Mojo 2 and reviewer honesty

I just read this review of the new Mojo 2 here Chord Electronics Mojo 2 | The Ear

I think it’s a great sounding product, and I want to make it clear I’d put up with the ‘ball rattle’ but the reviewer here states ‘the balls don’t rattle’ yet in my video I showed they do ; (about a few minutes in)

It bugs me that these reviewers don’t have half a brain cell to realise the damage they are doing. My review had the strong purpose of trying to get peoples trust in me and trust in HiFi generally, yet The Ear throws it away in one fell swoop. Maybe he should call himself The Ear (and the eyes). What do you think. I’m confused I’m the only person in countless reviews that has mentioned this rattle issue.

Hi, @Simon_Price I can understand your frustration, but it’s hard for me to comment as I don’t own one a Mojo 2. It might not just be down to honesty though:

  • Might your unit be a bad example where others rattle less or not at all?
  • Other reviewers might not have noticed it, or it didn’t bother them?

I’m cynical enough to believe that honesty might also be an issue and would be interested to see what any forum members who own one think.

As part of due diligence I checked with a number of shops and users who said the same and on second point, they must notice it because I showed it rattling in the video. If it wasn’t important to them, which it might not be for a reviewer not wanting to be seen to be in any way critical, then the point is always to do reviews as to what others might think. Not just me.

I never take a review of hifi gear to seriously cause I know the vast majority of them are paid reviews so it’s not in there interest to give bad reviews of a product when there getting paid if they did the company wouldn’t use them again but I totally agree with you its a bad thing as I’ve fell for the hype myself on a few products so now I look for genuine user reviews

I have the original Mojo, and until now, I never even considered whether the marbles rattle. They do if you shake the Mojo… so what do you know? But then again, it’s a DAC with headphone amplifier, and this is a non-issue—even for joggers or commuters—when listening to music through headphones, which by the way, sounds fantastic.

1 Like

Same. Never really noticed.

@Simon_Price I do enjoy your videos very much :beers:

The original mojo is not the same . The balls rotate but are held in by case. New mojo as shown in video

@Simon_Price I don’t know what you are seeking to achieve by posting ad hominem attacks on a fellow reviewer on a third party site. If you think this does anything to enhance people’s trust in you or your reviews you are sadly mistaken. (It is also against community rules.)

I assume you are looking at ways to increase traffic to your own channel and think that posting a brief derogatory statement followed by a link is an acceptable method of advertising you are fooling yourself.


I’d understand your frustration, and support your argument, if you had both reviewed the same unit, but I’m assuming that isn’t the case. As such I think your implication that the ‘Ear’ is lying is, as @Norm_Hastle mentioned, is pretty close to being classed as an ad hominem attack as his claim may well be accurate. Have you tried contacting the Ear to discuss it?

Please Read my comments above , all the units are the same.

I thought it was a good one to mention as if I don’t help people open their eyes , who will. Genuinely had that interest in mind

If you say this ‘tv doesn’t have a dodgy stand’ and it’s a very specific thing to say, it means you know it does. Why mention balls not rattling otherwise. I mean come on….

Nope not interested in increasing traffic. It would be tiny anyway. I’m interested in opening peoples eyes to the ways that hifi reviews get conducted. This reviewer once lent me a unit which he said was bright but it got a good review……

I don’t want to split hairs, but “all the units are the same” is an assumption on your part, based on your own experience and reports from a few other people. That’s not to say that you’re not right - they may all be the same - but unless you can confirm that the Ear’s unit did indeed rattle you’re opening yourself up to (at worst) a charge of libel.

From what you’ve said, it does seem likely that you’re correct - and gear reviews are, for the most part, biased towards the positive - but I’d suggest a bit more caution in how you call someone out.

@simon_price Then why the ad hominem attack ? If you find piece of equipment is in some way different then say so - No need to insult the reviewer.

And if you aren’t interested in chasing traffic then your link is superfluous.

And when you are in a hole stop digging.

My balls have always rolled .


Yes I am correct as if you watched the video you’d see the design and the ‘ball drop’ and gaps and I checked with numerous people. I showed the rattle in the vid. They can’t produce a product that defers so far from my unit and the others out there in current production runs which would be a case for more varied build quality. I suspect if the balls (teardrop spheres in fact) are made bigger in other runs to restrict the drop then that will impact on the circuit board press and raising up or lowering the circuit board….well I hope they can do it for newer runs but chord told me they were happy as is, so I suspect they won’t.

I hope no one reviews this thread.


It’s intended as challenging the review for the benefit of adding light as to how some people do them and review because some reviews are an issue in this industry, and if that’s a good thing for consumers im all for it. If some people say ad hominem I’m not apologising therefore

Last attempt: you’re challenging a specific reviewer’s honesty, which is quite different from challenging the ways in which reviews (in general) are performed. By all means, have it your own way, but you could probably achieve your aim without recourse to personal attacks.

1 Like

If tackling a reviewers honesty is a price for showing how they are done I’m all for it. You are trying to apologise for that.

For goodness sake, no, I’m not apologising for it, I’m suggesting you pursue your aim without (potentially) libelling people. If you continue, the ‘price’ could well be a very literal one, and it would be you that would be paying it.

If you can’t show up the flaws of the review process without attacking specific individuals I’d suggest you rethink the whole endeavour.

1 Like