New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

6Moons .... - Page 5

post #61 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post


Ok. So I write a speech for a politician, and it moves the world, and the world changes, and it becomes enshrined as the most influential speech in the history of the planet.

Then you write a speech, and it bores the audience who, in a fit of not understanding your motives, contemplates the lint in their navel.

 

We don't know from that alone that my speech was a better speech than yours was?

 

 

First, apologies for the double post. I promise to back away slowly from the keyboard...

 

The problem with the quoted argument is that at its far limit, you're equating popular with good. I don't have any time for people who put down the writers of thrillers, sci-fi, romance, but I also don't think John Grisham's latest is better than 'The Great Gatsby,' just because the Grisham is more popular.

 

Now I doubt you meant what you wrote to be carried to such an extreme. However, it's easy in this sort of argument to cross over from 'good, interesting writing is better than bad, dull writing' to 'the more people like a piece of writing, the better it is.' Once you get to a certain threshold of 'goodness,' the size of the audience matters less and other things matter more.

 

s.

post #62 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by satkinsn View Post

The problem with the quoted argument is that at its far limit, you're equating popular with good. I don't have any time for people who put down the writers of thrillers, sci-fi, romance, but I also don't think John Grisham's latest is better than 'The Great Gatsby,' just because the Grisham is more popular.

 

Now I doubt you meant what you wrote to be carried to such an extreme. However, it's easy in this sort of argument to cross over from 'good, interesting writing is better than bad, dull writing' to 'the more people like a piece of writing, the better it is.' Once you get to a certain threshold of 'goodness,' the size of the audience matters less and other things matter more.


I don't believe I am defining "good" as "popular", but rather as "effective".

 

If I write a book specifically for my son, and it is his favorite book, and everyone else hates it: it is good writing (assuming that the writing is the *reason* he loves it).

 

War and Peace is a horrible children's book. The Cat in the Hat does not belong in a scientific journal.

post #63 of 68

Fair enough, though 'Cat In The Hat' is fine science, after a fashion smily_headphones1.gif.

 

s.

 

post #64 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by kboe View Post


Yup.  My long "wrong" post was me acting out like a four year old who cant express his opinion any other way, (which I later did in a few post).  My misstep.  

 

Your personal attack and exaggerated example of more information... is yours.  




I am sorry that you feel attacked. I was more intent on using rhetoric to make a point than intending to offend. I apologize... that sentance is, it appears, poor writing as I failed the proper effect.
post #65 of 68


 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik View Post


However, novelists don't start and stop stories to talk about themselves.  Neither do any other professional writers.  What if you were reading a story in the New York Times and the journalist kept interrupting to story to talk about the amusing quirks of his word processor, where he went to journalism school, and so on?  That would distract from the story and make it practically unreadable.

 

If I'm reading a story about mergers and acquisitions, I want to read a story about mergers and acquisitions.

The big difference between an article on hifi and one on mergers and acquisitions is that hifi is a hobby, for which most readers want to be entertained as well as informed. Same thing happens with, say, wine and restaurant reviews. If the reviewer truly stuck to an honest, objective, concise review of every restaurant, nobody would read their reviews. Readers seemingly enjoy an over-opinionated critic tearing a restaurant to shreds. 

 

Personally, I think most magazine reviewers go too far, but I still prefer that to an ultra dry, factual review that basically says the component measures and sounds just like every other component in it's class. And I wouldn't trust ANY review to tell me what to buy, but I may use them to give me new ideas for further investigation.

 

The times when a rave, flowery, review is more useful is when the component is compared to another one (that got a rave review last week). That often puts things into perspective, but such comparisons don't happen often enough. 

 

  
 

post #66 of 68
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vcoheda View Post

don't see a problem with 6moons. lot of good info in the reviews. try getting published first. then you can criticize others.



1. Its not 'good info' if it merely serves to expand on the marketing blurb being put out by the manufacturer. I agree that 6Moons do include a lot of technical information which may not be readily available elsewhere, but I would like to see them question some of the specs they are given.

 

2. If, by 'getting published', you mean I should start a blog and throw together a few reviews, then we have a very different understanding of what it means to 'get published'. Srajan doesnt have to submit his reviews to an editor - he is the editor. Thats the power of the web, and I salute him for being willing to review kit that the magazines dont give column inches to - I just want to see more 'warts and all' reviews.

 

post #67 of 68

I find Headfonia's reviews unbiased. Anyone else think so?

post #68 of 68

They are nice to read but there aren't any negative attributes to headphones (like missing the word "horrible" before the K701, etc etc ymmv!)

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum