a new secret partner every week, it sort of adds to the illusion that there is no affiliation. It seems like every single one of their videos is secretly sponsored. Most people think there's no way that this person could work for all these different people, it must just be authentic reviews... One person that recently was added to my 'do not recommend videos from this channel' list is Darrell Braun, can't believe people actually watch his videos. He shamelessly sells/promotes stuff and never has he ever mentioned any affiliations. He even has links to the companies in his descriptions (probably with a special link tagged to him)..
An entire video on Fluff would provide plenty of content for this very topic. Just awaiting the moment he finally announces an endorsement with Gibson, particularly since his failure to mention Balageur guitars in some of his recent videos especially given his signature model connection with the brand. Does a video on top ten sigs, no mention. Does an entire video on the RD series even going on to mention his dream specs for one and still no mention...
Fluff is so sketchy man. He always says good shit about the companies who endorse him and or pay him. Orange and Music Man. He rubs me the wrong way. He shifts his opinions based on where the money is.
None of them are reviews, they are SALES DEMOS. They demonstrate the positives, and toss in a few soft negatives to make it all seem legit. An actual "review" is ONLY when the reviewer has absolutely zero financial interest in the company/product, such as the outcome of sales, future paid sales demo gigs, etc..etc..
If a channel doesn't display the 'Includes paid promotion' banner, and/or doesn't mention where they got the gear, ask them in their comments section. You can assume at this point they have received compensation for the video, and then use your best judgement if you trust their integrity.
Another thing I feel these reviews have done is basically created a market for over-priced pedals, particularly drive pedals. Overdrive was pretty much perfected 40 years ago (the most popular pedals are just tubescreamer and rat clones, and the holy grail is the 30 year old Klon) but that doesn't stop people putting them in fancy cases, running them through several thousands worth of gear and then claiming they're worth $200-$300. Chase Bliss seeing if they could pull it off by charging $750 recently. these pedals are just toys for bored lawyers.
Totally agree, I mean how many drive pedals, fuzz pedals, clean boost pedals etc do we need, it’s the same with the custom shop guitars from the big manufacturers, how many frigging versions of a strat/ les Paul...the market seems saturated and it’s driven it seems by the same people (on RU-vid) reviewing the same pedals over and over...
You hit on something I find very important. When I’m looking at a piece of gear I appreciate a demo done in a professional manner as opposed to seeing some regular joe that got it. Because as you said when someone shells out big money for something they’re not gonna see the flaws, OR they’re gonna see nothing but the flaws! It’s very hard to be objective when it was your money. You are absolutely right about the lack of value in the “here’s how it sounds” part. It can be entertaining but has no real value because it in no way represents how it will sound in your room with you playing it. I’m much more interested in features and opinions on quality, fit and finish etc. I’ve more than once been excited by a product only to find through a review that it didn’t function or wasn’t intended to operate like I thought. That said sometimes a channel will just do something for the sake of entertainment, clearly acknowledging that there’s no value other than having fun! those are the ones I enjoy the most (see Andertons).
😂 true, however that is not what people use it for really. Most people use it as a second amp when not near the main room (like just practicing or fooling around) I use it when I can’t be arsed to go in my room & turn the kemper on... yeah sometimes I’m a lazy sod😅.
E.T.A by Justin Bieber was recorded using Guitar Rig into Logic Pro. Sounds pretty good to me. And the producer who played the guitar part is a big deal.
As a pedal reviewer and having some exposure to that, it is actually quite hard to talk badly about things companies give your free. As you’d expect. But I make it a point to buy product on my dollar so I have some leverage even when I do get pedals gifted.
I understand your opinion because I've seen reviews on RU-vid about guitar gear and each RU-vidr has their own opinion on the gear they've done a review of and the same can be said if the video isn't sponsered or the RU-vidr isn't paid for the video
I got me a spark amp, with my own money. I like it a lot. It's compact, sounds fine and has some decent integration with modern tech. But I don't do guitar gear reviews on youtube.
I like how you've got your Thomann affiliate link, but you still brought the Fame guitars up. I might actually pick one up at some point, probably as soon as I'd rather have a PRS style guitar instead of an actually cool one.
Thanks for mentioning about audio... As a reseller I hate when people say "I gotta listen to some videos on it" when it comes to amps and cabs... You just can't reproduce an amp / cab etc in a youtube video... Heck, it takes a lot to get the sound when tracking on tunes, a lot more than just the amp or cab...
I feel like I'm the odd one out, because when the deluge of demos for the JHS 3 Series came out I watched every single one for the dirt pedals. Everyone covered them differently, especially the fuzz, and I wanted to know I was throwing $100 at something I was gonna love. Wound up with the OD. Zero regrets, it's great lol.
Damn usually when I look at reviews I always watch the ones where there’s no talking. I just want to hear it and not listen to some guy talk about it lol. What ur saying makes sense tho, I never really thought about RU-vid compression and stuff like that My favorite gear review channel has to be Knobs since he doesn’t talk but instead has text over the screen while he plays, plus I love his guitar playing style and the overall quirkiness of his videos
Thank you for doing the lord's work 🙏. Honestly I felt like I was sold short of the Boss Katana mk2 50w. I was looking at a small combo amp for home and it just feels lack luster but hopefully this weekend I can set it up with the BOSS Tone Studio and that'll do the trick
Bruh I know it's an old comment but fucking Boss Katana goddamn. So much hype which is fine, im sure it's great but one issue; I have watched like 10 of these reviews claiming its the best practice amp for bedroom players or whatever but not a single person mentioned you cannot plug headphones to that mfer... i mean you can, with a plug 6.3mm which you plug your regular headphones to, but it SOUNDS TERRIBLE and I don't mean kinda bad, you cannot play using headphones on it at all. There are some comllicated ways to fix it (like... buying Boss own headphones designed to be used on their amps for few hundred pounds) but the point is NOONE mentioned this at its a HUGE deal to the twrget audience of bedroom players, to be able to play at night or withot disturbing anyone in general... I went with Fender GTX50 qnd thank fuck, what a great amp - but guess what, Fender dont give two shits about paying youtubers to review it so barely anyone did, so I went to a shop myself and found it to be amazing on my own. But at least Katana is a great amp besides that, fucking Spark? What a piece of shit. And that mini version? A modeler with A PAYWALL of paid DLCs lmao you literally have to pay them to get more effects and shit in their app, no other modeler does that... curious if they mention that in them reviews lmao
@@aw2584 hahaha I feel ya dude. Got caught up in life and I dropped playing guitar all together. I did manage to get some great tones on the Boss Tone Studio but nothing that I really liked. Looking to restart on music again so hopefully a second time will do the trick. I've been personally looking at lunch boxes amps when the time is right, specifically Mesa Boogie mini rec and orange micro terror
Pretty much agree with everything you said. Especially the 'buyers bias' was a good point, since anyone who buys gears wants to like it. That being said, some details (from personal experience and preference) I didn't agree with. Like I think that most reviewers do call links 'affiliate'. And gear I don't like will sound worse that gear I would like, even with a high end signal chain or whatever. You mentioned the Black Spirit but I do hear the same characteristics in every video and just don't like the sound of it. And that's not the only product I feel the same way about. So in my experience I do get something out of demo's. Also I try to find (if available) more 'amateur' footage of (for instance) pedals as well as the pro stuff when comparing sound, but that only works for the popular stuff (the Revv G pedals come to mind).
I agree with everything you said, where I live I have access to limited gear so when I purchase it has to be from a place with free returns that includes free shipping.
If anything producers should be taking reviews more seriously than ever because we're also producing music that is going to be consumed by people listening on internet services through headphones. The problem is gear reviewers never reveal the entire signal chain or their post-processing. Viewers watch these reviews thinking 'if I buy this amp then my youtube home recordings will sound just as professional!' without realising that they need a $2,000 interface, EQing out the fizzy high end, multiband compressing the low mids and then mastering it in ozone. There's also an argument that gear demos might not tell us in a vacuum how something sounds, but it can tell us how it sounds relative to a familiar piece of gear. But reviewers never make comparisons since that could damage the brand of their employers. The only demoer I really like is Plague Scythe Studios since he not only outlines his signal path but has videos explaining how he produces his tone so there's full transparency. On the other hand you have Glenn Fricker who swears that whatever the new amp simulator is sounds 'just like the real thing' and then tries to sell you courses on all the post-processing you need to do to actually make it sound like the real thing. If I had known I'd need to buy a new interface/plugins/a 10 hour course I would have just bought a modeler for the same total cost and saved myself the frustration.
Great video again! I think you can expand your point to the new generation of signature guitar models. In the past, musician who had the CHANCE of having a signature guitar were the big ones (Hetfield, Hammett, mustaine, Laiho, Petrucci, Vai, Satriani, SRV, etc.)... Those had success and a serious impact on music (the thing you are suppose to do with a guitar). I cringed a little bit when I saw that Jared Dines has a new signature Sterling guitar.. First, the guy is a youtube star, not a guitar hero (IMO). If you say that he is, please name me a song he wrote. Second, it's a Sterling (not a true Music Man). So it's clear that the target is the 12 to 17 years old guitar player who has no money and watch RU-vid. To me, it was a move to sell guitars to vulnerable young musician...That's just my opinion.
