Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

I think there is a valid distinction that can be drawn... .

Posted by John Marks on March 24, 2008 at 08:34:24:
Hi.

You wrote:

"Speaking of contradictions, what I find most fascinating about audio show coverage generally is that, to a man, the writers (not just for TAS, but all of them) disclaim the validity of evaluating equipment under such conditions-and then promptly proceed to do just that, producing mini-reviews and choosing "best sound" winners!

"Oh, well, who ever said audio writing has to make sense?"

The distinction is this: I believe that a positive result under hi-fi show conditions is at least more likely than not validly positive under many other conditions, whereas a negative result is not dispositive.

In other words, I walk into a room at a hi-fi show. The demonstrator is playing a recording I am familiar with. If it sounds "good"--if it sounds like the listener will have an emotionally involving experience with the music--I jump to the conclusion that it is more likely that the equipment I am listening to is "good," as opposed to, jumping to the conclusion that the equipment is in fact "bad," and that what I am hearing is a freak accident of room acoustics and system synergy.

Whereas if I walk into a room and it sounds "bad," I jump to the conclusion that what I am hearing is more likely to be the result of room acoustics or system synergy or setup or break-in or voltage drop from current starvation, or whatever.

In my own experience, these rubrics have consistently worked reliably enough for me that I shall continue to use them. I do not think that they are mutually contradictory.

To give a non-audio example: If a woman were first to see me while I was taking out the recycling after cleaning the bathroom, dressed for the occasions and all sweaty, she might have a hard time imaging that I actually do not look out of place in the lounge at Symphony Hall Boston--who would have imagined that sweaty guy knew how to tie a tie?

A single positive experience indicates that other positive experiences may be in store, whereas a single negative experience does not in and of itself mean that positive experiences under other conditions are impossible.

OK?

And, by the way, I can't remember ever disclaiming the validity of show auditions. If I have ever done so, I expect that it would have been to disclaim any dispositive finality of a bad audition, and not the converse.

JM