This might blackball me a bit, but . . .
http://ultraaudio.com/index.php?opt...ews-have-in-common&catid=25:opinion&Itemid=27
http://ultraaudio.com/index.php?opt...ews-have-in-common&catid=25:opinion&Itemid=27
... high-end products are too specific to be ranked as dogs at an exposition
... to know X is better than Y seems to be more important than to have a detailed description of how it sounds.
And they forget the specificity of the words "to my ears", that means a lot more than the the organ that detects sound - it means in my system, my room, my past experiences with the item and according to my preferences.
Comparison with specific aspects of other items are very useful to illustrate the review and are a must, but again IMHO, the fight for the better in a system that has intrinsically very large error bars is of little value.
IMHO, the most valuable reviews are the most technical ones: I want to know which are the conceptual peculiarities of a project and why these features would represent an advantage (or not). I want to know how much technology is in a product and where, at a certain price tag, engineering stops leaving the spot to "magic" (said in a critical way). I want to know if the product is versatile or if it has limits in interface.
I don't care about the description of the liquidity of the mids or the deepness of the bass: change the reviewer (and its room and system) and everything will change.
But I'd like to know whether a product is classifiable as good or excellent, whether there's a breakthrough, or if it raises concerns with regards to the construction or general performance. To this end, having defined references is useful.
This is an interesting point. I wonder how many people agree with you. In high-end audio, and this is particularly true with loudspeakers, the engineering level varies greatly. I know what I think is across-the-board designed and executed well, and I generally find that these products are what produce the best sound. I also see products that lack credible engineering and that are executed poorly that receive raves from some audiophiles and reviewers, but are clearly underwhelming in the areas you discuss. Why? My conclusion is that some audiophiles (and that includes some reviewers) just don't know how to assess engineering, don't care about it, or just completely trust that one "magic" moment. And all else goes out the window.
This might blackball me a bit, but . . .
http://ultraaudio.com/index.php?opt...ews-have-in-common&catid=25:opinion&Itemid=27
Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |