mansr Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 Some of this is applicable to equipment reviews as well. http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2018/01/the_reviewer_s_fallacy_when_critics_aren_t_critical_enough.html Link to comment
Allan F Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 44 minutes ago, mansr said: Some of this is applicable to equipment reviews as well. http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2018/01/the_reviewer_s_fallacy_when_critics_aren_t_critical_enough.html Critics are always open to criticism. "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Popular Post gmgraves Posted January 22, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted January 22, 2018 7 hours ago, Allan F said: Critics are always open to criticism. Journalistic criticism is merely opinion legitimized in print. It's not important that one agrees or disagrees with any particular critic. But if you consistently agree or disagree with a critic, their criticisms are very useful. As an example, there used to be a movie critic who wrote for TV Guide. Her name was Judith Christ. I always disagreed with her. I soon learned that the more negative a review she gave a movie, the better I was likely to enjoy it! That is just as useful as a reviewer that you personally agree with. Teresa and mansr 1 1 George Link to comment
firedog Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 2 hours ago, gmgraves said: merely opinion legitimized in print. "merely opinion" - not necessarily. That's incredibly dismissive. Depends on the approach of the critic. Some just spout opinions, some give you reasoned arguments and use evidence and comparisons to support their point of view. Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
gmgraves Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 5 hours ago, firedog said: "merely opinion" - not necessarily. That's incredibly dismissive. Depends on the approach of the critic. Some just spout opinions, some give you reasoned arguments and use evidence and comparisons to support their point of view. Ultimately, it's still just the reviewer's opinion. Reasoned arguments, evidence and comparisons give rise to informed opinions, certainly, But for every review, positive or negative, there are are going to be people who disagree with the reviewer's conclusions. That's the basis of opinion. George Link to comment
Popular Post semente Posted January 22, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted January 22, 2018 I think that the following text makes sense in this thread: "AUDIO RELATIVISM"-THE NEW DISEASE AND EXCUSE There has been a growing (and unspoken) "trend" in the audio magazine industry for more than a decade. In fact, I understand that one editor/reviewer (Jonathan Valin) finally stated and defended (a version of) this "theory" (or "belief") in a major magazine (TAS). Later on, another audio writer, Michael Laborgna, this time in Stereophile, made the same claim, in almost the same words. I call this new "theory": "Audio Relativism". What is Audio Relativism? It is the belief system that virtually every component has strong merit and can produce "great sound", for someone's "tastes", if it is matched correctly with other components. What are (some of) the ultimate implications of this theory? 1. Every component has some validity in the audio marketplace. 2. No component is inherently superior to another. 3. All sound reproduction differences are just a simple matter of taste. 4. There is no objective standard to aim for. 5. (High) Fidelity to the source, or in general, is irrelevant. 6. Audio is an "Art Form", like poetry and sculpting, rather than a science. This "belief system" is very convenient for its creators; the audio magazines and their 'reviewers'. It provides them with the ability (and the excuse) to find some "good", or some "justification" to purchase, within every single component that is reviewed by them. How? Because, if their belief is true, each and every component, under the right conditions, can equally satisfy listeners as much as any other component, for either the money or in the absolute sense. It's just a matter of time, or luck, before you find the right "match". In effect: this theory means that all component performance is "relative" and with no "absolutes"; only "possibilities" exist. I profoundly disagree with this belief. The Problems with Audio Relativism 1. If true, in effect there has been no real progress in audio for the last 40 years or more, since any "improvements" are simply a "matter of taste", and that's all. 2. If true, there can never be any true, objective (or even "subjective") progress in audio reproduction in the future. In theory, only "relative" progress can ever be made, depending only on the changing tastes and feelings of the listeners, and based on how they "relate" to the sound of the components. 3. If true, no component, let alone complete system, can ever be honestly described (or declared) to be closer to the sound of "The Reference" (the original recording, or "live music"), as any other component or system. My Opinion on "Audio Relativism" I am the first to admit that "priorities" and "tastes" are critical when choosing components, because nothing is "perfect". That being said, this is still very different from proclaiming that: 1. "Tastes" are all that matter, and 2. All components are the same or equal otherwise. Those two statements are false, period. Audio is not like wine or food tasting. It is a scientific and technical attempt to perfectly recreate a previous (musical) event. It is engineers and technicians that by and large design and build audio components, not Master Chefs. Because it is still (and may always be) "imperfect", there will be unavoidable subjective elements within its pursuit, but