I don't think have a problem with it. From the guitar company's view, they want to get their guitars in the hands of people who are seen and influential. I don't think it's ever been about musical knowledge/technicality/amount of records. There's plenty of people who have signature guitars who aren't really known as being "guitarists."
Excellent video! I wish everyone one youtube was this honest. I will NOT watch gear reviews that are sponsored by the product. If I want to watch a commercial I will just go to the company's video on the product instead. I hate commercials.
I've always had the suspicion that Guitar MAX is one of those guys who just doesn't disclose that he's being paid or compensated for a review. Just has that entire shill vibe going on.
Fluff is this to a T. NEVER discloses his paid promotion, but just about every single product he demos has affiliate links, kickbacks, and associated monetary incentives. Had to stop watching because I couldn't trust anything he said.
@@12ealDealOfficial Yeah dude he did this with Panama amps, he never told anyone he worked for them but admitted months after he left them that he worked there. Dishonest as fuck. Fluff is a shill and probably the worst offender in this topic.
@@dexxfilm well i think that with most big youtubers its really about the production value that goes into the videos they make. Take Guitar Max or Fluff for example, one thing the y do very well is presentation and video quality. Because they are good presenters/good salesman companies seek their services. They should be more honest about their reviews but the companies that hire them could care less. I know that lot of people listen with their eyes which is why their videos get a good amount of clicks. I always advise people to listen with their ears. If people did truly talented youtubers like tom quayle, Greg koch, martin miller, Pete thorn among others would have the most subscribers.
as much as i like some of todays top guitar youtubers, i don't believe their reviews because i don't see negative reviews from them. The top guys all review the same gear at the same time as it is released and none of them say anything but good things, certainly nothing to put you off a purchase. Now they all declare their interests in fairness but the point of their reviews is lost on me. A review is always an opinion or we would all like the same stuff, but if you never have a negative opinion ????????
Wait, there's an audio audit of Glenn Fricker? Am I correct in assuming that's the one that was removed? If so, that's a shame, I would've like to have seen it. Great videos btw, very informative and well done.
Strandbergs are really good but that is one thing you would have to play before buying since they are their own type of thing. IF you know for sure you are going for that, then you have no need to worry.
Yes, absolutely. I was super interested in a Mayones guitar until I finally tried a Duvell. That was NOT my kind of guitar. The other one I tried was great, but damn, that neck was thin. Made my Ibanez feel like a Les Paul in comparison.
@@LucasLeCompteMusic That's the other one I tried!:) Couldn't remember the name, thanks! That was way more in line of what I usually like. Still a very expensive piece of gear, though. One day, maybe haha
I have 2 and I got rid of everything else after them but indeed I tried them first. I did research and look at interviews with Ola that helped a lot for the decision.
My problem with advertisements is that they seem to curb the personality of the RU-vidr; there's an unseen pressure to seem overly formal so that the brand might return to them with another sponsorship. It makes the advertisement seem dishonest, like the RU-vidr is reading from a script, even if they aren't.
I enjoy your videos, but they are not for wearing headphones. I had the volume turned up because you are soft-spoken. But when the guitar playing comes in, it blasts my eardrums.
As far as I'm aware, there's one demo channel that has similar tastes as my own, that pursues like sounds.There is one other that plays entirely different kinds of music, but that I've found has a like ear, proven over time.Other than those, I view most channels as technically solid players that are on a whole different trip; I usually don't respond to the sounds they pursue or acheive.They can provide technical info, pedal placement, etc., - but that's about it. After initially diving into the novelty of Utube a little more than 5 years ago, I'm now about over it; time is much better spent in hands on pursuits, and there's never enough of that, - unless you're telling me something truly helpful. Usually, I can't help but feel it's time poorly spent. .
1) I agree that the disclosure of money or getting a product for free is, of course, the most ethical way of doing a review. 2) There are some youtubers who don’t receive any compensation for a review, HOWEVER their opinion can still be biased if their intent is to draw the interest of manufacturers with only positive reviews. Therefore 3) Intent is super important. I’ve seen paid reviews that actually slaughtered a product, and non-paid reviews that gave rave reviews of same said product. Why? Probably the intended goals of each reviewer were in play. One was being honest, and the other was trying to “make it”. So intent is important.
