Reviews without accurate measurements from an Audio Precision or dScope vel sim. audio analyser are meaningsless.
A nice discussion of reviewers priorities.
I was wondering from anyone that has followed a reviewer if you could tell me of ones that prioritizes what I do?
I value the artistic expression of music. So I presume micro details that are presented in a natural way are important in that regard. For example I know I get caught up in how a note on a guitar is played differently by diffeent musicians on different guitars, even how the individual strings are played either by themselves or in a chord. The different tension and how long a note is held, whether it is hammered or picked. Maybe it is because I play that instrument.
Also the closer it sounds to the real event is nice. What I mean by that is that everything coming over my system needs to fit timing wise and timbre wise for me to connect to it. Those are valued details that don't get lost on me.
One thing that is low on my priority list is soundstaging or imaging. I don't pay much attention to that.
I hope this lends itself to a nice discussion that we all benefit from.
I figure I can benefit a little more from the reviewers that I am more inline with, and l hope you would also.
Please if you are real familiar with a reviewer share your thoughts.
Thank you
I value the artistic expression of music. So I presume micro details that are presented in a natural way are important in that regard. For example I know I get caught up in how a note on a guitar is played differently by diffeent musicians on different guitars, even how the individual strings are played either by themselves or in a chord. The different tension and how long a note is held, whether it is hammered or picked. Maybe it is because I play that instrument.
Also the closer it sounds to the real event is nice. What I mean by that is that everything coming over my system needs to fit timing wise and timbre wise for me to connect to it. Those are valued details that don't get lost on me.
One thing that is low on my priority list is soundstaging or imaging. I don't pay much attention to that.
I hope this lends itself to a nice discussion that we all benefit from.
I figure I can benefit a little more from the reviewers that I am more inline with, and l hope you would also.
Please if you are real familiar with a reviewer share your thoughts.
Thank you
16 responses Add your response
I don't necessarily fully agree with willemj. Measurements can be used as a tool to help understand a device. However, measurements really do not dictate how the device will sound. I do agree that equipment reviews are usually useless because they are all trying to describe good points about the piece of equipment. Probably the most useful reviews or posts are description of how one piece of equipment sounds different from another piece of equipment. This helps with a "baseline" to compare from and helps drive you towards the right choice. |
Yup, Art Dudley. The ability of a component to convey the musician’s "touch" is a very high priority for him. That, and the "forward momentum" of the music---PRAT. He no longer plays his LPs on a Linn Sondek turntable, but he’s a Linnie. Surprisingly for a lover and player himself of acoustic music (Bluegrass, and he loves acoustic guitarist Tony Rice), the accurate reproduction of timbre is not a high priority for him. Weird. |
Thanks for the suggestions. I have read many articles from those reviewers but I have never really known where they come. I feel like many reviewers try to benefit their readers but I don't try to read to much in between the lines of what they say. And what they say I don't know where to put my confidence in what I read because I don't know their priorities. I guess I treat it as information that gives me some heads up to go check something out, not really knowing much of what to expect. Which I think is a healthy way to be inquisitive. I do think there is many things reviewers don't say in every review, but probably have in their own past reviews that probably means a lot but I don't try to figure out what that might be. So I think knowing what they value in their listening experience can help me see them in a different light and benefit as little more. For myself I have found personal help from dealers(and I buy from them when I use a dealers help) to be the best guidance in going a certain direction or creating what you want with success. But they don't always carry everything of course. So I feel reviewers input and input here on audiogon can all contribute something to have a wider scope of possibilities. So thanks again for the suggestions. |
geoffkait ...the musician’s "touch" is a very high priority for him. That, and the "forward momentum" of the music..." Nicely put 'forward momentum'. The sound of the drive or breath of the piece of music I find very valuable. To me it is kind of subtle in recorded music, but contributes a lot to the communication of the artist. |
Cleeds Very good suggestion. But I am not very observant. I thought Art Dudley maybe liked similar things to me, but I am not very sure. And I have read his stereophile articles since he started there. So maybe I am asking for assurance? I don't know, and that's above my psychiatrists wages to figure that out, but it is nice having the input. So thanks again everyone. |
One of the things I noticed and another reason why I stopped listening to professional reviews a long time ago. You can look at a review for a $500 set of speakers and then compare it to a review for a $4,000 set. The reviews will read almost exactly the same. At this point, it becomes extremely difficult to try to extract what the real differences are and what would be best for you. It is entirely possible that you would like the sound from the $500 set compared to the $4,000 model, depending on what type of sonic signature you were looking for. That being said, there would definitely be other $4,000 speakers that you would love. Just an example. |
Art Dudley is such a good writer, he's enjoyable to read just for the writing. He really puts the music itself ahead of the "sound" of music, faulting gear that itself doesn't. It's a subtle distinction, since music is, after all, sound first. But the idea is, Gordon Holt (and Harry Pearson, for that matter) critiqued hi-fi in terms related as much to photography, a static medium, as to music, which is not. Art's point of view is that the temporal performance of a component (it's timing, forward momentum, etc.) is more important than it's static sound (accurate timbre, lack of coloration, transparency, etc.). And the physical dimension---imaging---is for him a very low priority. But the "size" of instruments---the bigness of a grand piano, the smallness of a mandolin and fiddle---Art refers to that as scale, IS important to him. |
