|
|
|
samayoeruorandajin said:
I think doing away with rating all reviews (whether helpful, unhelpful thumbs up thumbs down) should be done away with...period. You disagree or agree with a review then it should be in the discussion thread of the item in question. Allow those who don't like a review a say in the discussion (including Arnaldo--un-ban him).
+1
|
|
|
Post by stvnharr March 2, 2013 (42 of 54)
|
|
canonical said:
Re the Savall and Aliavox, their recordings fall into 3 distinct categories:
* 21st C: their new 21st C hi-res digital recordings are often super
* 1970s analogue: their 1970s analog recordings, which they have started to convert to DSD. The ones I have tried are superb.
*1980/1990s early digital: their late 80s and 1990s PCM recordings ... often recorded in resolutions not significantly dissimilar to CD resolution. I have found the sonic quality of this class to be often quite disappointing, with a typical CD-ish type of sound, which is frankly not surprising given that is what they often are. I haven't found one of these worth more than 2 or 3 stars for sonics yet, on a scale that awards 5 stars to the better classes listed above.
Well, you've left a couple things out of your simplistic view of the Alia Vox sacds, notably the early digital sourced ones.
It doesn't take much to know that transferring these won't do anything for bit depth or frequency response. You may get slightly different noise shaping from the DSD transfer, but that's not going to really differ things much from the rbcd sound.
However, most of these old Savall recordings are not in print anymore. One may be able scrounge one up somewhere, but they are just not readily available. Some of these early digital sourced discs have mch content in the sacd's too. If you only listen in 2 channel that's not a big thing, but it is if you do. Also, Alia Vox prices these early digital Heritage discs at a fairly low price, especially when you buy them on special somewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonalogic said:
I was intrigued, however, to see that both reviews were immediately assessed as 'unhelpful' by two persons. So what, you may say? However, every review I have submitted in the past year or so seems to have been immediately and negatively marked by two nameless persons in this way, usually within half an hour of posting.
Back to the start.
To me any review is helpful in so far as it gives details about composer, quality of playing, and sound. Remarks like ‘Marvelous play; wonderful sound', are a bit short, but can nonetheless be helpful. The reader is the judge and ultimately responsible for his own choice (to buy or not to buy).
Moreover, I am of the opinion that, apart from the useful and factual info given on this site (and praise to Zeus to make it all happen) reviews constitute an essential element. To this effect it would be a good thing if, mostly unprofessional, reviewers get some form of encouragement for the amount of effort that sometimes has gone into it, like, for instance, marking a review as ‘helpful’.
What I do NOT think is a good idea, is that reviewers can be shot down without any hesitation and/or explanation. THAT is unhelpful!
In another thread I said:
“I've been writing a reasonable number of reviews and sometimes wondered why people thought them to be unhelpful. In one case (Beethoven symphonies) I realized that one cannot be too 'general'. For the others... I have no idea. May be those finding the review 'unhelpful ' (and it is soooo easy to just push the button) should give their reasons for it, such as to 'help non-professional reviewers' to improve on it for the benefit of this site”.
On several occasions in the past I could have saved a lot of money buying a disc without checking whether there was a review on this site. I will name just one: Sheherazade/Gergiev. It has long gone into the dustbin.
So, I address myself to all those of good intent: Keep up the work, don’t shoot down reviews ‘because you do not agree’, rather write one yourself, correcting what you think the reviewer has done wrong and why.
It will not solve the problem for those who did not find the info they had hoped for. But it would still be better than nothing at all. Exit ‘unhelpful’ button? I should think not as it opens a box of Pandora for would-be commentators saying whatever comes up. May be more buttons: not helpful, little helpful, rather helpful, most helpful.
Just a thought
|
|
|
Post by hiredfox March 3, 2013 (44 of 54)
|
|
Most classical works have been recorded and re-recorded umpteen dozens of times over the past 70 years or so and many classical music followers have a considerable personal experience and/or knowledge of the discography through shellac, vinyl, CD and now SACD. Any review of a new recording needs to contain not only the reviewers immediate subjective response to the recording and performance but also to place the performance in the context of what has gone before in their opinions.
