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?
syntax

Showing 4 responses by frogman

frogman
7,531 posts
 
I don't get it. And it should be pointed out that with all the references to correct speaker/amp matching, and all the proclamations about how one amplification technology is clearly better than another, there isn't a single reference to what it all means as far as actual sound, and THE SOUND OF THE MUSIC. With all due respect to those posters, it seems that you are discussing the superiority of one technology over another only in the abstract. So, because electrical theory says that this or that should be better, it is going to sound more like music? Haven't we learned anything yet?

One poster goes so far as to say that one technology is more natural, but the other is more accurate? Huh? Really? Natural, by definition, IS accurate.
Bifwynne, please correct me if I am mistaken, but it appears from your posts that it was only when you read Karsten's paper that you realized that your tube amp was not a good choice for your speakers. It may be a silly question, but how did they sound before you discovered this fact?
frogman
7,531 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......
frogman
7,531 posts
 
Bifwynne, thank you for the response. I understand that you were not one of the posters declaring one technology to be superior to the other. And, for the record, I did not intend to be confrontational in any way. My comments were a suggestion to FIRST AND FOREMOST trust what your ears tell you; they are usually correct, just like first impressions often are.

Your comments, like those of many of the posters, still point to letting the "theory" override the ears: " at first I thought it sounded terrible, but the techno geeks convinced me to hang in there" followed by "what I think I am hearing". "I not sure why or even if my speakers sound more forward with the 8ohm tap".

My comments are simply a suggestion to force the theory to prove our ears wrong, not the other way around. I am certainly not trying to diminish the importance of measurements; but, I have experienced too many instances when the theory was simply wrong. Not because I "like" this distortion or that, but because my ears told me that this or that "distortion" (and I use the term loosely) sounded more like music sounds; that makes it right in my book.
frogman
7,531 posts
 
Interesting. I would be more prone to respect the integrity of a reviewer that is open about the fact that he hopes to be able to buy the review unit at discount; and impression of bias be damned. That would tell me that he/she probably doesn't do too much funny stuff behind the scenes that we would never really know about.
More to discover