Every time I read a review in Stereophile or any other trade publication,
the test music invariably consists of a bunch of obscure artists and
recordings (who here really listens to Rokia Traore Bowmboï?).

I usually pick up my CDs more for their musical rather than their sonic
content, and I presume that the majority of the listening public does the
same.

Why then don't these tests involce something a little more generic like U2,
Radiohead or Usher since that's what most people are listening to anyway?

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message


Every time I read a review in Stereophile or any other trade
publication, the test music invariably consists of a bunch of obscure
artists and recordings (who here really listens to Rokia Traore
Bowmboï?).

I had a really very smart roommate in college who taught me a thing or six.

My roommate David L decided that having a large collection of LPs would get
him artsy-caftsy chicks. So, he convinced the editor of the campus newspaper
who was hungry for content of any kind, that the school needed a record
reviewer. He then wrote up about three reviews that were published in
successive weeks, one from a recording he had, one from a recording I had,
and one about a LP borrowed from a kid down the hall. Something like that.
He then took the yellow pages and looked up the addresses of a number of
record distributors in town. He mailed out about 20 letters with copies of
his 3 reviews. About two weeks later, he backed the letters up with about
two days of running around town dropping in on these distributor's offices
to show his face and dropping off more reviews. This only got him on the
mailing list for a few distributors, but they were biggies and before long
our mailbox was bursting with foot-square cardboard boxes. Before long, his
LP collection was growing by about six inches a week. I don't think He never
even listened to most of what he received, and a lot of it was dreck. But,
he did grind out a few semesters of weekly reviews to keep the pump primed.
I don't remember too much about the chicks, but I think he did keep himself
active if you catch my drift.

I usually pick up my CDs more for their musical rather than their
sonic content, and I presume that the majority of the listening
public does the same.

Record distributors can get a little upset if you *never* review what they
send you.

Why then don't these tests involve something a little more generic
like U2, Radiohead or Usher since that's what most people are
listening to anyway?

Ironically, I seem to recall product reviews centerpieced with mainstream
recordings in S&V. Maybe you need to broaden your reading habits. Remember
that audio's high end is a marketing concept.

Schizoid Man wrote:


Every time I read a review in Stereophile or any other trade publication,
the test music invariably consists of a bunch of obscure artists and
recordings (who here really listens to Rokia Traore Bowmboï?).

I usually pick up my CDs more for their musical rather than their sonic
content, and I presume that the majority of the listening public does the
same.

Why then don't these tests involce something a little more generic like U2,
Radiohead or Usher since that's what most people are listening to anyway?



I suspect there are several reasons for the reviewers not listening to the
"latest, greatest" artists. One of these may well be generational, i.e.
reviewers older and often with musical tastes reflecting a different set of
values to some extent than that of younger viewers. Anoither might well be
that the reviewers try to pick recordings that they think are exceptionally
well produced, have outstanding sonics, and/or are considered to be "audiophile
standards" in the sense that a lot of hobbyists might own them because of both
performance and artistic merits. In the latter category, for example, might be
some of the Harry James direct-to-disc recordings long considered outstanding
soundwise - and of course, available in either LP or CD form. It is also not
uncommon to see RCA Living Stereo classical recordings included on a reviewers
list of favorites simply because some readers like classical music and might
want to get an idea of how a reviewer thinks a paritcular piece of gear
performs with a "state-of-the-art" classical recording (I think Telarc CDs are
often cited for the same reason with classical music).

Finally, and this may be obvious to some, the reviewers - at least the better
ones - have to provide test recordings that provide meaningrul reviews of
specific types of musical reproduction, eg. percussio, bottom 2 octave
response, male & female vocals, ability to handle large-scale symphonic
productions, transient response, etc. I seem to vaguely remember a number of
years ago that the long-defunct magazine, High Fidelity, once ran an
informative article in which the writer listed a number of recordings useful
for testing a number of different aspects of performance of speakers and other
parts of an audio system. The goal was to provide hobbyists with some sort of
standard set of reference records that they could use when evaluating
components. I'd like to see one of the major audiophile magazines write a
similar article today.