there are existing objective and fundamental standards (the original recordings and "live music"), even though they are a moving and nebulous target. This can never be true with "wine and food tasting". There is a huge difference between a subjective description of imperfect music reproduction and a subjective response to imperfect music reproduction. That vital distinction must never be blurred. This "theory" is just one more pathetic attempt by the magazines and their 'reviewers' to compromise their prime responsibility to their readers: To separate the truly "outstanding" components from the vast majority that do not reach those same demanding performance standards. Elementary Imperfections are Not a "license" to ignore that serious responsibility. Anyone who claims that there has been no true progress in home audio reproduction, and/or that virtually all components have an equal potential to reveal the reality and essence of "live music", subject only to "taste" and matching, is either highly misinformed, ignorant, a liar, a coward or an incompetent. http://www.high-endaudio.com/philos.html#Rel gmgraves and maxijazz 2 "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256) Link to comment
Allan F Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 8 hours ago, gmgraves said: But if you consistently agree or disagree with a critic, their criticisms are very useful. Very true in my experience too. "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
monteverdi Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 I agree with that statement, audio is about reproduction and not a creative process, playing music is. The exterior design of the components should be much more interesting and a matter of taste. How about the recording to mastering process as the music performance is rarely reproduced as one could hear listening to the musicians in a room but instead manipulated ("improved") by the recording process. Even with food and wine there are objective components so not only opinions of taste. Criticism just based on opinions are pretty useless. Increasing the understanding by objective background information is what criticism should be based on but that is much mork wore for the critics. Link to comment
Allan F Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 Simply put, "audio relativism" can be characterized in one word: bullshit! "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Musicophile Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 Since I started systematically reviewing music on my blog, I actually thougtabout this problem quite a bit. Some observations from my side: I agree with the statement above that reviews are essentially subjective. Even professional critics that have years of experience and writing well reasoned reviews often completely contradict each other. So what to make of this? My way out is to find reviewers I like and often agree with. My biggest overlap is with the French magazine Classica, and to a lesser extent with Gramophone. So I check out both. With music it is easier than with equipment as thanks to streaming we now can sample everything and don’t have to buy blindly any more. Check out my blog at musicophilesblog.com - From Keith Jarrett to Johannes Brahms Link to comment
semente Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 47 minutes ago, Musicophile said: Since I started systematically reviewing music on my blog, I actually thougtabout this problem quite a bit. Some observations from my side: I agree with the statement above that reviews are essentially subjective. Even professional critics that have years of experience and writing well reasoned reviews often completely contradict each other. So what to make of this? My way out is to find reviewers I like and often agree with. My biggest overlap is with the French magazine Classica, and to a lesser extent with Gramophone. So I check out both. With music it is easier than with equipment as thanks to streaming we now can sample everything and don’t have to buy blindly any more. Subjective music reviews are fine but I expect an equipment review to describe different aspects of its performance. Of speakers I want to know about things like tonal balance, distortion at high volumes, low level detail, driver and cabinet resonances, dispersion characteristics, driver integration... This one is a reasonable example: S100-HiFi+News.pdf "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256) Link to comment
Musicophile Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 7 minutes ago, semente said: Subjective music reviews are fine but I expect an equipment review to describe different aspects of its performance. Of speakers I want to know about things like tonal balance, distortion at high volumes, low level detail, driver and cabinet resonances, dispersion characteristics, driver integration... This one is a reasonable example: S100-HiFi+News.pdf I'm not so sure one can be much more objective on gear review than on music or other art. But I agree, good reviews are very descriptive. Albrecht 1 Check out my blog at musicophilesblog.com - From Keith Jarrett to Johannes Brahms Link to comment
semente Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 1 minute ago, Musicophile said: I'm not so sure one can be much more objective on gear review than on music or other art. But I agree, good reviews are very descriptive. I think it is possible perform a listening assessment from an observationist perspective and then impartially describe what you are hearing in an unbiased manner. Why should a reviewer characterise performance according to his taste when by doing so he's rendering the review absolutely worthless for the reader? "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256) Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now