Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Which YT "Reviewers" Do You Trust?

Going to throw one out there that isn't orchestral, but if you deal with mixing electronic music, especially heavy or bleak sounding music, elements, and processes, then Ken "Hiwatt" Marshall is worth watching. Over the last year he's been showing mixing sessions and has all sorts of useful information, albeit more targeted at professional mixers.

Talented, and VERY enthusiastic (the first video you watch may leave you wondering if it's an act, from watching most every video, as well as just reading about him over the years before I ever saw a video of him, it's not an act).

 
jononotbono said:
Clever guy. Obviously knows how things work with the majority of YouTubers. Definitely never watching his stuff then! 😂
Click to expand...
I cannot vouch for this, but I've read in several places that Paul Third is ALSO biased toward, for example, Acoustica, and this can come through in his videos. That said, that's pure rumor and conjecture. In the one video I've watched from him, sure enough, Acoustica won out. Rumor plus one confirmation of said rumor isn't enough to make a general conclusion yet.
 
I listen to Junkie XL, JNH, or HZ's views about gear and plugins more than anyone else. And you can infer a lot from Marco Beltrami's scores about how he thinks, creatively. Alan Meyerson too -- and a few other engineers -- have in some cases extensive interviews available.

All of them have video online from which you can glean specific "how to" advice, which I've found enormously helpful.

Some companies also have very good user tutorials, of course, but that's usually after one has already purchased.
 
Jeremy Spencer said:
My five trusted fav's are...

@Simeon (simple playthrough's, very calming and relaxing)
@amadeus1 (no-bones walkthtrough's. Libraries are played raw, right out of the box, warts and all)
@donbodin (thorough walkthrough's, helpful tips and honest thoughts)
@Cory Pelizzari (well planned walkthrough's, pre-sequenced examples, honest thoughts)
@Akarin (detailed, honest reviews. Love the humour!)
Click to expand...
I would agree with your list for the most part and I would add @Daniel James @Simeon for me is the absolute top of the worst for really getting the soul of an instrument across and demonstrating its capabilities. The problem I have as a whole with @donbodin Channel is the advertising feel and that everything is sponsored by someone. I just discovered that the other day. Every video is sponsored and every show is sponsored and I assume that somebody is paying for that so I find it less trustworthy.

I tend to like the individual reviewer‘s who do not appear to be running a business and at least area independent operators like @Chris Siu.
 
Don’t trust anyone, but watch and listen closely what they show. See for yourself if you like their methodology and do your own research :)

Everyone has different use cases, preferred workflows and values different aspects of a sample library over others.

Ultimately, nobody can decide for you what’s best for you.
 
I feel that general usefulness is a better measure of YouTube channels than trust, because, as others have said, if the video allows you to hear and see what an instrument can do, you only have to trust your own judgement.

Reviewers I find useful, whether it's just walkthroughs or if it also includes evaluation and criticism, include:

Dom Sigalas
Guy Michelmore
Cory Pelizzari
Simeon Amburgey
Kevin Kuschel
Second Tier Sound
Jonas Friedman
Anne-Kathrin Dern

For general production plugins and techniques:

White Noise Studio
Dan Worrall
Chris Selim
Mixbus TV
Reid Stefan

When it comes to VI developers' product page, what I want first, other than about a one-sentence summary of what's unique about the instrument, is song demos. I sent Embertone a message of thanks because, unlike most sample library developers, they put their Soundcloud song demos at the top of their web page for each instrument. With most others, I go to the instrument page and scroll down a mile to the Soundcloud demos before reading anything. I'm not as happy about pages that have a YouTube demo but no other demo tracks, because I always wonder how much talking I'll have to fast-forward before I get to the sound demos. So the ideal instrument page has song demo tracks and a video walkthrough. Generally I want song demos first; then patch, articulation and UI feature walkthroughs; THEN I might read more about the instrument.

I'm surprised at how much people are annoyed by YouTube thumbnails. I feel that avoiding videos that use very normal YouTube practices is a great way to miss out on a huge amount of quality content. But I generally don't like "first look" videos because the reviewer often genuinely doesn't know what they're doing (yet), and if there's no other drawback to that, it just wastes time. So, for example, I sometimes (not always) avoid the Snake Oil guy. I generally prefer more planned/scripted/edited video creators like Dom Sigalas and Dan Worrall, who make more efficient use of the viewer's time.

I agree with Montisquirrel: "I am happy for all the people who upload stuff to Youtube and showcase the sound of a library or plugin ... as long as I can hear the instrument and see the interface at the same time."
 
trust is a big word, i find.

Actually, i don't trust anyone with reviews. Not that they are not telling the truth (in their minds), etc..
but most reviews are lacking many things, they just do the same as most other already did on the product, but with a different presentation style. Walkthroughs e.g. are lacking more often than not, nomatter who made it. Talks about a product, only in shallow means, mentions the downsides (e.g. some inconsistensies here and there.. but indepth critique is often not present)

to me it seems that most youtubers, have no indepth experience with a product, to give a good verdict (with enough depth), or a broad view on all kinds of use cases (musical styles e.g. or setups) and how the product will or will not work in those cases.

