[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

In article , 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.

snip

It bears directly on how a system will sound with the referenced system
- in the opinion of the reviewer. How is that less useful than a review
of how a speaker system sounds with music that the reader couldn't care
less about, and won't be listening too?

Because he will at least know that the reviewer is basing his opinion on
the quality of reproduction of a known absolute. A string section is a
string section, but an electric guitar can be made (and often is) to
sound like anything the musician and engineer want it to sound like.

And to someone who never listens to string sections, but listens to
electric guitars routinely, of what value is an opinion on accuracy of
"strings" reproduction?

Not important. What is important is that the reviewer KNOWS what a string section sounds like and therefore he can tell how accurate the reproducing system is to that sound. Then he can tell his readers that
this system is very accurate. They can then go listen to their pop/rock music knowing that it will accurately reproduce that as well. The reverse, is unfortunately not the case, and that's my point.

I know what your point is, but you fail to take
into account that many audiophiles - including yours truly - listen to
many types of music that doesn't qualify as "suitable" in your lexicon,
but we nonetheless care a great deal about quality. You don't
understand how that's possible; fair enough. But your opinion is no
more valid than mine.

If that's what you think my point is, then you are wrong. You have NO idea what I'm getting at.


I.E., It's not a REAL acoustic instrument that can be experienced with
nothing between the player and the listener but real space.

Frustrating!

They are entertainment, IMO, and nothing more, no matter what the
musical selections are.

Again, we're not talking about the entertainment qualities of the music..

No, I'm talking about *reviews* here, not music. You are describing
reviews that have relevance to *you* as the only useful reviews.

AGAIN, YOU MISS THE POINT COMPLETELY. High-Fidelity is defined as:
"The reproduction of sound with little distortion, giving a result very similar to the original." How can it do that when no one knows what the original is supposed to sound like? We all know what an acoustic guitar or a grand piano sounds like and can easily tell when we hear a system that makes it sound different from what we expect - because we all KNOW (unless we've lived in a cave somewhere) what we expect the instruments to sound like. But pop/rock is TOTALLY a studio creation. If you weren't there when the sound was "realized" how can you judge any playback system's accuracy to that sound. You can't and that's that!



My point is that reviews are all subjective, and only useful as
entertainment since there are no standards being employed.

While that might or might not be true (depending on the reviewer) at least if they are using real unamplified music as a reference, they have a chance of getting it right. Using studio manufactured music, they don't even have a valid starting point, never mind the destination.


Even if
"live, unamplified" is used as the "reference", there is zero evidence
that I (or anyone else) would agree with any particular reviewer or review.

Again, that's grasping at straws. If a person knows what a grand piano, for instance, sounds like, then he is going to have a pretty good idea whether the grand piano he is hearing sounds like a grand piano or a kazoo. Sorry to use such a gross example, but you continue to conflate the unsuitability of pop and rock as an evaluation tool with it's legitimacy as an art form. As long as you (and others) continue to take umbrage at my disdain for the program material as music rather than focus on the fact that it's the FORM the music takes here that I'm complaining about, not its content, then you are continually going to misunderstand what I'm trying to say.

snip

I maintain
that one cannot make any determination beyond "it sounds good to me"

And yes, I would agree with that point. *Without* any qualifiers however.

Then what's the use of the concept of high-fidelity? Fidelity to what?