[KH]

On 8/1/2013 7:32 PM, Audio_Empire wrote:
On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 7:46:42 PM UTC-7, KH wrote:
On 7/31/2013 10:29 AM, Audio_Empire wrote:

In article , KH

wrote:



On 7/30/2013 3:52 PM, Audio_Empire wrote:

snip



This would appear to say volumes about your knowledge of pop music.



I know enough * more than I want to. And if you are saying that I am

wrong here, then I believe it says more about your knowledge of music

and reproduction than it does about mine.



I'm saying you clearly don't know the range of "pop" music, quite a lot

of which is acoustic, because you don't care, and *you* don't listen to

any, by your own admission, so you don't seem to be in a strong position

to opine on it's suitability for auditioning.

You continue to miss the point. If a piece of pop music is acoustic, then there
I have absolutely no problem with some reviewer evaluating equipment using
it. Just because I dislike pop/rock and it is no part of my musical life doesn't
mean that reject it as an evaluation tool based on that dislike. My objections
are based solely upon the suitability (or lack thereof) of the results of the
production process for the task.

Then you should be more clear in your denunciations of "pop" being
universally unsuitable for auditioning. The fact is that there is a
great deal of "pop" that is acoustic, or has an acoustic component (e.g.
an orchestral backing). Yet you name a few artists - from long ago no
less (albeit ones I listen to) - as though they represent the range of
"pop" music. That is *my* point - you don't *know* the range of "pop"
music, thus your wholesale exclusion of it is ridiculous. There is a
great deal of "pop" that meets "your" criteria, as well as a great deal
that doesn't, but meets the needs and desires of *other* audiophiles.

Keith