Yes such entities are corruption free and cannot be influenced. Regulations are certifications are always good.
What is a reviewer?
- Thread starter Elliot G.
- Start date
Yes such entities are corruption free and cannot be influenced. Regulations are certifications are always good.
Many audiophiles have an inferiority complex vis à vis musicians, the irony being that many musicians have little interest in audio. How much skill or training does it take to evaluate audio equipment? Musical training is certainly not required - even music critics don't always have deep knowledge of music theory. So what skills are required? Or is it just a question of being exposed to a variety of systems?
Not just exposure or experience. You also have to have observational and analytical/critical thinking, which honestly even most pretty smart people don’t have. You have to want to pick apart what you hear, not just sit back and enjoy the music. When I hear someone say that then I know they are limited in ability to critique the sound because it’s not what interests them. However, if making a system that sounds like live is a goal for the critic, one additional crucial mental skill is to be able map the hifi sound one is hearing onto a live mental template and compare/contrast between the two…where does it get close and where does it fall down.
Terrible for me how exactly? This has nothing to do with me. I never even met David in person and his background is irrelevant to mine.
My ex loved my Acoustats so much that she wanted to buy them after we broke up. She said nothing she had heard (she went to shows with me frequently) did violin as well as those.
Did you agree with her?
How many other systems was she exposed to? Do you believe other musicians would have made the same choice?
Last edited:
I read your comments several times and I'm not sure I undestand them in the way you meant them. But that's okay.
My sense of what you're saying is that a review is more valuable to you if you can relate to the review system in terms of gear you have or know, that the room, according to the reviewer, - a room you may not know but maybe you do -- is 'mature' and the system stable, and that the reviewer uses analog pressings ... here I'm guessing ... that you know and gauge of sufficient merit. My general impression is that what you find of value in audio assessment is how it is relevant to you.
Fwiw, I do not understand the notion of 'digital media references' as hardware. I think the notion of recording quality and music capable of demonstrating the system and review component would be format independent. But this is about your views not mine.
Be that as it may - Thanks for following up on my question.
Yes, let's have the dealers and distributers certify who can review their product.
And violinists pay close attention to a very limited frequency range, not caring to much about the rest of the frequency range, like most classical music buffs. Flow and ebb and tone are crucial, not so much pace timing and bass capabilities. I personally think classical music lovers are ill equipped to judge or review good sound systems !
Tim and Ked are rare exceptions Umm…sorry but you know not of what you speak. You do realize that a large part of any orchestra is violinists? And when you are the konzertmeisterin, you need to be aware all the more. Also, FWIW, most “classical “ buffs I know listen frequently to other genres, including rock/metal and electronic.And violinists pay close attention to a very limited frequency range, not caring to much about the rest of the frequency range, like most classical music buffs. Flow and ebb and tone are crucial, not so much pace timing and bass capabilities. I personally think classical music lovers are ill equipped to judge or review good sound systems !
It's the blend of technique and creativity that the novice might not appreciate. In recent years perfect technique been a given at the Royal Ballet (was not the case at all 20 years ago). We have 2nd rank dancers who can perform the most difficult principal roles with technical perfection. Just like perfect measurements doesn't necessarily make good hifi, nor does perfect technique made perfect dancers. Some superb dancers, live Zenaida Yanowski and Natalia Osipova, I just never connect with. We bumped into Osipova, one of the greatest dancers in the world, in a juice bar in Tel Aviv and had a chat (a bit ironic as she lives one street away). We've seen her dance many times. She brushed off the difficulties of different technique as if it was just A, B C. Which for a dancer of her stature it should be. Tonight we saw new dances by dancers we'd not seen before. One principal ballerina had a look of fear on her face every time she had to hold a position on pointe. Another principal almost got thrown in the orchestra pit, which would have been an act of mercy. Then we had Siphesihle November in a piece by a truly great choreographer, who was simply sensational. He was a street dancing black kid in South Africa, he's set to become one of the world's best.An inexperienced eye may not be able to identify the technical aspects, and their difficulty, but I would argue that they will still be able to acknowledge flawless execution of those techniques when they see it.
Here is a good illustration:
The explanation of the technical aspects of the performance are interesting, but do they really change our appreciation of the performance? I don't know. Technique has to serve a purpose.
As for the question of attracting audiences, and "educating" them, that is a really tough one, which applies to all art forms. We can be inspired by passionate reviewers. Perhaps at the end of the day it less about what they say (though of course it can be very interesting) and more about their ability to single out exceptional performances within the vast mediocrity that surrounds us! So at the end of the day, a good reviewer is one with good taste
Baryshnikov was a midget who compromised style for get height. it was his style. Below is a video of the current Royal Ballet male principals. The first, Matty Ball, is dancing the same Albrecht variation (the Petipa original choreography). He's about 6' tall and quite bulked up. His arm position if far more controlled and precise. To me Baryshnikov is showing off at the expense of the true sense of the ballet. Later on, Corrales and Muntagirov can leap more like Baryshnikov, Corrales is closer in style, Muntagirov has princely elegance. At the end, Marcelino Sambe, only about 5'7", is a favourite as the most expressive dancer, his best role for me is Mercutio in Romeo & Juliet. I've seen him dance Romeo, not for me, requiring a short Juliet, Francesca Hayward, arguably the best actress in the company. Others, like Riyoshi Hirano, a giant of a man (he was sitting behind us tonight), is different to Sambe in every respect.
As the Royal Ballet is my local dance company, and I've been watching it regularly for almost 40 years, I have experience and knowledge of who can do what and when it's good or bad. I don't need to read reviews. Since Clement Crisp died I've not bothered. I can differentiate the good, the bad and the ugly without outside assistance. If I were spending very large amounts of money on hifi, I wouldn't do so without acquiring a similar level of personal experience to be able to make informed decisions. I would make the reviewer redundant.
Of course the best critics could praise Baryshnikov as the greatest dancer ever and others could criticise his artistry. He was before my time, but perhaps his most famous successor at ABT was Roberto Bolle, who I saw dance several times, most recently 2 years ago at La Scala in Milan, in Onegin. He was a dancer who had it all and critics really were superfluous.
In their range of abilities the Acoustats were tough to beat. I owned three pairs ultimately. Their limitations being mostly full scale dynamics, especially bass dynamics (although they went plenty deep enough). Another friend brought his opera singer girlfriend over once to hear my system…she turned to my friend and asked why his system didn’t sound like this.
People go on about perfect recordings and hifi. The classical musician on the front cover of this month's Gramophone is the violinist Johan Dalene. The last time I heard him perform was in a multi-story car park.
Live music can be a social, cultural or religious event. I've been to live amplified performances released on live albums that are unrecognisable to the real thing. I've been to chamber performances recorded live in good venues that the recording bears a good resemble to the musical experience. I've heard Radiohead in the Greenwich O2 and St Matthew's Passion in St John's Smith Square, the idea that a stereo could even get anywhere close is to me ridiculous.
The limit on what I spend on hifi is not defined by my personal finances, but what I feel is reasonable given the limit of what hifi can achieve compared to a real musical experience.
So people who don't own these speakers either have not heard them or are not "trained" enough to identify their superiority?
I typecasted Fremer long ago as someone with not so great gear who can write great reviews. Normally anyone else with Wilson any SS I would just ignore, but he is good at setting up analog and writing dispassionately about what he hears, and does not write to confirm to some ideology. Like he says, he does his job
I never consider live amplified performances indicative of anything.
I watched Matty Ball on that video, and in my humble opinion, while it is technically difficult to criticize, I would qualify that performance as a little "robotic" (or to put it less bluntly, lacking a bit of personality). If that is the true sense of the ballet, I'll stick to Baryshnikov...
Last edited:
I am also one of those nuts who believes unamplified sound (classical music or otherwise) is a good measuring stick.
People will have different opinions of what they hear in a system. Also crucially (and obviously) equipment interactions/synergies and room properties of the reviewer's systems can impact and taint comparisons.
But trying to achieve unamplifed music seems to me as a good starting point. It is interesting that some people find this controversial.
People will have different opinions of what they hear in a system. Also crucially (and obviously) equipment interactions/synergies and room properties of the reviewer's systems can impact and taint comparisons.
But trying to achieve unamplifed music seems to me as a good starting point. It is interesting that some people find this controversial.
Similar threads
