|
|
Romy the Cat
Boston, MA
Posts 10,184
Joined on 05-28-2004
|
Post #:
|
1
|
|
Post ID:
|
24577
|
|
Reply to:
|
24577
|
|
|
|
About the (secret) rules of 'audio reviewing' by Arthur Salvatore
|
|
|
|
|
A site visitor send me a link from Arthur Salvatore and told
me that Arthur think along my lines:
http://www.high-endaudio.com/RR-STEREOPHILE.html#Rul
Well, yes and now. For sure to a great degree I agree with
Arthur’s comments and I would add a few more that would expose the industry
from it even more uglier angle. The angle, where cultured and to a degree the
industry participating Arthur would not go himself. I have much more ruthless
judgment about many things that Arthur is trying to express.
Still the biggest differences is not there. From my point of
view Arthur, in his own way, very much inherited and continue the best industry
tradition, the tradition that I absolutely abhor: to facilitate writing for
reader’s benefits.
The “professional audio writing human waste” and Arthur in a
way do the same thing: to write for the benefits of general audio public and
express own experience as some kind of unsolicited audio help dedicated to
public. I hate this approach tremendously, not only in audio. An author in my
view writing about audio must to write only about himself, his interests, his
ways, his thoughts. Audio playback, at least the high end playback, is
explicitly individualistic activity, serves only the person’s own objectives.
There are no capstans, gurus, leaders or even needs for them, it is all bout
own discoveries of how own inner-you reacts to external sonic sensation and how
to make audio tools to serve this purpose.
Audio writers do not write about themselves and do not write
about own inters, objectives and means but they write about products, trying to
convince other that they are valuable tools. Reading the stupid audio writers
is like you are at the wishing boat in the mid of Atlantic and suddenly some
kind of idiot contact you and insist that you have to by a pair of Christian
Louboutin shoes for your fish and schedule emergency proctology exam for your boat. They get “inspiration”
when they get a new piece of audio equipment and they try to excrete from own feeble
imaginations new ways to sell the cap to public. What a pathetic and
unfortunate duty!!!
Or cause peoples might have specific questions and even a
wide range of interests and some people have exercise in the field and it is
not a problem when the questions inspire explanation. I for years practice at
my site a policy that if I see a sensible person who formulates a sensible question,
indicating that he care about SUBJECT then I always follow it up with respect.
I discard the others and internet waste, and it is a majority of them. What I
am trying to say that audio-rating should be interest-centric not products-centric
or any other commodity-centric. Arthur has his virtual argument with the idiots
who do not practice audio other than commodity-centric discipline and I think
it is lost battle.
Nowadays, there are plenty of clips at YouTube from the sophomoric
questions asking “audio journalists”, who go to the audio-reviewers homes and talk
with them. Listen what they say about themselves and own relation to audio and
you will feel the need to wash your ears with chlorine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqJmqhu2ga0
So, I feel that Arthur Salvatore is very much play on the fields
of the enemy in order to be clean on the “battle”.
"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|