View Single Post
  #97   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Scott[_6_] Scott[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 642
Default Modern Reviewing Practices In Audio Rags Have Become Useless

On Saturday, August 10, 2013 8:12:29 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
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.


"if the reader where to acquire that same recording, played thought that same equipment, he would have a similar experience"

This is the crux of the issue *right here* This is true regardless of how are recording is made. transference of experience is not limited to minimalist recordings of acoustic instruments. If the reader were to acquire the same studio recordings of pop/rock music as the reviewer played through that same equipment, he would also have a similar experience.