Dan: But there is no way of knowing whether your extrapolation is correct.
Dusty: It's not. Nothing is perfect. There will certainly be cases where our extrapolations are incorrect. So what? In fact, it would be black and white to say that anyone will get the extrapolations totally perfectly right, just as it would be black and white for you to say that anyone will get the extrapolations totally perfectly wrong. I think (note: pulling this out of thin air -- that optimism again) that most people will get it _mostly right_. The ones who tell you that your system is inferior in such-and-such an area are the loud-mouthed minority, I think most people will quietly think to themselves, "oh, that *is* a very nice system".
Dan: Let me give you an analogy...*Most of us* (emphasis Dusty's) argued that that was not possible...He argued that certainty was not what was desired, but an effect of hearing Pavarotti in "hi-fi."
Dusty: Link please. I'm just curious -- from what you've already said, this person sounds like they don't really know what they're talking about. I mean, just ask him, "define 'hi-fi'". I have no idea what he means, and I'm sure, based on what you said about the missing information, that that part of the argument has already been run into the ground. I'm just interested to know how the rest of the argument went.
But I'd also like to point out what *you* said: "most of us", I.E. most of you did get it right, it was only the one idiot. Do you really want to define what you do because of the one idiot? There will always be idiots. I think you should cater to the other people.
Dan: You're right about that - I don't see the value. You do, so convince me.
Dusty: Um...um...I forget. I think I was just being selfish -- I enjoy reading about nice systems -- especially well set up ones.
Well, for example -- there are many recordings that substitute slightly hyped midbass for accurate deep bass. Different recordings will sound different on different systems. I heard a CD recording that sounded totally overblown in the bass on full-range floor-standing speakers, but sounded perfectly correct on low-frequency-limited bookshelves. So if a critic were to say that such-and-such a recording had wonderful accurate deep bass, I want to know if I'm going to like it (I tend to like deep accurate bass, but not overblown midbass, as on my system, the midbass is already hyped).
Ditto midrange -- that's a lot harder to suss out on a lot of systems. A slightly recessed midrange, a slightly upfront midrange -- it makes it very hard to tell if the recording is accurate, or if the vocalist has been put forward in the mix a bit.
Dan: No one has "addressed" how the other factors can be mitigated.
Dusty: That's because they can't. Let me rephrase your sentence the way I read it, in an attempt to show you what I think is the problem: "No one has addressed how *all* the other factors can be mitigated." When one phrases it that way, it becomes more obvious that you're being perfectionist. I think if it were me (and I will eventually start writing amateur reviews), I'd try to adopt a holistic approach -- do the best I can to convey as accurately as I can as much information as I can, and hope that a conscientious reader will accurately try to glean the correct information out of it.
Dan: IOW, if the person's hearing ability, and the room, and the listener's familiarity with the system and the room, are - all considered together - less a factor than the system, why is that?
Dusty: It's not "less", and if I have not yet made that clear, I apologize. It's just another iota of information, to be added to the pile. Of course I trust that you know your system well, and that what you're trying to convey is a critique of the recording, and not your system. As I mentioned when I first joined into this thread, that's just as important as the amount of ear-hair. I had hoped that didn't go unnoticed -- my point was, no-one thinks about how much ear-hair they have, and how it affects their listening experience. They just hope that they subconsciously take it into account, and their readers do the same. I also think it's important to know if someone listens usually in stereo or surround, whether they expect to enjoy the performance or not, whether they usually listen to that genre or not, and whether or not they like an "aggressive" surround mix (most don't; I do; I would prefer to read reviews of aggressive mixes from people who enjoy them), that sort of thing. But that doesn't mean that I'll conclude generalizations -- people who enjoy aggressive surround mixes are few and far between, I'll take what I can get. But a good reviewer will let me know that they don't usually like aggressive mixes, and from the rest of the review, I can still try to determine if I'll enjoy everything else about the recording or not.
Dan: You and I have to bet $1,000 apiece on the one who'll give the most accurate and useful review.
Dusty: Peh -- I need more information. What if this construction worker is intimately familiar with all the other work of this rap artist, and the golden-earred mastering engineer doesn't work with rap, never listens to it at all, in fact, hates it? Just as an example of the sort of information I find missing in this thought experiment.
Like I said, it's just another piece of information on the pile, it's not the deciding factor, and I don't think I'm alone -- I don't think anyone is going to say, "pah, this person only listens to SACD and vinyl, never CD's, I'm never going to read any of his reviews ever again". Or whatever.
Dan: Until you can explain why the other factors are not determinative, I have to say that you are the one "leaving things unsaid."
Dusty: I didn't mean to convey that the other factors are not determinative -- in fact, once you say it like that, I have to agree that your familiarity with your system -- and my trusting that you are, and I do trust that you are -- is much more important than your system, whatever it is.
Dan: But you are "withdrawing" information from us, Dusty. On what are you basing your "relatively small fraction" prediction?
Dusty: As I said in my above post, the polite way of phrasing it is "from out of thin air" -- in other words, I'm totally making this up. I'm optimistic, that's all. Stereophile makes a living on these people, but they're not the ones usually writing in to the editor.
Again, don't mean to browbeat you into it with this lengthy discussion, but...you asked. In fact, if I had to synopsize my own post, I hope you see that I'm kind of withdrawing the active request. I still think it would be useful, and would read it with relish if you provided it, but I think I understand your perspective well enough to understand why you're not, and I will respect that.
|