|
|
|
zeus said:
I plan to make a few changes to reviews shortly. Firstly to split the sonic rating into two: stereo and multichannel. People can rate one or the other, or both if they've listened to both. At the same time I was thinking of imposing a minimum limit of the review text, either a word or sentence count. Say 50 words or 3 or 4 sentences. New reviews with less than this limit will be advised to use "recommendations" instead. Comments?
All of these ideas sound great, zeus. I utterly agree stereo and multichannel sonics are often measured in different ways and being able to rate them separately will be perfect.
If you are able, try to prevent users from being able to rate multichannel for releases that are stereo only - I can see that happening easily since many reviewers may not even know whether they are playing one or the other.
|
|
|
Post by Khorn April 29, 2005 (12 of 24)
|
|
zeus said:New reviews with less than this limit will be advised to use "recommendations" instead. Comments?
The only problem I forsee with "recommendations" is that the performance could be the best available but the sound quality could stink. Any way of getting around this?
|
|
|
Post by zeus April 29, 2005 (13 of 24)
|
|
Khorn said:
The only problem I forsee with "recommendations" is that the performance could be the best available but the sound quality could stink. Any way of getting around this?
If the sound quality stinks then you wouldn't recommend it. If you're ambivalent, you wouldn't have an opinion either way. By recommending a disc, you're saying you found it worthwhile (for whatever reason). If you specifically don't recommend it, it's a dud. I don't see the problem.
|
|
|
Post by sgb May 1, 2005 (14 of 24)
|
|
zeus said:
I plan to make a few changes to reviews shortly. Firstly to split the sonic rating into two: stereo and multichannel. People can rate one or the other, or both if they've listened to both. At the same time I was thinking of imposing a minimum limit of the review text, either a word or sentence count. Say 50 words or 3 or 4 sentences. New reviews with less than this limit will be advised to use "recommendations" instead. Comments?
Stephen, this notion immediately evoked the chorus of out-of-tune vocalists singing Frank Zappa's "Who Are The Brain Police" playing loudly on my stereo system back in 1967.
Should we penalize Herman Melville for making Billy Budd so short (especially in view of the length of Moby Dick)? Are the Liszt Piano Concertos not really concertos at all because they aren't long enough?
No, I'm not suggesting anarchy here, and, yes, I agree that the brief, "I thought this record was good, I give it a B+" reviews should be at least discouraged, if not deleted. Thoughtful reviews, no matter how short should be left alone, IMO.
As I've noted in the Pawnshop thread (not knowing this one was here), imposing word minimums isn't always a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by zeus May 2, 2005 (15 of 24)
|
|
zeus said:
I plan to make a few changes to reviews shortly. Firstly to split the sonic rating into two: stereo and multichannel. People can rate one or the other, or both if they've listened to both.
OK, this is now implemented. You can revisit your old reviews to give the respective sonic ratings if you want.
|
|
|
Post by Jed May 5, 2005 (16 of 24)
|
|
Khorn said:
The problem we face here with reviewing SACDs is that in most cases we are reviewing the sound quality older performances re-mastered to a new format.
...
Thoughts anyone?
It seems to me that for old recordings, there ought to be a distinction between the original sound quality and how well the SACD represents what is on the tape.
|
|
|
Post by Claude May 6, 2005 (17 of 24)
|
|
Right. In some reviews here, 4 or 5 sound quality stars are given because of the highly improved transfer quality compared to previous CD editions, although the recording quality itself is poor or dated.
The Quintet: Jazz at Massey Hall
Louis Armstrong: Satch Plays Fats
Some audio magazines give distinct ratings for recording quality and transfer/remaster quality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
zeus said:
I was thinking of imposing a minimum limit of the review text, either a word or sentence count. Say 50 words or 3 or 4 sentences. New reviews with less than this limit will be advised to use "recommendations" instead. Comments?
If you want to encourage people to write reviews, IMO you have to give them quite a bit of latitude. If people don't like to read short reviews, does this really create a huge problem for them? Or is it more of a problem if reviewers feel micromanaged and stop contributing?
|
|
|
Post by Peter May 6, 2005 (19 of 24)
|
|
Are not long, rambling reviews as uninformative as one-liners?
Is a grading for sound quality not reliant to some extent on the reviewer's listening system?
It seems there are so many variables involved in producing a review; perhaps contributors should be allowed to write what and how much they like as long as the content is not offensive. Those who complain about reviews or reviewers are free to do better themselves.
All good wishes
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter said:
Is a grading for sound quality not reliant to some extent on the reviewer's listening system?
Yes but it should be self-consistent for each reviewer however and so a good recording will sound relatively better compared to lesser recording quality irrespective of the listening equipment used.
|
|
