In article ,
Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
On 2013-08-06 02:39:07 +0000, said:
Pardon a couple of comments from my personal experience and viewpoint.
Concerning the statement that "Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio
Rags Have Become Useless," I've been reading reviews for 60 years, and
my question is, "When were they not generally useless?" I don't want
to exaggerate, and I have treasured a small number of useful reviewers
during that period; but gee, they've been rare. // As for imaging, it
is a much misunderstood subject. We can't judge the imaging of a
playback system or a piece of gear unless the source HAS an image; and
this is very rare. Unfortunately, imaging IS important; for its
evolutionary role (enabling us to locate predators or prey) precedes
music's esthetic function; and we have difficulty paying attention to
sound we cannot locate. (I say "we" because while this is true of me,
I also observe it in others.) // On an altogether separate separate
subject, I've started a blog for pianists and musicians generally, at
www.JamesBoyk.com .
I wonder the same thing myself. My first experience with audio rags
came in the 1990s (pardon my young age) but the amount of mumbo jumbo
in these publications strains the imagination.
That's often true, but it's beside the point. Take imaging, for
instance. If a reviewer talks about sound-stage and image specificity
using a recording known to well embody those characteristics, such as
certain Mercury Living Presence or RCA Victor Red Seals from the 1950's,
or a modern Reference Recording, then even if the audio
enthusiast/reader is unfamiliar with the work (or even the genre), he
will likely know that these recordings are known for real stereo imaging
and minimalist miking technique and if they image well using the
equipment under review, then most likely, that equipment does a good
job at sound stage presentation, and the reviewer gains SOME credibility
that if the reader where to acquire that same recording, played thought
that same equipment, he would have a similar experience - even if he
doesn't generally listen to that genre of music. The recordings are a
known quantity and as such are a touchstone to which anybody who has
ever heard live, unamplified music played in a real space. The
experience is readily transferrable. OTOH, when someone uses studio-
recorded pop with it's multi-track mono, isolating gobos (or, the gods
forbid) even recorded in different studios at different times, it's a
crap shoot. There is so much pop recorded and so many different tastes
in pop music, that once you stray from a few universally known acts
(like the Who, or The Stones, etc. The chance that any reader is
familiar enough with the reviewer's examples to understand what he's
trying to say about the equipment is slim.
---
news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints:
---