Your points are great, but could you speak louder/more clearly please? Many of us musicians that have played countless gigs and practices with loud drummers are hearing impaired.
I just ordered some extra Thicc 7 String sets for a wiered diy build, sorry i just figured out you have that Thomann deal. Next time you get that sweet sweet 1%
Remember long before the internet, and RU-vid reviews, there were GUITAR MAGAZINES, filled with gear reviews. And those magazines had paid advertisements throughout their pages. So the question of 'paid gear reviews' is an old one. Of course, a magazine that is paid for running a company's advertisement, might be more inclined to give products reviewed in their magazine a more 'favorable' review. It only makes sense. So, take the reviews here on RU-vid and in print with a grain of salt. I just like being able to see what's out there that l MIGHT be interested enough to go experience for myself.
This has been a sore subject with me for a while now. They are in it for the views and money, and unfortunately due to their fame, some kid saving his or her money will make a purchase based on a recommendation. Several of these guys that are sponsored pretty much 100% endorse whatever shit show they are testing, no matter how good or bad the product is. And when they get called out on it, they then go and test "Uncle Fred's Distortion Pedal" and then say how crappy it is. IF you are getting PAID to test a product, you have to let the sound be the measure and test. Over three years ago I started testing gear - its a very small channel, and I like it that way. All of the gear that I test, I pay for. I am not in it for subs, and I don't/wont monetize. I have a 9-5 job which funds my gear. I like talking about gear, and don't care if I get a copyright strike.
Quick Review for the Laney IST studio for you then! Excellent integration with a DAW system, sound sculpting tools are plentiful and it is very well made, however it sounds like shit and it is so so very noisy with the boost engaged. Avoid this product - I really wanted to like it and it had a few great features but the most important - tone/sound - was awful ( massive 500K bump in the sound coming from it) YMMV of course. one of those NDSp plugs are probably going to sound better but then you can’t take them out to jam….. oh… covid
It's interesting how much more scrutiny is put on RU-vid gear reviewers vs. magazines like "Guitar World" from back from the 80s-00s. There were conflicts of interest then as well too I'm sure, but people considered reviewers in print magazines objective journalists and therefore seem to have had less issue with the business model even though the mags were full of glossy adverts. People don't disclose sponsorships because many viewers, me included, ignore sponsored videos as adverts by proxy and not objective reviews. I also rarely click affiliate links. Neither do I like, share, and subscribe because I don't want to get caught up in the echo chamber of the suggested videos algorithm. In the end, almost the only way one can get an objective review is for someone to review a piece of gear they actually own, but as you have pointed out, this may bias them toward a product. After all, who would bother taking time to review a bad product that no one will buy? Views go to popular flagship products, not cheap bedroom amps. People reviewing their personal gear would also seriously narrow the range of products each content creator could review. The problem is partly the platform itself creates conflicts of interest. RU-vid began as a way for people to share videos, but as time has gone on it has become a giant infomercial for products packaged as entertainment. This makes it little different from on demand TV, save anyone can publish nearly whatever they want, but when large channels have already saturated the market, there is little reason to do so unless one is willing to put in a serious time and money investment into a business venture that will probably generate little profit over a long period of time. In the end, I have suggested that content creators form a non-profit like the U.S. magazine "Consumer Reports," which reviews products as objectively as possible and is only paid for by subscription fees. Patreon already does this to some extent I suppose, but I would like to see content creators truly come together as a non-profit entity. Content creators across a variety of fields could review products sent to them by customers or manufacturers with less of a conflict of interest. Every content creator would receive a cut, and a diverse array of content creators would mean constant revenue from some sort of product or service. This would also take a lot of pressure off of self-employed RU-vidrs who often have to fully fund their own production costs. Even though they technically work for the non-profit, they could continue making content from their own locations instead of coming together in a single place. It would be a much more streamlined process and business model than fragmented paid reviews using a variety of self-employed business models. For their part, manufacturers and businesses would have a single or few trusted sources through which to share their products/services and not have to haggle with individual content creators over content. It would be a win/win for everyone, even if it would narrow the content creation field quite a bit. That said, there is already a restricted echo chamber of content, with many creators simply responding to other creators who are covering trending topics, so the amount of content diversity is a bit overstated. The algorithm couldn't track and influence behavior as easily as it does if content were truly diverse and fragmented because people would behave in ways that would break the prediction model, as I try to do when I deliberately opt out of many RU-vid content creators' products and services.