Bruce J. Richman

Nicely put, thanks.

Kal


On 09 Dec 2004 16:55:20 GMT, (Bruce J. Richman)
wrote:
I suspect there are several reasons for the reviewers not listening to the
"latest, greatest" artists. One of these may well be generational, i.e.
reviewers older and often with musical tastes reflecting a different set of
values to some extent than that of younger viewers. Anoither might well be
that the reviewers try to pick recordings that they think are exceptionally
well produced, have outstanding sonics, and/or are considered to be "audiophile
standards" in the sense that a lot of hobbyists might own them because of both
performance and artistic merits. In the latter category, for example, might be
some of the Harry James direct-to-disc recordings long considered outstanding
soundwise - and of course, available in either LP or CD form. It is also not
uncommon to see RCA Living Stereo classical recordings included on a reviewers
list of favorites simply because some readers like classical music and might
want to get an idea of how a reviewer thinks a paritcular piece of gear
performs with a "state-of-the-art" classical recording (I think Telarc CDs are
often cited for the same reason with classical music).

Finally, and this may be obvious to some, the reviewers - at least the better
ones - have to provide test recordings that provide meaningrul reviews of
specific types of musical reproduction, eg. percussio, bottom 2 octave
response, male & female vocals, ability to handle large-scale symphonic
productions, transient response, etc. I seem to vaguely remember a number of
years ago that the long-defunct magazine, High Fidelity, once ran an
informative article in which the writer listed a number of recordings useful
for testing a number of different aspects of performance of speakers and other
parts of an audio system. The goal was to provide hobbyists with some sort of
standard set of reference records that they could use when evaluating
components. I'd like to see one of the major audiophile magazines write a
similar article today.


Bruce J. Richman

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Ironically, I seem to recall product reviews centerpieced with mainstream
recordings in S&V. Maybe you need to broaden your reading habits. Remember
that audio's high end is a marketing concept.

At least to people with wax balls the size of grapes in their ears.

"jeffc" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Ironically, I seem to recall product reviews centerpieced with
mainstream recordings in S&V. Maybe you need to broaden your reading
habits. Remember that audio's high end is a marketing concept.

At least to people with wax balls the size of grapes in their ears.

You ain't exactly an MBA, are you Jeff?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message



snip





Wow. So much for college memories.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...
Every time I read a review in Stereophile or any other trade publication,
the test music invariably consists of a bunch of obscure artists and
recordings (who here really listens to Rokia Traore Bowmboï?).


That may be true for Stereophile but no so much for Sound & Vision.

I usually pick up my CDs more for their musical rather than their sonic
content, and I presume that the majority of the listening public does the
same.

I pick mine for both their content and the recording quality, but the music
is the first motivator. Ther do seem to be some lables and some artists who
know how to record things in a way that I like when it comes to popular
music. Santana, James Taylor, Dire Straits come to mind. In Jazz it's
generally an easier task to find things that are sound like live music,
since Jazz musicians tend to use less or no overdubing, and play live
together in the studio. Two of my favorites are Mike Garson: The Oxnard
Sessions Vol. 1 on the Reference Recording label, is one. The other would
be Mary Stallings: Fine and Mellow. Her daughter Adriana Evans is also a
talented singer.

Why then don't these tests involce something a little more generic like
U2,
Radiohead or Usher since that's what most people are listening to anyway?

In the case of SP, I would assume that they are trying to find music that
shows of the equipment, plus there's a bit of snobbery at work.

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:29:01 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

In the case of SP, I would assume that they are trying to find music that
shows of the equipment, plus there's a bit of snobbery at work.

Yes, to the former. A matter of taste, to the latter.

Kal

We had one guy who would tour the local stereo joints with a Nagra
portable on which he had taped various things. His rationale being that
he had heard the actual sounds and was familiar with them so could
evaluate amps and speakers best that way. As I recall the Nagra would
directly drive a power amp or a pre with some cables he'd made.