|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.95.212.9
There is no such thing as an objective audio review. Even with great care to standardize the process, one cannot separate the observer from the observed.Even Julian said when he liked and did not like stuff he was reviewing; that being said, there is also no such thing as an objective audio system. An audio system is a complex ecology, with diverse and often unpredictable interactions amongst its various pieces and parts. Stuff sounds differently in different combinations and in different contexts. Viva la difference! This is what makes this hobby so much fun. Putting together a satisfying system is a highly variable and idiosyncratic process.
-- Dr. Sardonicus
Follow Ups:
And nothing that hasn't been written before by other audio reviewers. The most interesting aspect of the PF piece is why the author thinks he has to hide behind a silly nom de plume. He's not the White Rose Society facing death if his name is discovered by the authorities. I don't have a lot of respect for people who lack the courage to sign their names to their opinions.
Rob, Rob ... not every critic belongs to the "I'm so heavy I scare myself to death" club. Some girls just wanna have fun.I leave "profound" to the self-identified "serious" journalists. I am just seeking the refreshingly sun dappled waters of info-tainment.
If completely original ideas are required for good reading ... then we are all in grave trouble. Too many audio reviews are about as original and scintillating as airplane barf bag instructions.
A sense of humor ... rent one ... you might enjoy it enough to buy.
When is a secret not a secret? When it's so poorly held it is obvious, and obviously word play.
Best Wishes, The Good Doctor
PS ... And always remember kiddies, take yourself too seriously, and no one else will be able to.
Try reading some of the newspaper work by H. L. Mencken, H. Allen Smith, or George Bernard Shaw to see how it's done.My post title was aimed at your fellow "PF" writer who ludicrously over - hyped your article as "castigat[ing] the critics" when it's anything but that; "castigating a straw man" is more accurate. It's obvious to anyone who has even browsed through a copy of "Stereophile" or "TAS" at Barnes & Noble that the subjective reviews are exactly that: subjective. They are one person's description and appraisal of the performance of one sample of a product in one unique environment. JA, Harry Pearson, et al have never claimed that other samples of the product in other systems and rooms will perform exactly as they experienced it. Objective reviews are ones in which no personal interpretations are present. Reporting the height and weight of a speaker or the power output of an amplifier are objective. Describing the sound of those speakers or amplifier are subjective.
Save the jejune pseudonym for World of Warcraft. If you're going to write opinion pieces for publication then you should have the balls to sign your real name to them.
RobSo, let me see if I get this right. You are angry because someone else cited my article in a positive way … hum, OK. The article was for fun, nothing more. That point continues, apparently, to elude you.
But you really should be more careful; you re-make some of my points about critics so eloquently someone will assume we are working together covertly, and we certainly don’t want that.
Jejune? Wow, I haven’t actually seen or heard someone over the age of seventeen publicly use that term since Woody Allen’s, Annie Hall, and he was only doing it to castigate pseudo-intellectual puffery.
Interesting too you should immediately descend into genitalia when gently prodded … but here we have an opportunity to appeal to the objectivists. You take a picture of yours, and I will take a picture of mine and we will send them in to the Bored and they can do a double-blind size comparison. What say? In the name of Science, let the games begin!
You also remind me why I so rarely visit these sorts of places … kind of like trying have a nice picnic in an abattoir.
All kidding aside though, Rob, thanks for the giggle. I appreciate your humor. It’s been a harrowing day and I needed a lift.
You wasted several hundred words bashing a preposterous straw man of your own creation, mythical reviewers who are "trying to maintain some sort of illusion of objectivity," when in fact no one asserts that the reviews in Stereophile, TAS, Hi Fi + , etc. are anything but subjective. It's a controversy that exists only in your fevered mind. The article is silly and pointless.I was briefly mystified as to why anyone with pretensions to being a writer would attack another person's eloquence until I came to this hilarious grammatical atrocity: "...since Woody Allen’s, Annie Hall, and..." Suddenly it's all clear. Since you're unable to use punctuation at a third - grade level then of course you're intimidated by literate adult vocabulary. I suppose your inability to punctuate explains why you need to hide your real name and your embarrassment behind a pseudonym too.
x
Putting together a satisfying system is a highly variable and idiosyncratic process.
According to whom are the basses amplified at the NYPO or the Berlin Philharmonic?
Hard to disagree with a fellow BassNut.There's no doubt sound is "more detailed" when a speaker has limited bass output because bass DOES obscure some details in music.
But real live music is full-range and not every "detail" is audible.
.
.
I suspect that well controled bass, especially mid-bass does not obscure detail. But this kind of bass often sounds missing(because it is not in the software) and too many audiophiles feel cheated when there isn't always a sense of bass whther it is there or not.
NT
don't you think? I think one trip to any audio show pretty much shows you that there are many different perceptions of good sound, and therefore many ways to skin a cat. This is definitely not a one-size-fits-all hobby.So it seems to me that a reviewer has to bear all of that in mind, and do what they can to draw out the best of what a component can offer. If not, we could save everyone a lot of time and effort by having my wife write all reviews. They would be: (1) "That's nice, I really like that!" or (2) "That sucks, put the old stuff back now !". Riveting, right?
But I am curious about who the man behind the Dr. Sardonicus mask is. I'm certain it isn't Randy California.
Fun read though, and that is what I like about audio reviews......even philosophical ones.
"If" the man behind the Dr. Sardonicus mask isn't Randy California, perhaps it was his actual uncle the jazz drummer Ed Cassidy! Or maybe it was Jay Ferguson or his "Uncle Jack" from the 1st LP?
Or are they doing a "Weekend at Bernie's" and dragging his body around as a prominent audio critic, figuring that with the pasty middle aged guys nobody could tell the difference?
Where is Sue Kraft when we need her?
Yes he drowned in Hawaii in Jan 1997. He and his son got caught in an undertow. He rescued his son but lost his life.
I think he is a crimefighter of sorts. We started talking, and he told me he was a member of the audio press. So of course I asked him what his name was, and he would only tell me that he goes by the name of "Dr. Sardonicus".This piqued my interest, and I immediately imagined that he lived in a place like Bruce Wayne lived in, with secret closets and matching labeled "batpoles" like Batman and Robin had. Clearly, this is the stuff of high end audio legend.
So here is this guy that lives in stately Dr. Sardonicus manor, fighting crime by day, and writing for Positive Feedback Online by night. What an incredible lifestyle! What audiophile wouldn't get an uncontrollable erection at such a thought? Not me, that's for sure.
So, umm... what was the question? Was there a question? Sorry, I forgot.
I thought I had the only one.
Good post. I agree that the article exhibits passion and thought. Mind you it also shows strong evidence of the writer's own strongly held views and biases but, as you have hinted if I may be so bold, such many times makes for an interesting read.As to the man behind the mask I can't claim any great curiosity myself but I would be willing to risk at least a small wager it isn't CJ. Why? Simple, I was able to read the whole thing! :)
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
....
Stating the obvious now qualifies for recognition as excellent audio"journalism"?-- Rick W
You are the only person who spends time/effort to dredge for posts deleted by their authors and re-post them yourself. Why you think this is worthwhile is beyond me, but then you do have a need for "antagonists" in order to continue playing the victim. Surely the two or three inmates who take you seriously would rather have you spend that time/effort on finding and extolling the wonders of the next RealityCheck.I deleted 'cause I caught myself replying to you when I know its far better to just ignore your posts. Since you dredged for it, I assure you my view as expressed in that deleted post hasn't changed. Nor has my view of you as a silly inconsequential twit desperately seeking attention by unsuccessfully masquerading as an audio authority.
Now be sure to post under this so it doesn't disappear from the "record", as is your bizarre habit. Geez, I'm so bugged that I may take that pic of you out of my freezer and suffer the resultant loss of hifi nirvana.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: