Even if I did double blind testing it still wouldn't be totally accepted here. If I had ten guys listening with me it would make no difference. If you really want to get down to brass tacks, how do you know the reviewer even has the product under discussion?
There are only so many terms one can use to describe an acoustic (musical) event. One uses the same terminolgy for consistency and communication. Take this soundstage business. Some of these fellows believe that the soundstage can't keep improving or the bass or highs, etc. And how does one describe something like a soundstage? If I were writing for say Stereophile, I guess I would talk about layers of front-to-back dpeth, height, extension beyond the lateral border of the speaker, or the geometric shape of the stage. Is it as wide at the back of the hall as the front? These terms are relative to the equipment we are using at the time. Things do improve, but you would never know it reading some of the statements presented here.
"By now it must sound like Orchetra Hall"
At times I believe fmak has the right idea. Just say it sounds good and screw the rest.
What I find most obnoxious is the proclmation by some that the only reason the reviewer likes the product is because it has a fancy case, or it was expensive, or it is some expectation bias.
"Honestly I think its just the 'New' wow effect"
These are the people I don't find fascinating in this forum or the real world. But trust me when I say that I understand their motivation.
Edits: 03/25/12 03/25/12 03/25/12
This post is made possible by the generous
support of people like you and our sponsors:
