What's new

Which YT "Reviewers" Do You Trust?

I actually like watching various perspectives on the same library. There are several channels in tune into to see their feedback. Developer videos are all good and well but they can be best case scenario rather than real world useable. Seeing reviewers go through the sounds in real-time establishes some sense of how the library sounds without all the fancy editing or prescribed demos.
To me, this also makes sense with mixing plugins. Developer videos very often showcase AMAZING audio content that's superbly recorded. It can be interesting to hear what the plugin actually sounds like on less flattering recordings.
 
I actually like watching various perspectives on the same library. There are several channels in tune into to see their feedback. Developer videos are all good and well but they can be best case scenario rather than real world useable. Seeing reviewers go through the sounds in real-time establishes some sense of how the library sounds without all the fancy editing or prescribed demos.
I think the developer should show how to use their product in the best way and as intended based on their intention when building it. Too often people will get a hold of a product and then try to make it do something it was never intended to do and then blame the developer - that’s not “real world usability” to me. That’s like buying a car and expecting it to float because you didn’t understand the purpose of it. A common trait amongst certain YouTubers I’ve found. Far more useful is using the library to do the thing it was built to do and offering some constructive criticism in regards to that, while also perhaps noting the things it wasn’t built to do well (without going off on a rant). But perhaps I expect too much of reviewers.
 
... do you prefer long in-depth videos with every single detail of a particular library? Or just the most interesting features and one or two contextual examples?
The reviews I find most useful cover aspects of the product that the developer's own walkthroughs and demo songs don't reveal. So I recommend paying attention to what the developer has and has not already told us.

On length, I rarely -- if ever -- stick with a walkthrough or review video for more than 12 to 15 minutes. It's not that I'm not interested. It's that I'm too busy.
 
A good and trustworthy review does not only highlight the strenghts of the the library at hand but puts it in context with similar offerings. Then the reviewer would also highlight what a specific library is not well suited for and points out competitor's products where applicable when comparing features.

What is often omitted are concerns about workflow, from integrating it in one's template, ease of auditioning patches and how quickly one can get familiar with the product without consulting a manual.
 
Stick to developer walkthroughs IMO. Most YouTube reviewers don't use the libraries to their full potential - or worse, don't know what they're doing / haven't bothered to read the manual and showcase it unfairly in an unflattering light. The "reviews" are never that, in that they don't cover more than a walkthrough usually and there's no way the person making the video has spent a reasonable amount of time with the library majority of the time given how quickly the videos are released after launch (even if they got a pre-release copy, it still is only a few days in advance). Also, IMO, most of the YouTube self-appointed "voices of authority" are far less talented and knowledgeable than some of the lesser known voices out there (that aren't trying to shill for some developer either). Almost none of the familiar YouTubers (that have a constant barrage of "first looks" or reviews) bother writing a substantial piece with the library.
I feel like this one is aimed at me so I'll respond as if it is.

First of I don't really review things, I have a look at them I am not passing a score, I am using a product live, while people watch, to see where it's strong and where it is weak in a very practical sense. And I intentionally don't read the manuals nor watch the walkthrough if I can, that allows me to look at the library how many users will experience it, just diving in......

This is useful for a few reasons, It allows you point out any design flaws which the developer might not notice because they are so familiar they just inherently know how it all works. So if I can't find a cool new feature, or a controller is hidden, or I am fumbling around using something incorrectly that shows the developer that it might not be as clear or as intuitive as they thought. I have been messaged multiple times by multiple developers that my critique helped them improve something they overlooked and made the product better as a result. Everyone wins and there is a value to showing how a library works as raw as possible with no time to tweak it to be perfect. If its shit out the box people will hear its shit out the box. If it take lots of effort to get the most out of it I think its fair to compare that to competition that provides comparable results with less effort. Its also good to work out live if that extra effort is indeed worth it. These are all things you don't tend to get too into if you already know the ins and outs and I have always felt if you want to know how the fucking thing works, watch the developer walk you through it, No review or opinion video will do a better job than the people who make it, so to use it as a critique of why certain Youtubers are bad doesn't sit right with me. Why you would goto a review over a dev walkthrough to see how to actually use it may be more your issue than the reviewers.

And you also have to realize that doing a video or a live stream isn't really that similar to composing. If I get stuck with a library when working, I will figure it out. If I am live streaming to 100 people live and a button that wasn't well highlighted or explained meaning that the library isn't doing what it should, I will just move on to something that does, and mention that as it happens "This isn't working as I would expect."

And I know most of you here fucking hate me by this point, I have learned to accept that, but I think the way I conduct my videos is in line with me and the way I want to live my life. I think they hold value to people watching who want to see things as raw and out the box as possible. I think there is value in showing a developer where someone will get stuck or what isn't as obvious as they might think.

This was a thread to suggest cool Youtubers to the OP, there was no call to take a shit on people who do them not up to your personal standard.

But if you want it your way go do one yourself. Put yourself out there. Let the biggest names in the industry tear you apart for daring to critique them. Put yourself out there and lay your creative process bare, with mistakes and misunderstandings open for all to see and judge, or use as excuses to call you a shit composer. Spend a few hours out of your work schedule to share some cool tools you found recently and experience them live with a community of like minded people you have cultivated over a decade. Put yourself out there more to have people compare you to everyone else as a human being and express why you are worse than them or they are doing better. Put yourself out there a bit and dare to have a thought of your own.

Or you know, just sit there and judge others adding nothing of value to anyone.

I critique stuff, I am obnoxious to many. But I care, I try, I give effort, I provide value. I am improving, I am learning. All while other people try to tear me apart because I swear a lot, or I dared to speak against their particular favorite developer....all while ignoring the positive things I say about those same people.

I always say what I think, because of the brain I was born with its almost impossible for me to not say what I am thinking. I always show what I say with evidence and would never lie to keep getting NFR's I have said good and bad things about all of the devs out there. Most act like adults, some call you a shit composer who should be disregarded as a hater. So to just throw around shill without evidence is a bit brazen and I believe totally off the mark. Besides, I would much rather watch a passionate shill than give two fucks about those who jeer from the sidelines.

To the OP

Check out:

Chris Siu - Improves every video

Dirk Ehlert - Covers lots of libraries and has an awesome studio that seemingly moves country every few weeks 😂

Alex Pfeffer - One of the OG Youtubers, has a more succinct approach which some of you seem to prefer.

At the end of the day, you really just want to listen to the library and see if it gets you personally excited on sound alone, if it does you are then just browsing the other videos to see how others are using it, how it plays with other libraries, how playable it is and how intuitive the UI is. And at the end of the day its how you feel about it.

Also finally keep in context the people you watching and where their opinion comes from. When I give my opinion its coming from my experience as a working film/game composer who writes music everyday in cinematic, hybrid and filmic classical styles. So If I say something is good, its meaning in the context of the work I do for me as a working composer. Its not an objective statement. Like if a new library came out promising to be the next big thing in hybrid sound design, opened it and it sounds like 90's disco synths, I am going to say that is a bad library...but to someone making 90s disco or looking to do some specific fusion with it then they might say its a great library. Biggest issue is when I say the first part and someone says the second part but then tells me I am wrong or that I dont know what I am doing, or I'm doing it wrong, without considering why I say that. Not important for all but its worth thinking about if someone has a different opinion or one you might not agree with initially.

If I don't like something and you do, neither of us are wrong. You are the artist, you ultimately decide.

-DJ
 
Last edited:
I think the developer should show how to use their product in the best way and as intended based on their intention when building it. Too often people will get a hold of a product and then try to make it do something it was never intended to do and then blame the developer - that’s not “real world usability” to me. That’s like buying a car and expecting it to float because you didn’t understand the purpose of it. A common trait amongst certain YouTubers I’ve found. Far more useful is using the library to do the thing it was built to do and offering some constructive criticism in regards to that, while also perhaps noting the things it wasn’t built to do well (without going off on a rant). But perhaps I expect too much of reviewers.
Couldn't agree more. That being said, it's a really fun thing to try and make a library do what it's not supposed to do for creative purposes, but yes the main idea should be to use a particular plugin for its intended purpose.
Out of all the products I've bought, there's just maybe one or two that I was disappointed in. And generally, that's because of a performance issue.
 
I feel like this one is aimed at me so I'll respond as if it is.

First of I don't really review things, I have a look at them I am not passing a score, I am using a product live, while people watch, to see where it's strong and where it is weak in a very practical sense. And I intentionally don't read the manuals nor watch the walkthrough if I can, that allows me to look at the library how many users will experience it, just diving in......

