Post by DSD August 4, 2012 (11 of 88)
|
|
Vaan said:
Text only. No ratings, no thumbs.
1+
However if we go to reviews being text only, I would like to know if the reviewer listened to the Multichannel, Stereo high-resolution program or both and if they used speakers, headphones or both.
|
|
|
Post by DSD August 4, 2012 (12 of 88)
|
|
windhoek said:
...Is performance about the music and Sonics about the SQ?
Yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
zeus said:
Also, as an exercise, next time you go to a concert try to rate what your hear in hifi terms. While timbral accuracy is guaranteed, I'd be surprised if it scores even an average rating, at least this has been my experience.
An interesting point, which I tend to agree with. With regard to the majority of pop/rock concerts that I've attended (admittedly not for many years), the sound quality was generally quite poor - tending to volume (loudness) over quality. This "problem" has been - in my experience - far smaller with orchestral/classic type concerts, but the argument can still apply, I think.
I absolutely adore the "direct" experience that quite a lot of my pop/rock SACDs offer - and I have never heard recorded orchestral/classical music so good as on hi-res formats.
On a similar but related note, I have sometimes asked myself how much my like or dislike for the music on a disc affects (clouds?) my appreciation of the recording. As a contrast to this though, I have bought hi-res formats of music I didn't think I was overly bothered about - and ended up being absolutely bowled over by it. Good examples of this in my SACD collection would be Dire Straits "Brothers in Arms" and Roxy Music's "Avalon".
Tricky, tricky.
|
|
|
Post by Beagle August 4, 2012 (14 of 88)
|
|
I completely agree with every word of zeus' opening post. Well thought and well said, Stephen!
STARSxREVIEWER
I would merely add that "if you know the reviewer then you know the stars": Taste is the sum-total of one's listening history and histories do overlap. I enjoy a generous overlap with a half-dozen reviewers, so when one of them says "Oh wow!", I order the disc.
BIASES
Reviewing involves effort (or at least it should). I am motivated by exceptionally good discs, and that biases the star-giving upwards (Two-and-a-half-star discs aren't worth the bother). In the past I have sometimes been moved to review Really Disappointing discs -- but those reviews were less well received than my positive reviews.
FIVE STARS
My own reviews have reserved the last half-star for a few drop-dead-beautiful discs, and I recommend that other reviewers do the same. Four-and-a-half out of Five ain't bad....
LIKES/DISLIKES
If a composer and his/her music are relatively unknown (e.g. Pohjola, Langgaard...), then reviewing the music itself is justified and welcome, but in musical terms, not just gut-reaction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beagle said:
I completely agree with every word of zeus' opening post. Well thought and well said, Stephen!
STARSxREVIEWER
I would merely add that "if you know the reviewer then you know the stars": Taste is the sum-total of one's listening history and histories do overlap. I enjoy a generous overlap with a half-dozen reviewers, so when one of them says "Oh wow!", I order the disc.
BIASES
Reviewing involves effort (or at least it should). I am motivated by exceptionally good discs, and that biases the star-giving upwards (Two-and-a-half-star discs aren't worth the bother). In the past I have sometimes been moved to review Really Disappointing discs -- but those reviews were less well received than my positive reviews.
FIVE STARS
My own reviews have reserved the last half-star for a few drop-dead-beautiful discs, and I recommend that other reviewers do the same. Four-and-a-half out of Five ain't bad....
LIKES/DISLIKES
If a composer and his/her music are relatively unknown (e.g. Pohjola, Langgaard...), then reviewing the music itself is justified and welcome, but in musical terms, not just gut-reaction.
If we could all agree to abide by these standards, it would be wonderful. As I see it however, it takes some degree of discipline to do so when you REALLY love a recording - like I love Steinbacher's Bartok - (Bartok: Violin Concertos Nos. 1 & 2 - Steinbacher, Janowski) Maybe that sound really doesn't deserve 5 stars, but I was so taken with the disc that I dont' think I really analysed the matter in terms of the VERY VERY best discs I own, and I should have. I remember that I did not review the disc but commented on it (vociferously) Had I bothered to compare it to the sound of the my very finest sounding recordings, my advocacy would probably have indicated that soundwise, this disc is more deserving of 4-1/2 stars than the 5 that I think my enthusiasm was espousing.
Beagle as always makes very telling points.
|
|
|
Post by seth August 4, 2012 (16 of 88)
|
|
zeus said:
I then thought about qualifying what each level of stars meant, but decided to leave this up to each individual.
Exactly.
For some people 5 stars should only be reserved for "best performance ever," while for others it merely means that the performance is very enjoyable.
I'd be more worried about review after review stating performance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I really appreciate this thread and thoughtful points made. From my perspective, there are two areas where reviewers need to be careful:
1. We get carried away with ratings for the all-time hits from composers like Stravinsky, Mahler, and Beethoven in our initial excitement and in-the-moment feeling this newly issued one is the now a definitive offering. Many collectors probably own several different renditions of top hits and need their limited money for new discoveries. Occasionally, SACD's (like Mahler 4 with Fischer/Budapest for example) do indeed live up to the hype in the long run.
2. There exist holes in the SA-CD catalog where a handful of masterworks are underrepresented. We sincerely want to thank the record labels for hearing our requests, but a magnificent RBCD performance is still better than a dull SACD.
In general, I wish the record labels (with input from the Maestros) would be more selective about what gets published. Sorry to pick on the Debussy Deneve/RSNO set again, but the artists know what worked and what didn't. Why not publish a single disc that the group can be proud of, and then offer the rest up on inexpensive download? [The Jeux and Faune performances were outstanding while the remainder was dull and non-value adding. Putting RSNO's Images and Nocturnes up against the established competition detracts from an otherwise excellent contribution.] Keep enthusiasts in the loop with reasonably priced subscription downloads so we can admire an orchestra from afar, and select only the best performances with high resolution for retail and physical media.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personally I see nothing wrong with the system as it stands. Recordings and performances have been graded by reviewers since at least the 30's.
I like both the quantitative and qualitative ratings of the written review and the two star ratings. Inevitably each person will have biases for or against certain things, and some may get carried away by a recording and rate it higher than someone else might. That is just the way it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The area of rating the Sound Quality of a recording is based solely on the sound system employed by the reviewer.
Which is why it is vital to read several reviews, if available, regarding the SQ of a said recording.
Recently, a review of Bill Joel's recent MoFi stereo remastering of "The Stranger" was posted comparing it to the existing SONY mch SACD saying it was superior in every way and that the SONY disc was inferior (bassless, shrill, etc.)
IMO, the SONY mch SACD sounds magnificent for a "vintage" POP recording and had a fullness on my system that was totally contrary to the posted review.
One has to be wary when reading any review because sometimes the buyer has a better sound system than even seasoned reviewers have.
|
|
|
Post by hiredfox August 4, 2012 (20 of 88)
|
|
Kutyatest said:
I have never heard recorded orchestral/classical music so good as on hi-res formats.
You cannot be serious! Too young to remember vinyl?
Well, it's still with us and better than ever and a zillion times more realistic than any digital format.
|
|
