2. analog
  3. 1364382162

When a Reviewer "likes" something

... what does that mean in your opinion. I read in one of the last Stereophile mags a comment from Mr. Atkinson where he wrote about the differences in "opinions" in forums or in printed mags. After all he ended with the argument, a component is good when a reviewer likes it.
Isn't is more helpful, when a reviewer knows something about a real tone reproduction? Or is it ok, when he used every month another CD or LP he got for free, a kind of music nearly no one wants to listen to?
Harry Pearson used in the 90's always the same records for his reviews but that was an exception I think.
What is it worth for you when - for example - Mr. Dudley/Fremer/Valin/HP .... "likes" something? Do you have the same "taste" they have?
I know it is possible to like a Turntable even when that unit can't hold the proper speed, or is extremely sensitive to any influences, there are endless recommendations written about such units...what is it worth for you?
Atkinson for example measures units, some have top datas but they can sound very boring, far away from the real thing, some have no top datas, some "tests" are shortened because a unit can reach a area which can be pretty dangerous (see one of the latest Agostino units, just as an example) but they are rated Class A in recommendations anyway....
When someone "knows" what is right or not, then his "liking" is only a personal opinion which is more or less uninteresting or?
Most customers (not all of course) would prefer to know what a unit is really able to do sonically, or not? Would knowledge destroy the joy of Hardware rolling? Or is there a reason why reviewers use low efficiency speakers when they have a tube amp for review (for example Lamm ML2.1/ML2.2 with Magico Speakers)? Is the matching "expensive + expensive" the proper way to show competence?
syntax
rauliruegas
9,123 posts
 
Dear Frogman: +++++ " FIRST AND FOREMOST trust what your ears tell you ... " +++

agree and I already posted but I added:

++++ " Dear Mapman: ++++ " It takes an educated reader to find where that is. " +++++

you put the finger where it really " weights ": educated reader, educated audiophile and this is part of the overall " problem " subject.

How each one of us was educated? from where that audio education came? whom educated us? and perhaps more important could be that at some time as today we have to ask our self:

ALL WHAT I LEARNED THROUGH MY AUDIO LIFE IS TRUE, IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE TODAY AUDIO ADVANCEMENTS, IT STILL FULFIL MY TODAY PRIORITIES OR THE TODAY NEW STANDARDS? " +++

our ears/brain is educated trhough our music experiences, live ones as the better but what if we never had live music experiences: could my ears be trusty ones to say what is right or wrong against other persons that have different educated ears through live music experiences?

Yes, we have to trust in our ears and time to time ask our self: what learned about? because is what we are hearing.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
peterayer
1,373 posts
 
Lewm, I see your point. I just think that at their most fundamental, the goal of capturing exactly what is on the recording and the goal of capturing a sound that seems real, are different. Perhaps, in the case of a great, realistic recording, the two goals coincide. But far too often, so much of the original musical event is lost through the recording process, that a faithful reproduction of the recording can't sound like real music.

Isn't this what is loosely described by the a "musical" vs. an "analytical" system? In an ideal world, I happen to think they can be the same, but we have the problems of the recording itself.

There are those who argue that a system really is not capable of ever sounding better than the recording itself, because it can't add or fill in what is missing.

Well, perhaps we are saying the same thing.

Regarding reviewers, J Valin of TAS actually addresses this issue in some of his reviews. So when he describes a component as getting him closer to the recording versus one providing the emotional connection to music, I tend to understand what he is trying to describe. When he writes a component gets his system to sound more like the real thing I think he uses words like "emotional gestalt" and "transparency to source" to describe this distinction.
frogman
4,637 posts
 
Raul, what you post is very true; I agree. Not knowing what others' priorities or targets (to use your terminology) are, I usually assume that there will be, at least, an attempt to use the sound of live music as a standard. Otherwise, does it really matter what "right" is? If the target is only to put together a set of components that are perfectly matched "on paper", that's fine; but......
rauliruegas
9,123 posts
 
Dear Lewm: +++++ " I would be the first to admit that modern SS amplifiers are probably not so guilty of these sins, and the gap between tube and SS has narrowed...." ++++++

I agree with the first part of your statement and can add that almost al SS amplifiers are designed using no FB, that high FB SS characterisitc on design is only history as you said. Btw, IMHO the First Wat amp is nothing that can make justice to today great SS amplifier designs: not recomended, the N.Pass other amp designs are way different and recomended.

Your second part where you think the gap between tube and SS has narrowed could be not in that way. IMHO that gap is bigger than ever and goes wider through the time. Lewm, tubes are at its limit there is no more hope about on amps designs and SS is stil improving day by day and I can't see limitations for growing up on this amp technology designs.

Today many of the SS myths as some of the ones you name it and other like: the SS are analythical, cooler sound, no natural music sound, etc, etc... are only myths. Today the SS techology as you posted improved a lot over the myths from the 70's-80's.

+++++ " The first Watt is the most important Watt. " +++++

well that's something that I too learned but that IMHO is not really true. Lewm, the most important watt(s) is/are those that are asked by the speakers and the amplifier can supply with accuracy in real time. Music is not " stady " but with huge dynamic demands over what you and me can imagine.

++++ " Isn't that a sign that Raul and I are after the same thing but by different methods? " ++++

way different methods because your source is lot less accurate and has higher distortions/colorations.

Anyway, I think each one target is to enjoy the music.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
rauliruegas
9,123 posts
 
Dear Manitunc: +++++ " using a tube amp with most speakers will cause a varying frequency response not at all like the original recording, and therefore, because they didnt make that statement, their opinions are worthless. Now, that could have been said in one post, instead of 30 length posts denigrating anyone that disagrees.... " +++++

all those is your own interpretation or what you want to read but certainly not what I posted:

the tube amp subject was only an example on 3-4 examples I writed that coincide with the Syntax example on his posted thread. So, it is not true that beause the tube subject alone the reviewers work is worthless. This is your interpretation but I never said that. So, don't put words in my " mouth ".

" Denigrating any one that disagrees "??????

Please let me know where I denigrated any one. To have a different opinion is only this: different opinion but this is far away from denigrate any one.

" +++++ but reading Raul's posts make my head hurt. " ++++

come on, please do it a favor and don't punished your self and stop to read my posts. Simple as that.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
More to discover