Many reviews on here fail in this vital respect and so are not as helpful as they could be set in this wider context and bearing in mind the many other sources of information on new recordings available to the inquiring collector.
Marking a review on here as unhelpful may not be quite as unobjective as many seem to imply. Rather than nurse hurt feelings at what some clearly see as rejection perhaps they should instead consider why the review was not well received in the first place and seek to improve things next time around. I accept the current tick box approach lacks subtlety and the means of feedback needed to improve contributions.
That is why I prefer to offer my immediate thoughts in threads rather than through writing a lengthy meaningful review; other readers are free to heed my advice or not as it suits them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
hiredfox said:
Many reviews on here fail in this vital respect and so are not as helpful as they could be set in this wider context and bearing in mind the many other sources of information on new recordings available to the inquiring collector.
Marking a review on here as unhelpful may not be quite as unobjective as many seem to imply. Rather than nurse hurt feelings at what some clearly see as rejection perhaps they should instead consider why the review was not well received in the first place and seek to improve things next time around. I accept the current tick box approach lacks subtlety and the means of feedback needed to improve contributions.
And, see that's just how you rate a review helpful or unhelpful. Your criteria is different than another person's way of rating a review, I am sure. Does that mean your way is the only way? No.
That is why I say do away with the whole rating scheme. If someone doesn't like what a reviewer said, they can come into the discussion thread and opine and reviewers can get feedback via the written word rather than some anonymous thumbs up or thumbs down. An anonymous thumbs up or thumbs down is the chicken's way (sorry brutally honest).
So in that I say thumbs down to your suggestion or perhaps just simply an adjustment to your thoughts. (and I have given you reasons why).
|
|
|
Post by pgmdir March 3, 2013 (46 of 54)
|
|
I'm not sure the "helpful" thing works as well here as it does on Amazon. If a film or piece of music has 100 "reviews" on Amazon, I prefer to at least start on ones that people have found helpful. If there are only a handful of reviews, I don't pay much attention to that feature. I genuinely appreciate the informed outlook that Castor and Poly and others bring to the SA-CD.net reviews, but I am even more influenced by the comments made by people I have gotten to know--- ie, Hired Fox, Seth, Tailspin Tom, Bill Hecht--- and so many others who don't seem to be around as often anymore. Heck, even the Dutchman, when he was talking about music, was someone who added helpful information to my viewpoints. Like the Fox, I prefer to pass along my viewpoints in discussion, rather than reviews--not because someone may not find them "helpful", but rather that discussion offers me a more relaxed method of ....having a conversation over a single malt. Secondly, I what I pass along is my opinion, my personal experience with the disc underdiscussion, and my experiences with other versions of the work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
hiredfox said:
- Most classical works have been recorded and re-recorded umpteen dozens of times over the past 70 years or so
- Any review of a new recording needs to ... place the performance in the context of what has gone before in their opinions.
- Many reviews on here fail in this vital respect and so are not as helpful as they could be set in this wider context and bearing in mind the many other sources of information on new recordings available to the inquiring collector.
- Rather than nurse hurt feelings at what some clearly see as rejection perhaps they should instead consider why the review was not well received in the first place and seek to improve things next time around.
- I accept the current tick box approach lacks subtlety and the means of feedback needed to improve contributions.
- That is why I prefer to offer my immediate thoughts in threads
Some pretty hairy comments. I’m sure they sound harsher than meant, because I can hardly believe that Hiredfox wants amateur reviewers taking into account all that has been recorded in the past and said on the subject in other fora.
Occasional reviewers have no access to a library spanning 70 years and are unable to compare shellac apples with SACD pears. And this site being dedicated to Super Audio, so are the reviews.
