Critic's Corner

Posted by Ozzie (A) on May 14, 2007 at 12:25:14

In Reply to: That's why long term listening... posted by mkuller on May 10, 2007 at 10:58:06:

having a best of show is a sham.

• A sham?... - mkuller 13:41:03 05/14/07 (5)
  In Reply to: Mike, you just stated why... posted by Ozzie on May 14, 2007 at 12:25:14:

  ...come on now.

  Is the American Idol voting a sham?

  Are the "People's Choice Awards" a sham?

  Ok, so what's you point?

  Sometimes the best of show awards are more about showmanship than great sound.

  
  
  
  

  ---

  • You are good Mikey as you refused to bite. - Ozzie 09:58:49 05/15/07 (4)
    In Reply to: A sham?... posted by mkuller on May 14, 2007 at 13:41:03:

    You even put on a pretty good spin job at that, since you know exactly where I was going.
    
    

    ---

    • If you keep throwing stuff against the wall... - mkuller 11:24:42 05/15/07 (3)
      In Reply to: You are good Mikey as you refused to bite. posted by Ozzie on May 15, 2007 at 09:58:49:

      ...sooner or later something will stick.

      And you'll be right.

      Or at least I'll agree with you.

      
      
      

      ---

      • Yeah, right Mike. - Ozzie 14:05:21 05/15/07 (2)
        In Reply to: If you keep throwing stuff against the wall... posted by mkuller on May 15, 2007 at 11:24:42:

        I could care less if you agree with me. like James Carville, you are so used to being the spinning little ankle biter that you are, that you are dizzy from it. Every time someone brings up something that can threaten the credibility of a reviewer or a magazine, you are the first to either bite their head off or further muddy the water.

        At the show, a non audio buddy of mine said that the three turntable based systems that he had heard sounded great. He also went on to say that he could have identified them blindfolded. Wow! Needless to say, they were in the context of entirely different systems and rooms. It is just that I found that statement that he made quite interesting, to say the least. I also find it interesting that you would spin such a query into people voting on a singing show. Cute though.

        Reviewers and audiophiles alike tend to be a very very opinionated bunch. They make glaring statments of how this and that makes huge differences. But when pressed, reviewers aren't confident enough that they can even definitively be able to identify the same piece they just reviewed with a blind test. Not a DBT. A blind test of that particular piece of equipment with any other. Oddly, my uninformed, uninitiated and uneducated in audio buddy could make and feel that he could back up such a claim. Woof!
        
        

        ---

        • Man, it's really scary... - mkuller 14:09:49 05/15/07 (1)
          In Reply to: Yeah, right Mike. posted by Ozzie on May 15, 2007 at 14:05:21:

          ...when you take yourself more seriously than I do.

          Where's your sense of humor?

          
          
          

          ---

          • What, you don't take yourself seriously? - Ozzie 11:21:19 05/16/07 (0)
            In Reply to: Man, it's really scary... posted by mkuller on May 15, 2007 at 14:09:49:

            Do run with what I had started. A non audio geek not only claimed to hear differences, but also claimed that he could substantiate them. Not bad considering that he is not a reviewer with only a brief period of time listening.

            I left my sense of humor where a self described subjectivist said that my speaker of choice sucked. Mind you, he had never actually heard them before. Now that I find humorous.

            My best sound at the show was in Brooklyn. A live gig at a couple's home. They had a fantastic trio and a killer singer. She sang for the 30 or so lucky ones, through a set of Fender speakers on tower stands. Way better tonality and imaging than anything at the show, regardless of cost.

            
            
            

            ---