[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 7:46:42 PM UTC-7, KH wrote:
On 7/31/2013 10:29 AM, Audio_Empire wrote:
=20
In article , KH
=20
wrote:
=20

=20
On 7/30/2013 3:52 PM, Audio_Empire wrote:
=20
snip
=20
=20
=20
This would appear to say volumes about your knowledge of pop music.
=20

=20
I know enough =AD more than I want to. And if you are saying that I am
=20
wrong here, then I believe it says more about your knowledge of music
=20
and reproduction than it does about mine.
=20
=20
=20
I'm saying you clearly don't know the range of "pop" music, quite a lot=
=20
=20
of which is acoustic, because you don't care, and *you* don't listen to=
=20
=20
any, by your own admission, so you don't seem to be in a strong position=
=20
=20
to opine on it's suitability for auditioning.

You continue to miss the point. If a piece of pop music is acoustic, then t=
here=20
I have absolutely no problem with some reviewer evaluating equipment using=
=20
it. Just because I dislike pop/rock and it is no part of my musical life do=
esn't=20
mean that reject it as an evaluation tool based on that dislike. My objecti=
ons=20
are based solely upon the suitability (or lack thereof) of the results of t=
he=20
production process for the task.

You also seem to think that my criticism is predicated on the fact that I, =
personally
have no common ground with these reviewers and that since their results are=
=20
obtained using recordings with which I am unfamiliar, I condemn them. Nothi=
ng
could be further from the truth. My criticisms are based upon my knowledge =
of=20
recording practices and how I know that many pop and rock groups' performan=
ces=20
cannot exist outside of a studio as witnessed by the undeniable fact that w=
hen these=20
performers go on concert tours, THEY HAVE TO TAKE THEIR STUDIOS WITH THEM, =
or
their concert performances can't exist and their popular works won't sound =
like their
recordings of the same works. . =20