BaL 18.05.19 - Sibelius: Lemminkäinen Suite, Op.22

[cloughie]

I'm flattered you think Chandos would entrust me with reviewing one of their discs. No, it's the latter scenario. (Mind you, I sometimes come across Review Discs in charity shops in Edinburgh).

I’m sure you’d do an admirable job - yes there are a lot of promos and the like which are sold, and no doubt gratefully bought!

[pastoralguy]

I’m sure you’d do an admirable job - yes there are a lot of promos and the like which are sold, and no doubt gratefully bought!

That's very kind of you to say so! There was a time when I loved comparing one recording with another but I find it less interesting these days. The one aspect of reviewing I'd love to change is on critics declaring what equipment they are listening to recordings on.

[Pianoman]

That's very kind of you to say so! There was a time when I loved comparing one recording with another but I find it less interesting these days. The one aspect of reviewing I'd love to change is on critics declaring what equipment they are listening to recordings on.

Absolutely- there was an enlightening article in the BBC mag some years ago which highlighted this very issue; most reviewers had very substandard equipment and I remember our old head of department at Huddersfield many years ago (the not-missed Arthur Jacobs) being virtually ordered by Gramophone mag to update his gear if he wanted to get on the reviewing panel !

[Pulcinella]

I’m sure you’d do an admirable job - yes there are a lot of promos and the like which are sold, and no doubt gratefully bought!

The BBC MM CDs say 'Not for resale' on them, but that seems to have little effect!

[Mal]

The BBC MM CDs say 'Not for resale' on them, but that seems to have little effect!

Too right, they are even for sale on Amazon UK.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Absolutely- there was an enlightening article in the BBC mag some years ago which highlighted this very issue; most reviewers had very substandard equipment and I remember our old head of department at Huddersfield many years ago (the not-missed Arthur Jacobs) being virtually ordered by Gramophone mag to update his gear if he wanted to get on the reviewing panel !

- IIRC, John Culshaw makes a similar criticism of record reviewers in Ring Resounding; that some of them made fun of DECCA's claims for HiFi sound after only listening on LoFi equipment.

[jayne lee wilson]

The above posts re hifi/reviewing etc...... a point I (of all people ) have often made..... of course you can give a more accurate account of a given recording/webcast etc if the system is more "neutral", revealing and "truthful" to the source.... (not much equipment aims for this...instant check: how obvious are the differences between recordings etc on your current system? The more obvious the better, as the system's unavoidable "colourations" (i.e distortions & limitations in imagery, soundstaging etc) are less likely to influence your auditory perceptions....) .........

Current G-hifi reviews editor Andrew Everard also reviews for HiFi News, very up to speed on Computer Audio, definite plus, but it would indeed be much better to know each G-reviewers system of course...

A few years ago there were regular Reviewers Systems/ Readers Systems articles, but they seem less fashionable copy now, a pity....

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

IIalsoRC, some reviewers replied to Culshaw's comments by saying that they were using the equipment that was most likely to be used by their readers, rather than the expensive kit affordable only to a minority - which seems reasonable enough (although, how would they know which equipment was "most likely"), but does emphasise the need that pasto says, for them to make information about what the recordings have been played on available to readers of the resulting review.

[pastoralguy]

A few years ago there were regular Reviewers Systems/ Readers Systems articles, but they seem less fashionable copy now, a pity....

The article I always treasured was in the February 2004 edition. (Page 98), where a reviewer had a system that appeared to be defective! My system at the time, a Meridian set up bought second hand from a rich friend along with Quad ESL 63's was vastly superior. and I was a public sector worker!

[jayne lee wilson]

IIalsoRC, some reviewers replied to Culshaw's comments by saying that they were using the equipment that was most likely to be used by their readers, rather than the expensive kit affordable only to a minority - which seems reasonable enough (although, how would they know which equipment was "most likely"), but does emphasise the need that pasto says, for them to make information about what the recordings have been played on available to readers of the resulting review.

That can make sense (more so in the 60s when there was much less choice) - but you would still need to hear it on high-grade equipment as well, to attempt an accurate assessment of the sound quality in a broader sense. Modest (aka smaller/cheaper) systems tend to diverge one from another more obviously in their response to extremes of dynamics and frequency. The Sounds in Retrospect panels often used things like Quad amps/Electrostatics, which could be very revealing of deficiencies, and their advice was often useful even to those of us with far less ambitious systems. I often used to check their reports with my own budget-separates combo to see how I was doing. I learnt a lot that way, and as I upgraded, was sometimes taken aback at how different a given recording could sound on different combos. When I first heard ATC Active monitors, I was shocked at how much most hifi leaves out...

I've long been convinced that most discrepancies between reviews, especially about SQ, are largely down to the replay system/room reponse - if you don't like the sound it can affect your response to the performance too.
With Chamber-Orchestral/HIPPs Schumann or Mendelssohn say, if you can replay them at highish levels in a big room, with a generously scaled soundstage, you may get more out of them (i.e be able to hear further into them) than if everything has to be scaled back at lower levels in a smaller space, where a full-sized SO will tell upon the ear more easily. It isn't always the case that high volumes in a big room will be advantageous to the larger orchestra.

Not a universal, but I'm sure it is a big influence on taste and judgement.

[Goon525]

Amongst many other good points, I think Jayne hits the nail right on the head when she (sort of) refers to the tendency to evaluate sound and performance together, rather than separately. If you look at the reviews in BBC Music Mag, there’s a strong propensity for reviewers who give a performance four stars to give the recording four also; or five and five. (There are a few honourable exceptions amongst the reviewers.) I think this is an example of what’s sometimes known as the 'halo' effect, and can often be ascribed to a certain laziness on the part of reviewers not to bother analysing the sound quality properly.

[makropulos]

Amongst many other good points, I think Jayne hits the nail right on the head when she (sort of) refers to the tendency to evaluate sound and performance together, rather than separately. If you look at the reviews in BBC Music Mag, there’s a strong propensity for reviewers who give a performance four stars to give the recording four also; or five and five. (There are a few honourable exceptions amongst the reviewers.) I think this is an example of what’s sometimes known as the 'halo' effect, and can often be ascribed to a certain laziness on the part of reviewers not to bother analysing the sound quality properly.

That's a really interesting point, and raises the question of what potential buyers want from a review? When I was writing for IRR, the guidance was always to mention the sound if it was noteworthy (one way or the other), but discussing audio quality in isolation isn't much of a criterion for judging whether a record is any good. Of course a terrific performance can be let down by poor sound –I'm not suggesting that it's insignificant –but great sound can never make a dud performance sound anything other than dud performance, albeit captured with fidelity (far too many examples come quickly to mind...)

[Goon525]

That's a really interesting point, and raises the question of what potential buyers want from a review? When I was writing for IRR, the guidance was always to mention the sound if it was noteworthy (one way or the other), but discussing audio quality in isolation isn't much of a criterion for judging whether a record is any good. Of course a terrific performance can be let down by poor sound –I'm not suggesting that it's insignificant –but great sound can never make a dud performance sound anything other than dud performance, albeit captured with fidelity (far too many examples come quickly to mind...)

True enough, but some of us like to hear great performances in great sound (such as the recent Boston Shostakovich 4) and would prefer it if there was at least some reference to sound quality in a review.

[BBMmk2]

I have the recent Si Elias/Sakari recording. Very good it is too.

[makropulos]

True enough, but some of us like to hear great performances in great sound (such as the recent Boston Shostakovich 4) and would prefer it if there was at least some reference to sound quality in a review.

Yes. I wasn't suggesting ignoring it, but as you know word lengths are necessarily limited, so if the sound is exceptional then it's clearly worthy of comment. Likewise if it's poor. But okay-goodish? To give a detailed description of why something sounds middling is going to take up space on something that's not really worth discussing at any length. Basically, I agree with you...a great performance in great sound should certainly mention both.