2. misc-audio
  3. 132026-38

A nice discussion of reviewers priorities.

I was wondering from anyone that has followed a reviewer if you could tell me of ones that prioritizes what I do? 
I value the artistic expression of music. So I presume micro details that are presented in a natural way are important in that regard. For example I know I get caught up in how a note on a guitar is played differently by diffeent musicians on different guitars, even how the individual strings are played either by themselves or in a chord. The different tension and how long a note is held, whether it is hammered or picked.  Maybe it is because I play that instrument.
Also the closer it sounds to the real event is nice. What I mean by that is that everything coming over my system needs to fit timing wise and timbre wise for me to connect to it. Those are valued details that don't get lost on me.
One thing that is low on my priority list is soundstaging or imaging.  I don't pay much attention to that.
I hope this lends itself to a nice discussion that we all benefit from.
I figure I can benefit a little more from the reviewers that I am more inline with, and l hope you would also.
Please if you are real familiar with a reviewer share your thoughts.
Thank you
marqmike
marqmike OP
839 posts
 
geoffkait
...the musician’s "touch" is a very high priority for him. That, and the "forward momentum" of the music..."

Nicely put 'forward momentum'. The sound of the drive or breath of the piece of music I find very valuable.  To me it is kind of subtle in recorded music, but contributes a lot to the communication of the artist.
marqmike OP
839 posts
 
Cleeds
Very good suggestion. But I am not very observant. I thought Art Dudley maybe liked similar things to me, but I am not very sure. And I have read his stereophile articles since he started there. So maybe I am asking for assurance? I don't know, and that's above my psychiatrists wages to figure that out, but it is nice having the input.
So thanks again everyone.
marqmike OP
839 posts
 
roxy54, tomcarr, bdp24

Art sticks out to me most probably because of the settings or stories he precedes his reviews with. I will  give Herb's reviews a better ear. Maybe go back a year or so and read them again. Thanks.  
auxinput
2,920 posts
 

One of the things I noticed and another reason why I stopped listening to professional reviews a long time ago.  You can look at a review for a $500 set of speakers and then compare it to a review for a $4,000 set.  The reviews will read almost exactly the same.  At this point, it becomes extremely difficult to try to extract what the real differences are and what would be best for you.  It is entirely possible that you would like the sound from the $500 set compared to the $4,000 model, depending on what type of sonic signature you were looking for.  That being said, there would definitely be other $4,000 speakers that you would love.

Just an example.

bdp24's avatar
bdp24
9,757 posts
 

Art Dudley is such a good writer, he's enjoyable to read just for the writing. He really puts the music itself ahead of the "sound" of music, faulting gear that itself doesn't. It's a subtle distinction, since music is, after all, sound first.

But the idea is, Gordon Holt (and Harry Pearson, for that matter) critiqued hi-fi in terms related as much to photography, a static medium, as to music, which is not. Art's point of view is that the temporal performance of a component (it's timing, forward momentum, etc.) is more important than it's static sound (accurate timbre, lack of coloration, transparency, etc.). And the physical dimension---imaging---is for him a very low priority. But the "size" of instruments---the bigness of a grand piano, the smallness of a mandolin and fiddle---Art refers to that as scale, IS important to him.

More to discover