When a Reviewer "likes" something

Dear Peterayer: +++++ " I like listening to the BSO on Friday afternoons, and I also like listening to my stereo in the evenings. And the more one sounds like the other, the more I like it. " +++++

your statement is very precise and self explain it. That kind of " I like it " is the one we have to look for because it is not only subjective one but way objective when you are comparing your system quality performance against the " true " ( live music. ).

Certainly the " I like it " cancer I was refering was a different one, the just " I like it " with no real foundation against the " true ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Raul, Unless you have the unique capacity to listen directly to amplifiers and preamplifiers without the need for a speaker, let me only remind you that we listen to speakers, not amplifiers and preamplifiers. The choice of amplifier should be determined by only one thing - the choice of speaker. The better the two elements are matched, the closer the resulting artificially recreated sound will be to reality. There is no way that even a perfect amplifier, if one existed, could make up for all the imperfections in the recording and playback process that come before and after home amplification. Given your own multi-way, subwoofered choice of speakers, it is no wonder to me that you would prefer solid state amplification. I completely understand that. I hope others who have read your posts here will take that into account and not be brainwashed.

Now, the question was about audio reviewers for the mainstream magazines. What do you think of them?

Sitting in one of many disparate seats with thousands of figgity humans listening to an orchestra, weirdly, will always be nothing like being at home with your little hifi. Who knew? And does anybody adjust their senses when at home, or do you merely sit there unsatisfied that the oboes sound somehow different when not being bounced off the bald pate of the fat guy in the seat in front of you? I'm amazed that anybody can get obsessed with "references" when those ideals of tone and scale are all over the map. I saw the Sleeping Beauty ballet in Boston last weekend from the 3rd row and the orchestra sounded beautiful and played perfectly...then yesterday I cranked up an LP of the same music (Philly by Ormandy) and was blown away again by an utterly different sounding majesty...just with no dancers and more elbow room. Reviewers have their ideals stuck in their heads, not your head, and as long as they write well and publish some cool pics and specs, I'll read it. Now I have to get back to that young hippy chick in my hot tub...she's getting "pruny."

Dear Lewm: +++++ " The choice of amplifier should be determined by only one thing - the choice of speaker. The better the two elements are matched, the closer the resulting artificially recreated sound will be to reality.... " +++++

right, agree on that. Now. IMHO the main subject there is that ++++ " The better the two elements are matched,.. " +++

what means IMHO that " matched ", simple: electrical matched, that's all. The first electrical parameter to have to be matched is the electrical speaker impedance curve against the amplifier output impedance. After that the speaker current asked against what the amplifier can supply it and go on on other factors in between.

Unfortunatelly no one of us have the capacity " to listen directly to amplifiers and preamplifiers without the need for a speaker " and normally tube technology can't handle can't match the specific electrical speaker needs.

That now/today I use SS electronics is only not because I love SS or because I hate tube technology but because SS is IMHO the only true alternative to match the speaker electrical needs.

Lewm, my speific music targets impede the use of tube technology at amplifier level. Today the best match to any speaker electrical needs is the SS alternative.

That facts has nothing to do with what I like or what I don't like, it is as simple as: 2+2.

Lewm, I'm not stupid and certainly you neither. You are a wise persons and IMHO there are no true real facts where you can argue that tube technology is better than SS to work with real speakers. If I were you maybe I give up on this tube topic because you have no serious scientific foundation to follow trying to support it when there is no way to support it.

This is not whom has the reason and I can tell you that whom has the reason and the winner is: the Physics's Laws.

++++ " will take that into account and not be brainwashed " ++++

the Physics's Laws does not permit to any one ( including you and me. ) to brainwash to any one. So we all are protected against that brainwash.

Now, ++++ " the question was about audio reviewers for the mainstream magazines. What do you think of them? " ++++++

I already posted: almost all of them are and promote corruption because they hide critical audio information or gives us misinformation. That electrical speaker/amplifier match is a clear example about when they don't go in deep on that critical subject.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

I think we should go private with this argument, if you wish. It has nothing to do with the topic.

I can't resist one point: speakers in general have evolved to match solid state amplifiers. Does that mean necessarily that we are left with the best possible speakers? No. However, I would not argue for a moment that high power solid state amplifiers are best suited to drive low impedance, low efficiency, multi-driver speakers which are dominant in the high end marketplace. Most of those speakers suck, IMO. (Yes, that's MHO.)