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
lewm
13,244 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.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas
13,103 posts
 
Dear Frogman: +++++ " FIRST AND FOREMOST trust what your ears tell you ... " +++

agree and I already posted but I added:

++++ " Dear Mapman: ++++ " It takes an educated reader to find where that is. " +++++

you put the finger where it really " weights ": educated reader, educated audiophile and this is part of the overall " problem " subject.

How each one of us was educated? from where that audio education came? whom educated us? and perhaps more important could be that at some time as today we have to ask our self:

ALL WHAT I LEARNED THROUGH MY AUDIO LIFE IS TRUE, IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE TODAY AUDIO ADVANCEMENTS, IT STILL FULFIL MY TODAY PRIORITIES OR THE TODAY NEW STANDARDS? " +++

our ears/brain is educated trhough our music experiences, live ones as the better but what if we never had live music experiences: could my ears be trusty ones to say what is right or wrong against other persons that have different educated ears through live music experiences?

Yes, we have to trust in our ears and time to time ask our self: what learned about? because is what we are hearing.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
peterayer
1,382 posts
 
Lewm, I see your point. I just think that at their most fundamental, the goal of capturing exactly what is on the recording and the goal of capturing a sound that seems real, are different. Perhaps, in the case of a great, realistic recording, the two goals coincide. But far too often, so much of the original musical event is lost through the recording process, that a faithful reproduction of the recording can't sound like real music.

Isn't this what is loosely described by the a "musical" vs. an "analytical" system? In an ideal world, I happen to think they can be the same, but we have the problems of the recording itself.

There are those who argue that a system really is not capable of ever sounding better than the recording itself, because it can't add or fill in what is missing.

Well, perhaps we are saying the same thing.

Regarding reviewers, J Valin of TAS actually addresses this issue in some of his reviews. So when he describes a component as getting him closer to the recording versus one providing the emotional connection to music, I tend to understand what he is trying to describe. When he writes a component gets his system to sound more like the real thing I think he uses words like "emotional gestalt" and "transparency to source" to describe this distinction.
frogman
7,475 posts
 
Raul, what you post is very true; I agree. Not knowing what others' priorities or targets (to use your terminology) are, I usually assume that there will be, at least, an attempt to use the sound of live music as a standard. Otherwise, does it really matter what "right" is? If the target is only to put together a set of components that are perfectly matched "on paper", that's fine; but......
More to discover