2. analog
  3. 1364382162

When a Reviewer "likes" something

... what does that mean in your opinion. I read in one of the last Stereophile mags a comment from Mr. Atkinson where he wrote about the differences in "opinions" in forums or in printed mags. After all he ended with the argument, a component is good when a reviewer likes it.
Isn't is more helpful, when a reviewer knows something about a real tone reproduction? Or is it ok, when he used every month another CD or LP he got for free, a kind of music nearly no one wants to listen to?
Harry Pearson used in the 90's always the same records for his reviews but that was an exception I think.
What is it worth for you when - for example - Mr. Dudley/Fremer/Valin/HP .... "likes" something? Do you have the same "taste" they have?
I know it is possible to like a Turntable even when that unit can't hold the proper speed, or is extremely sensitive to any influences, there are endless recommendations written about such units...what is it worth for you?
Atkinson for example measures units, some have top datas but they can sound very boring, far away from the real thing, some have no top datas, some "tests" are shortened because a unit can reach a area which can be pretty dangerous (see one of the latest Agostino units, just as an example) but they are rated Class A in recommendations anyway....
When someone "knows" what is right or not, then his "liking" is only a personal opinion which is more or less uninteresting or?
Most customers (not all of course) would prefer to know what a unit is really able to do sonically, or not? Would knowledge destroy the joy of Hardware rolling? Or is there a reason why reviewers use low efficiency speakers when they have a tube amp for review (for example Lamm ML2.1/ML2.2 with Magico Speakers)? Is the matching "expensive + expensive" the proper way to show competence?
128x128syntax
charles1dad's avatar
charles1dad
10,250 posts
 
Rrog,
Who are the thread police? Your oplnions have been as strong as any here, it's an open forum and a variety of viewpoints are expected. Some agree with Raul's view and others don't, that's how it goes.You feel he makes good points that's fine, others don't feel the same.Are those who see things differently from you the thread police? You seem very judgemental of alternative points of view.
Regards,
rrog
1,958 posts
 

"You seem very judgemental of alternative points of view."

You seem awfully touchy on the subject. Were your comments about me or were your comments about yorself? I have noticed on several threads you have found it important to only disagree with my postings. Is there a rub?

manitunc
795 posts
 
This thread started as a question about the use of reviewers opinions in helping to put together a system. Raul came on to state that reviewers were disengenuous at best for not pointing out that using a tube amp with most speakers will cause a varying frequency response not at all like the original recording, and therefore, because they didnt make that statement, their opinions are worthless. Now, that could have been said in one post, instead of 30 length posts denigrating anyone that disagrees. But beyond his statement on tube amps distorting sound and reviewers not saying so, what has he added to the discussion on the use of reviews to assemble a system, whether its Raul's review of a component or some professional reviewer's review. Maybe its just me, but reading Raul's posts make my head hurt.
lewm
13,039 posts
 
Peter, you wrote "I think Raul seems to want his system to reproduce what is on the recording with as little distortion as possible. You seem to want your system to sound like a live music. Those seem to be different goals."

Actually not. At least I don't think so. If one wanted a "euphonic" result, everything to sound "good" regardless of the quality of the input signal, then one has to rely on serendipity; the sound might be very good in one case where the imperfections of the equipment complement the imperfections of the source, or very bad, when the two are in conflict. On the other hand, if you can get the best out of the source, then you have both lowest distortion and best chance to capture the best most nearly perfect rendition of reality that the source can provide, every time. That's kind of what I was trying to say when I noted that if I make a change to a circuit that theoretically should reduce distortion, it usually also makes the sound "better", more nearly like live, more of the time.
charles1dad's avatar
charles1dad
10,250 posts
 
+1Manitunc.
More to discover