[Gary Eickmeier]

Bob Lombard wrote:

Looks to me like you are both right - or both wrong, depending. If
the prospective buyer is a rockaholic, he wants speakers that do rock
really well, and there is nothing wrong with reviewing the speakers
with that in mind. If accurate reproduction of acoustic material (and
really other music too) is the prospective buyer's goal... this stuff
is so simple, guys, you must just like to argue, eh?

bl

Right. Sometimes the goal of a recording is realism w respect to everything
about the original performance. Sometimes the goal is pure entertainment, a
composite of elements mixed together to shock, surprise, enlighten, but
mainly to entertain.

So if we consider the general case to be that the recording is always a new
work of art based on some acoustical event or events, we can evaluate it on
its own merits within our own system against other systems, but not against
the real original because we don't have access to it except from our memory
of similar events with similar instruments. We all know what a piano sounds
like. We all know what a drum kit sounds like. Human voice, horns, strings,
and so on.

We also know what a live event sounds like, so we can judge how much like
that this particular recording sounds in the context of our playback
environment. So the recording is the reference, not the original event, and
reviewer A can say what it sounds like on his system, and B on his, etc, and
sometimes certain recordings end up as references for some effect that comes
through on some systems but not on others. Some things could be happening at
the bass end, for example, that do not come through on some anemic systems.
Some spatial effects could come through on some sytems that others can't get
on theirs.

So barring going over to each other's homes and comparing, that's about the
best we can do. I have learned some audible effects by reading others'
descriptions. Sometimes they go into la la land and try to describe nonsense
terms such as harmonic this or that, or micro dynamics, or sweat forming on
lips, to show how perceptive they are, or to go overboard on their praise of
some exotic piece of crap.

You can usually tell when their descriptions are truthful to what systems
can do and when they are bull****ting. I have stopped reading them
altogether. It's just not all that entertaining any more to read some of
them. I guess it depends on the person who is describing reproduction
effects, if it is an experienced recording engineer or just a magazine type
who is paid to get his crayons and adjectives out.

But we all know that.

Gary Eickmeier