This is useful for a few reasons, It allows you point out any design flaws which the developer might not notice because they are so familiar they just inherently know how it all works. So if I can't find a cool new feature, or a controller is hidden, or I am fumbling around using something incorrectly that shows the developer that it might not be as clear or as intuitive as they thought. I have been messaged multiple times by multiple developers that my critique helped them improve something they overlooked and made the product better as a result. Everyone wins and there is a value to showing how a library works as raw as possible with not time to tweak it to be perfect. If its shit out the box people will hear its shit out the box. If it take lots of effort to get the most out of it I think its fair to compare that to competition that provides comparable results with less effort. Its also good to live work out if that extra effort is indeed work it. These are all things you don't tend to get too into if you already know the ins and outs and I have always felt ff you want to know how the fucking thing works, watch the developer walk you through it, No review or opinion video will do a better job that the people who make it, so to use it as a critique of why certain Youtubers are bad doesn't sit right with me. Why you would goto a review over a dev walkthrough to see how to actually use it may be more your issue than the reviewers.

And you also have to realize that doing a video or a live stream isn't really that similar to composing. If I get stuck with a library when working, I will figure it out. If I am live streaming to 100 people live and a button that wasn't well highlighted or explained meaning that the library isn't doing what it should, I will just move on to something that does, and mention that as it happens "This isn't working as I would expect."

And I know most of you here fucking hate me by this point, I have learned to accept that, but I think the way I conduct my videos is in line with me and the way I want to live my life. I think they hold value to people watching who want to see things as raw and out the box as possible. I think there is value in showing a developer where someone will get stuck or what isn't as obvious as they might think.

This was a thread to suggest cool Youtubers to the OP, there was no call to take a shit on people who do them not up to your personal standard.

But if you want it your way go do one yourself. Put yourself out there. Let the biggest names in the industry tear you apart for daring to critique them. Put yourself out there and lay your creative process bare, with mistakes and misunderstandings open for all to see and judge, or use as excuses to call you a shit composer. Spend a few hours out of your work schedule to share some cool tools you found recently and experience them live with a community of like minded people you have cultivated over a decade. Put yourself out there more to have people compare you to everyone else as a human being and express why you are worse than them or they are doing better. Put yourself out there a bit and dare to have a thought of your own.

Or you know, just sit there and judge others adding nothing of value to anyone.

I critique stuff, I am obnoxious to many. But I care, I try, I give effort, I provide value. I am improving, I am learning. All while other people try to tear me apart because I swear a lot, or I dared to speak against their particular favorite developer....all while ignoring the positive things I say about those same people.

I always say what I think, because of the brain I was born with its almost impossible for me to not say what I am thinking. I always show what I say with evidence and would never lie to keep getting NFR's I have said good and bad things about all of the devs out there. Most act like adults, some call you a shit composer who should be disregarded as a hater. So to just throw around shill without evidence is a bit brazen and I believe totally off the mark. Besides, I would much rather watch a passionate shill than give two fucks about those who jeer from the sidelines.

To the OP

Check out:

Chris Siu - Improves every video

Dirk Ehlert - Covers lots of libraries and has an awesome studio that seemingly moves country every few weeks 😂

Alex Pfeffer - One of the OG Youtubers, has a more succinct approach which some of you seem to prefer.

At the end of the day, you really just want to listen to the library and see if it gets you personally excited on sound alone, if it does you are then just browsing the other videos to see how others are using it, how it plays with other libraries, how playable it is and how intuitive the UI is. And at the end of the day its how you feel about it.

Also finally keep in context the people you watching and where their opinion comes from. When I give my opinion its coming from my experience as a working film/game composer who writes music everyday in cinematic, hybrid and filmic classical styles. So If I say something is good, its meaning in the context of the work I do for me as a working composer. Its not an objective statement. Like if a new library came out promising to be the next big thing in hybrid sound design, opened it and it sounds like 90's disco synths, I am going to say that is a bad library...but to someone making 90s disco or looking to do some specific fusion with it then they might say its a great library. Biggest issue is when I say the first part and someone says the second part but then tells me I am wrong or that I dont know what I am doing, or I'm doing it wrong, without considering why I say that. Not important for all but its worth thinking about if someone has a different opinion or one you might not agree with initially.

If I don't like something and you do, neither of us are wrong. You are the artist, you ultimately decide.