It may, of course, be helpful if a review of a new disk would take into account other SACD recordings of the same piece (perhaps not altogether excluding other formats for comparison if possible or useful), but that does not need to be ‘the sole rule of the game’ to be stamped "helpful". There are other means to base one’s judgment on (radio, Concert hall etc.). And how many would have the financial means to buy more than one version of the same? It would seem unrealistic to declassify someone’s opinion as ‘unhelpful’ by way of such an inflexible principle. And believing that the reviewer will thus be educated won’t wash. I do not think that this is what is meant.
Besides, the question helpful or not helpful is a very subjective one. Even among professional reviewers there are many contradictive views. Which of these would have to be judged as helpful or not helpful? Is it a matter of agreement / disagreement (or even personal hang-ups etc.) rather than objective evaluation? And what is ‘objective’.
As I see it, the importance of having reviews on this site lies in the fact that we deal here with people who care about music (and systems, but that is quite another matter)and that it would be unwise not to listen to someone warning us about sonic quality, out of tune playing, or vice-versa, to name but a few elements that have nothing to do with comparison. Yes, it can be done under the heading ‘discussion’, but less so if the comments also deal with a wider range of musical aspects and some background about composer, interpreters and so on.
A look at hiredfox' own reviews confirms that comparison is not always asked for.
I assume, therefore, that his remarks should rather be seen as a contribution to the discussion on how to make reviews more to the point and how they can best be judged. Bringing somewhat more subtlety in the ‘unhelpful’ button is not a bad idea. One might, as has earlier been suggested, add a name to it. For instance “x does not find this review helpful”, the nick name automatically filled in if a member pushes the button. ‘Naysayers’ for the sake of it would then have to think twice.
Reviews may not always be as exact and exemplary as some died in the wool experts might wish, but as long as they honestly reflect what the reviewer feels, are not biased by receiving complimentary copies or restricted by commercial guidelines, then I, for one, would rate them helpful.
|
|
|
Post by hiredfox March 5, 2013 (48 of 54)
|
|
Adrian Cue said:
I assume that his remarks should rather be seen as a contribution to the discussion on how to make reviews more to the point and how they can best be judged. Bringing somewhat more subtlety in the ‘unhelpful’ button is not a bad idea. One might, as has earlier been suggested, add a name to it. For instance “x does not find this review helpful....
because
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adrian Cue said:
Reviews may not always be as exact and exemplary as some died in the wool experts might wish, but as long as they honestly reflect what the reviewer feels, are not biased by receiving complimentary copies or restricted by commercial guidelines, then I, for one, would rate them helpful.
That seems desirable ... But there might easily be other exceptions.
For example:
* if I have bought a disc because a review here rates it highly, and discover that it is, in fact, a stinker for my out pile... well, it goes without saying that such a review usually deserves negative feedback.
As an interesting aside (and somewhat conversely):
I have noticed that in my own reviews, that my NEGATIVE reviews (say 3 or less stars) attract much more negative feedback than my positive recommendations. I hope this does not deter me from writing negative reviews, as I would like to think the negative ones are the most useful to others contemplating making purchases.
As to why this correlation between negative review and negative feedback??? It seems entirely plausible to me that if someone else has purchased the same disc, and they like it or are happy with it, for whatever reason, then it is quite natural that they will mark a negative review with negative feedback, ... that's just human nature ... so I don't think any of us should get too upset about such things.
Anyway, whatever the reason, if one places oneself as a critic, one has to accept it back.
|
|
|
Post by seth March 5, 2013 (50 of 54)
|
|
Adrian Cue said:
Some pretty hairy comments. I’m sure they sound harsher than meant, because I can hardly believe that Hiredfox wants amateur reviewers taking into account all that has been recorded in the past and said on the subject in other fora.
Occasional reviewers have no access to a library spanning 70 years and are unable to compare shellac apples with SACD pears. And this site being dedicated to Super Audio, so are the reviews.
I don't think there is anything wrong with reviewers saying, "I've only heard this work live a few times/only have a few other recordings of it, so I don't have a lot to compare it to..."
I appreciate that kind of honesty.
|
|
