While none of us have the same room, few of us have the same system, and many of us don't even have the same records, I think there is merit in review descriptions sufficient to allow a reader to reproduce the music the reviewer heard. And its not much of stretch to take that same perspective to equipment setup and use.
Generally, more information is more useful and less is less. Imo, the bare minimum for a review is reference to the records - preferably to the tracks - used as the basis of a description. I know I try to get as close to denoting what I hear ("the opening triangle in the Allegro... blah blah blah") so my reader can at least get to the same sound even if he doesn't have the same equipment. You don't want to over do it, but its very helpful (for me anyway) to cross check my ears and my system with what someone else hears and the more information you give me so I can do that, the better.
So sure - even if I don't own a $100k Kielbasa (or whatever is Mikey's table), I would like to know where he ended up with load or VTA so I can gauge the state of the O in my own system. No different a question for him than it is for any other owner or longer term user. Geeky - ok, call it geeky, but read most of the threads here - folks invested in multi-$k gear value info about the details.
Admittedly few readers will have the component they are reading about, so a majority of the reviewer's audience may not care about setup details. Until, of course, they become owners. Imo it is not a complete waste when a review lacks information about product setup and use, but a review can be so much better when the writer includes it. That info takes the writer out of the realm of prosaist into the realm of product user. Maybe that was Neal's point.
Cheers,
Tim
Generally, more information is more useful and less is less. Imo, the bare minimum for a review is reference to the records - preferably to the tracks - used as the basis of a description. I know I try to get as close to denoting what I hear ("the opening triangle in the Allegro... blah blah blah") so my reader can at least get to the same sound even if he doesn't have the same equipment. You don't want to over do it, but its very helpful (for me anyway) to cross check my ears and my system with what someone else hears and the more information you give me so I can do that, the better.
So sure - even if I don't own a $100k Kielbasa (or whatever is Mikey's table), I would like to know where he ended up with load or VTA so I can gauge the state of the O in my own system. No different a question for him than it is for any other owner or longer term user. Geeky - ok, call it geeky, but read most of the threads here - folks invested in multi-$k gear value info about the details.
Admittedly few readers will have the component they are reading about, so a majority of the reviewer's audience may not care about setup details. Until, of course, they become owners. Imo it is not a complete waste when a review lacks information about product setup and use, but a review can be so much better when the writer includes it. That info takes the writer out of the realm of prosaist into the realm of product user. Maybe that was Neal's point.
Cheers,
Tim