I appreciate Joe B, don’t get me wrong. But given your criteria, and a reliable scientific method for measurement, I would argue that Buckethead would score a higher cumulative grade.
Why not objectivist music reviews?
"Objectivist" equipment reviews are gaining in popularity, enabling audiophiles to rest easy knowing that their preferred piece of equipment with SINAD of
98 is _objectively_ better than one with SINAD of 97.5
Why not do the same for music?
I propose the following criteria for guitarists as an example:
1. Notes per second (NPS)--since speed is valued as a sign of mastery in an instrument, why shouldn't someone who plays faster be considered better than a slower player? (Goodbye, David Gilmour!)
2. Mistakes Per Minute (MPM) - - accuracy counts!! You could say it is equivalent to jitter or THD+N in equipment. (and goodbye, Jerry Garcia!!)
3. Length of Leads (LOL)--If you're so good, why are your solos so short? This is a no-brainer (later, guitarists before 1966!)
Put these together, and there is only one rational conclusion:
JOE BONAMASSA IS THE GREATEST GUITARIST OF ALL TIME
Thoughts?
WW
98 is _objectively_ better than one with SINAD of 97.5
Why not do the same for music?
I propose the following criteria for guitarists as an example:
1. Notes per second (NPS)--since speed is valued as a sign of mastery in an instrument, why shouldn't someone who plays faster be considered better than a slower player? (Goodbye, David Gilmour!)
2. Mistakes Per Minute (MPM) - - accuracy counts!! You could say it is equivalent to jitter or THD+N in equipment. (and goodbye, Jerry Garcia!!)
3. Length of Leads (LOL)--If you're so good, why are your solos so short? This is a no-brainer (later, guitarists before 1966!)
Put these together, and there is only one rational conclusion:
JOE BONAMASSA IS THE GREATEST GUITARIST OF ALL TIME
Thoughts?
WW
- ...
- 15 posts total
I was just reading a forum thread, about objectivist versus subjectivist audio equipment gear reviews, on the Audio Science Review website: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/anyone-else-with-reference-gear-and-colle... Nobody mentions "SINAD" a single time. But they do interestingly mention how to easily obtain a very objectivist system which, apparently, equals a very accurate and neutral system: "Why bother obsessing over gear when you can just buy some NC400s, Modulus, an AHB2 etc., one of dozens of excellent DACs, decent generic cables, and good speakers with appropriate room treatment? After all, any improvement in amplifier or DAC beyond what the current cutting-edge offers is probably inaudible in most cases. This creates an issue for audiophiles who claim they are chasing the most accurate sound reproduction but actually just want to buy new gear or gear that doesn't measure very well." This does make some sense to me since gear with a high degree of accuracy and neutrality are likely to receive high SINAD scores. This makes me question the whole efficacy of the concept of objectivism and SINAD scores, however, since it's not very helpful to individuals subjectively preferring less accuracy/neutrality and more euphonic distortions and added even order harmonics in their audio system. OTOH, wouldn't an especially low SINAD score usefully indicate gear these individuals may actually subjectively prefer? Seems like we're back to where we were at pre-Objectivist/SINAD. Tim |
noble100--I agree with the sentiment, but ASR in fact ranks all components by sinad score. There are also regular criticisms about looks, connectivity, drivers, etc. - - not remotely objective criteria. That said, I think it's a very useful resource, as long as one doesn't mind and/or ignores the extreme subjectivity on offer. |
- 15 posts total