Post by seth December 19, 2005 (21 of 121)
|
|
Allan1us said:
The truth of the matter is that the equipment does affect the result. It cannot realistically be otherwise.
It's particularly interesting in the case of extreme or conflicting opinions to see what equioment is being used.
And it's also possible that people hear completely different things.
More useful than listing equipment, is if in profiles people listed what the 3 to 5 best sounding recordings are on their equipment. Not only does this give readers a common frame of reference, but lets people know a reviewer's sonic tastes, and perhaps will cause reviewers to be more reserved if they always have a criterion to work with.
|
|
|
Post by Allan1us December 19, 2005 (22 of 121)
|
|
seth said:
And it's also possible that people hear completely different things.
More useful than listing equipment, is if in profiles people listed what the 3 to 5 best sounding recordings are on their equipment. Not only does this give readers a common frame of reference, but lets people know a reviewer's sonic tastes, and perhaps will cause reviewers to be more reserved if they always have a criterion to work with.
What if I'm not familiar with any of your 5 reference recordings, or you with mine? - which seems to me quite likely.
If I hear the work of a major recording project being rubbished by someone who doesn't even have 5 full range loudspeakers or if I hear an unexpected opinion from someone and look up their SACD player on Google and the only result I can find worldwide is to find one for sale second hand on ebay for 55 US dollars, then I know what conclusions to draw.
Anyway I want to know what right Edvin has on a democratic forum to typify someone else's rating as "silly". If he disagrees with a review then let him buy the record and put in his own contrary review. After all it could be Edvin's equipment that is a load of crap or Edvin's ears that need to be syringed out.
|
|
|
Post by Edvin December 19, 2005 (23 of 121)
|
|
If it´s a democracy I have every right.
|
|
|
Post by seth December 19, 2005 (24 of 121)
|
|
Allan1us said:
What if I'm not familiar with any of your 5 reference recordings, or you with mine? - which seems to me quite likely.
I never said it was a perfect system, but it's better than knowing nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Allan1us December 19, 2005 (25 of 121)
|
|
seth said:
I never said it was a perfect system, but it's better than knowing nothing.
That's true. But so is knowing a bit about the equipment and the forum does in fact provide a facility for that so why not use it.
Looking at Edvin's equipment list I know what conclusions to draw.
|
|
|
Post by Edvin December 19, 2005 (26 of 121)
|
|
Allan1us said:
That's true. But so is knowing a bit about the equipment and the forum does in fact provide a facility for that so why not use it.
Looking at Edvin's equipment list I know what conclusions to draw.
Absolutely. I haven´t got any equipment. I am faking it all.
|
|
|
Post by Allan1us December 19, 2005 (27 of 121)
|
|
Edvin said:
Absolutely. I haven´t got any equipment. I am faking it all.
I thought we would get to the truth eventually
|
|
|
Post by Dan Popp December 19, 2005 (28 of 121)
|
|
Thus saith Allan1us:
The truth of the matter is that the equipment does affect the result. It cannot realistically be otherwise.
Allan,
I've been working in pro audio for about 30 years now. I've heard a lot of different systems and different rooms, and have spoken to a lot of other people whose livelihoods depend on the quality of sound they put out.
I would rate the most important aspect in critical listening to be the listener himself, followed by the room, followed by the equipment. If an experienced engineer is listening on a monitoring system and in a room he's familiar with, you might be horrified to learn how bad the equipment could be for that engineer to get excellent results.
A mediocre, but familiar, system will get you farther than an unfamiliar system of better quality. That's my view, but I think it's shared by most audio folks who get to work in a variety of environments. To put this another way, if it were my music on the line, and I had to choose between hiring the best engineer using the worst tools, and a passable engineer using the best tools, I would choose Option A every time.
Judging a reviewer's ability by his gear is just not going to give you predictable results.
|
|
|
Post by Edvin December 19, 2005 (29 of 121)
|
|
...avoiding the temptation to turn their own opinions into absolute statements of immutable fact.
The truth of the matter is that the equipment does affect the result.
Nice Allan.
|
|
|
Post by mdt December 19, 2005 (30 of 121)
|
|
Dan Popp said:
Judging a reviewer's ability by his gear is just not going to give you predictable results.
I dont think it's about judging a reviewers ability by his gear at all. Knowing the gear can aid in puting the review in to perspective if you happen to know the sonic qualities of that gear. e.g if a reviewer with a paricularly bright sounding speaker and one with a rather warm sounding one review the same recording, you can make different conclusions as to how the recording will sound on your system.
|
|