-DJ
I love you, Daniel. That should be enough. ❤️
 
"Trust" is a very strong word. And I rarely believe one person's opinion on creative tools much applies to anyone else, because no one's taste and creative path is the same. Plus, I've seen wayyy too many videos of very opinionated people with very little skill making amazing libraries and plug-ins sound awful. However, since some developers do a poor job showcasing their products, YouTube reviewers can be helpful to see the full breadth of content/features in certain stuff. So in that respect, I find them valuable.
 
I am using a product live, while people watch, to see where it's strong and where it is weak in a very practical sense. And I intentionally don't read the manuals nor watch the walkthrough if I can

If I don't like something and you do, neither of us are wrong. You are the artist, you ultimately decide.
There's no issue in doing "first look" videos and trying things around to see how intuitive something is, but I think there is an issue in saying a product is shit when you don't know how to use it (it's an impersonal "you" here, I'm not targetting you specifically). I've seen videos of people using compressors they didn't know how to use and say they were shit. I don't personally think that's the dev's fault in that case even if your argument makes sense, saying that criticism about the ease-of-use can be an eye-opener for devs.

When you take the ARP2600 for example, it's not the easiest synth to use for anyone who doesn't know how it works. Yet you see people criticize products for that one reason. Just like you see other people spending 10 minutes talking about how fancy the UI looks and how bad a thing it is.

In the end, your last statement is true. It's a subjective thing, always will be. Unless the thing is broken and doesn't work at all / is impossible to use in a musical context, the rest is all left to interpretation.
 
I’m always a bit bemused when a reviewer says something sounds really good when I find it particularly bad. So you really have to ignore that kind of input and use your own ears. (Is it actually possible not to do that?)

Features are another story since that’s an objective category concerned with function. If one is attracted to the sound of a library it’s nice to see how it works and if there’s practicality and/or innovation in its operation.

Working professionals are generally inured to hype and know what they may be lacking or can be improved in there arsenal. So if a new offering indeed has a particular sound quality, you can bet it’s because their own ears told them that.
 
Hi, all. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but it seems that, more and more, I can't trust the product "reviewers" on YouTube because, according to them, every music plugin and hardware they "review" is the best thing since sliced bread. Sometimes I might field test a reverb only to find it is grainy, springy or wobbly, definitely not clear or pristine as was auditioned online. Or a synth, instead of sounding warm, smooth and analogue-y as portrayed was actually rough, brittle and unoriginal. I've also ran across the occasional supposed holy grail of compressors or EQ's that, in the end, was simply snake oil; thus, when a "reviewer" says, "Here is the best this and best that...", I simply ignore them.
If with "which reviewers do you trust" you mean "which reviewers do you trust is being genuine and honestly believe what they say about the product they are reviewing", then I trust quite a few reviewers. That's not the same as saying I eat their words raw though :)
 
@Futchibon - Too funny! I checked out the reviewers you recommended. Wonder of wonders, Jeff Manchester has a video entry where he talks about affiliate marketing called "Building Trust On YouTube." I guess I'm not the only one concerned with this issue.
 
"Trust" is a very strong word. And I rarely believe one person's opinion on creative tools much applies to anyone else, because no one's taste and creative path is the same. Plus, I've seen wayyy too many videos of very opinionated people with very little skill making amazing libraries and plug-ins sound awful. However, since some developers do a poor job showcasing their products, YouTube reviewers can be helpful to see the full breadth of content/features in certain stuff. So in that respect, I find them valuable.
I thought your live composing videos with OT Time Macro / Micro were great by the way! Similar to what Homay and co. do at Spitfire and Stephen and Guy do at VSL. Much more useful IMO seeing a library used in real time by somebody who knows how to get the best out of it - after all, when I buy a library, that’s what I’m aiming to achieve.
 
I came to the conclusion some time ago that the days of truly honest, unsponsored and non-aspirational reviews on the Internet are sadly now relegated to history. By non-aspirational I mean "without any attention seeking agenda intended to convert into income or commercial favor".

There are of course a few reviewers or "knowledge sharers" who I find to be very worthwhile and enjoyable despite the above context, but they are very few in my humble opinion.
 
You were not close to being on my mind when I wrote that so maybe check your ego?
I think @Daniel James responds the way he does, because when people criticise him, it's usually with similar words to these from your initial post:

- don't know what they're doing / haven't bothered to read the manual

- showcase it unfairly in an unflattering light

- [haven’t] spent a reasonable amount of time with the library

- most of the YouTube self-appointed "voices of authority" are far less talented and knowledgeable than some of the lesser known voices out there

So it's not so strange he thought it was about him :)
 
Top Bottom