The job of a reviewer is to review how a particular piece of kit reproduces instruments using their reference recordings. Some reviewers will focus simply on that aspect of music reproduction looking for accuracy and resolution. Others will mention how a familiar recording moved them emotionally. In both cases reading and understanding reviews is a skill. You need to be able to read between the lines. Personal preference will influence the conclusion of a review. That’s what we need to understand.
You don’t need an uber high end, uber expensive system to enjoy music. As a matter of fact ultra resolving systems will more often than not steer the listener towards more analytical listening, getting in a way of enjoying a composition and performance. It’s tough to get out of that mode. You begin to listen to perfectly recorded music only because your system will make a crappy recording sound like crap. I’ve been there, done that. Striking that ultimate balance of resolution and musical enjoyment takes time and effort. That’s what the system building is all about to me. Once you get there that system will allow you to appreciate all aspects of music reproduction starting from what the emotions the musicians are conveying by performing a particular piece to the skills of the recording engineer and their ability yo capture that performance to deliver it in its full glory to the listener.
Ultimately this hobby, to me, is both about the music and the gear. It should never be about gear alone. I want to be able to enjoy listening for all the hyper details that are available on Nils Lofgren’s “Keith Don’t Go” but be able to play Bruno Walter’s Mahler and enjoy it for the performance. Just my $0.02
So, a reviewer just said something I need to talk about.
I will not mention the reviewer, nor the specific equipment being reviewed, but this statement was made, talking about sax and strings: "the strings had real body, and it sounded like real strings being played". The tonality of the instruments was what he/she was talking about. I get this. The tone, the spatiality of the instruments, the stage that was presented. All well and good. What about the engagement between the listener and the musician. I have stated so many times here, ad nauseam, that the most important aspect of music listening, for me (and not enough with other listeners) is the "playing of the instruments". The artistry of the musician behind those strings. I just don’t get it. When I listen to Jeff Beck (RIP), using him as an example, what I am attracted to, FIRST & FOREMOST, is his PLAYING. Reviewers talk about "sound". Most people here talk about "sound". I spend more time now on other sites, that speak about the music playing and, the compositions. For whatever reasons, I seem to be realizing, that A’gon members, as so many reviewers, talk about sound. They very rarely mention MY most important aspect of listening. The musicianship and the compositions. Another rant from me. What are your thoughts on this? How do you listen? What do you listen for/to? What does your system convey to you? I know I am out of line again, but........My best to everyone. Always, MrD.