Making good reviews/walkthroughs is very hard, and i do mean very hard.
Good review videos are lengthy, 30+ minutes at the very least.
Note though: i do enjoy watching these videos, even if not indepth enough.
And seeing many videos on the same product, can give you a better understanding of a product. (so not one youtuber is enough, you need many)
 
Last edited:
dcoscina said:
Her reviews of libraries are as objective as one can get in my opinion. She has enough clout to be able to speak her mind.
Click to expand...
I love Anne's style (and music). But I think her strength is an awareness that she's not being wholly objective, that she's not an impartial reviewer, but speaking to what she know from her experience and style and taste, as a composer.

She's quite dismissive, for instance, of a lot of my favourite libraries. But very clear that this is just her take, but without any pretence of an absolute objectively that would conflate her sharing her knowledge and style with pronouncement that, for instance, her favourite libraries are better mine.

This false "objectivity" is where a number of "reviewers" create a lot of conflict.

So in this sense, I'd argue that Anne's lack of "objectivity" in this sense is one of the great things about her style. There's no ego defending her favourite libraries as better than anyone else favourite library, and this part of why I find her so ... credible (even when I disagree with her).

So maybe it's just that I agree with you that she's arguably the most credible reviewer out there, and I'm splitting hairs over "objective" vs "credible" :)
 
ism said:
I love Anne's style (and music). But I think her strength is an awareness that she's not being wholly objective, that she's not an impartial reviewer, but speaking to what she know from her experience and style and taste, as a composer.

She's quite dismissive, for instance, of a lot of my favourite libraries. But very clear that this is just her take, but without any pretence of an absolute objectively that would conflate her sharing her knowledge and style with pronouncement that, for instance, her favourite libraries are better mine.

This false "objectivity" is where a number of "reviewers" create a lot of conflict.

So in this sense, I'd argue that Anne's lack of "objectivity" in this sense is one of the great things about her style. There's no ego defending her favourite libraries as better than anyone else favourite library, and this part of why I find her so ... credible (even when I disagree with her).

So maybe it's just that I agree with you that she's arguably the most credible reviewer out there, and I'm splitting hairs over "objective" vs "credible" :)
Click to expand...
Yes credible is a very good assessment.
 
IMO, YT reviews all need to be taken with a grain of salt. Reviewers do reviews to get paid in one fashion or another. As far as non-orchestral software goes, reviews are a decent enough way to generate a list of things to download and evaluate and things to not spend effort on IMO, but at the end of the day there is no substitute for doing product evaluations in context of one's own projects. Or, just succumb to GAS and buy ten alternatives of every category under the sun and then try to figure out which one to use, and when you can't, buy the eleventh?
 
nortiks said:
Or, just succumb to GAS and buy ten alternatives of every category under the sun and then try to figure out which one to use, and when you can't, buy the eleventh?
Click to expand...
This is the way. 🤣

I have way too much stuff. I don't even know what I have anymore!

But the one thing I do have, is I know which products I like and always use... from using them.

Reviews have only ever got me so far (good or bad), unfortunately.
 
ism said:
I love Anne's style (and music). But I think her strength is an awareness that she's not being wholly objective, that she's not an impartial reviewer, but speaking to what she know from her experience and style and taste, as a composer.

She's quite dismissive, for instance, of a lot of my favourite libraries. But very clear that this is just her take, but without any pretence of an absolute objectively that would conflate her sharing her knowledge and style with pronouncement that, for instance, her favourite libraries are better mine.

This false "objectivity" is where a number of "reviewers" create a lot of conflict.

So in this sense, I'd argue that Anne's lack of "objectivity" in this sense is one of the great things about her style. There's no ego defending her favourite libraries as better than anyone else favourite library, and this part of why I find her so ... credible (even when I disagree with her).

So maybe it's just that I agree with you that she's arguably the most credible reviewer out there, and I'm splitting hairs over "objective" vs "credible" :)
Click to expand...
Thank you! This is actually exactly the vibe I'm trying to go with on my channel. So much of it is about personal taste, writing style, production style, programming style, deadlines, etc. - it's practically impossible to be objective. All every reviewer can really do is judge a product in how it relates to themselves and their workflow and music.

Some products don't work for me at all but other composers love them and get great results with them. Everyone also has very different criteria in what they're looking for in a product. Is it about the sound? Consistency in the editing and scripting? Something specific for a project? A good allrounder? Mic Positions? Many extra articulations and variations? Cool effects and features? It all depends on what you already own and what gap you're looking to fill. Or if you're a first time buyer just starting your collection. Needs and preferences will differ immensely.

The only things I can guarantee is that:
a) I won't review something I dislike entirely.
b) I will have spent a thorough amount of time with the product and probably already used it on one or more commercial projects before recording my review. So I already know I like it and I actively use it in my template.
c) I don't do it for money or free products. My latest video has hopefully cleared that up.

I do prefer doing my annual update videos ("What I added and used this year" / "Everything in my template") rather than doing individual reviews though. They're a lot of work to do and since I usually review products long after the initial release, there already are plenty of walkthroughs and detailed videos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom