Chris/Tunes brought this to mind with comment in another thread and didn't want to go too far off topic.
People often complained years ago that many reviewers TAS used albums for reviewing that were all unobtanium. Mercury, RCA. Decca. Only a few people had access to these excellent reviewing tools. So what good did that do for the reader if they wanted to cross check listening notes. But I am curious. Do people still compare their listening notes with what is found in equipment reviews?
So what makes for good reviewing material? Mixes of genres? Scales? Recordings that have a big upside? What else?
PS. That's why I try and limit my examples using tape since most people don't have reel-to-reel machines. But I listen to more tape during the review process to get a feeling of a component's sonic virtues than appears in the review.
People often complained years ago that many reviewers TAS used albums for reviewing that were all unobtanium. Mercury, RCA. Decca. Only a few people had access to these excellent reviewing tools. So what good did that do for the reader if they wanted to cross check listening notes. But I am curious. Do people still compare their listening notes with what is found in equipment reviews?
So what makes for good reviewing material? Mixes of genres? Scales? Recordings that have a big upside? What else?
PS. That's why I try and limit my examples using tape since most people don't have reel-to-reel machines. But I listen to more tape during the review process to get a feeling of a component's sonic virtues than appears in the review.
Comment