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

Showing 4 responses by actusreus

actusreus
733 posts
 
I agree with Manitunc. I will also add that there are certainly bad reviews quite regularly, at least in Stereophile. A while ago Fremer reviewed a Boulder amp, and he trashed it sending the company's reps into a frenzy over the review. There was a bad Totem Forrest speaker review that nearly gave the designer a heart attack. There was a pretty bad class D amp review a few months ago. Fremer regularly criticizes high priced cartridges or analog equipment that he thinks should be less expensive based on performance. These are just a few off the top of my head.

Also, in the latest issue of Stereophile (April 2013), Art Dudley sheds some interesting light on the reviewing policies and interaction between reviewers and manufacturers. It's perhaps more of a rant, but it does describe what's going on behind the "closed doors" so to speak, and probably answers some of the questions and claims raised in this thread. I recommend it.

In the end, to me a review is what you make of it.
actusreus
733 posts
 
Raul's post makes you wish Audiogon had a limit on post length so he'd be cut off, just like when you get cut off by some voicemails.

Reading his posts in this thread, I find it ironic that he has "enjoy the music" as permanent part of his signature, but insists that the music that I am enjoying through my tube amplifiers cannot possibly sound good since tubes are so inferior to solid state. Raul, perhaps you should change your sig to "Regards and enjoy the music, but only through solid state amplification, and a moving magnet cartridge"?

His campaign against tubes smells of the same bias espoused by those who dismiss(ed) analog technology as inferior compared to digital sound reproduction. It apparently also reached its limit and couldn't be improved.
actusreus
733 posts
 
Certainly not, I 'm not on any tube campaign, I just shared facts/information about that normally are unknow by some tube amp owners and that in some ways could works as " open eyes " tool . That's all.

Raul,
As Lewm noted, it is impossible to have a rational argument with you as you're unwilling to consider others' experiences, and see past your own preconceived notions or selectively chosen specs to suit your convictions. I guess to you companies like Audio Research, BAT, VAC, Rogue Audio, Cary, just to name a few, are run by a bunch of ignorant nitwits and frauds who simply push an inferior technology on unsuspecting audiophile community to make a profit through customer ignorance. Perhaps you just need to reach out to all respected and successful designers of tube equipment and "share facts/information about that normally are unknow by some tube amp owners and that in some ways could works as " open eyes " tool.""

IMHO only a " closed eyes/mind " or with low knowledge level can still thinking that analog is a superior technology against today digital one ( 24/176.8 ). Certainly it is not and for very good reasons that I hope you already knew.

If this is your opinion, why do you even post in the Analog forum? Most if not all members here do believe analog is superior to the digital technology, however many bits it has, or otherwise they would not be cultivating their passion for vinyl as digital apparently continues to improve. What does it even mean digital is a "superior technology"? Because it has more bits? If it fails to provide me with a connection to music, which digital to me is miserable at, it is an inferior technology regardless of how many bits it has.

actusreus
733 posts
 
Raul,

Aha! I now understand why your posts are so painful to read and understand - you write them in Japanese!

You're preaching as if you were some sort of an audio oracle. You are not. You're just another audiophile with too much time on his hands who thinks he knows everything and he's always right. You may have quite a bit of audio knowledge, but you completely lack the ability to convey it, at least in my opinion. Perhaps it's your Japanese, I'm not sure, but I've learned very little from your essays on here, while I've learned a ton from others.

You keep calling everyone ignorant, but you come off as perhaps most ignorant poster on this board, your signature notwithstanding.
More to discover