Originally Posted by purrin
It's important for readers to understand the context of my statements. If I don't like something, I'm very specific on conditions of the evaluation and the qualities which bother me. I usually also state or at least imply what my preferences are. I never offer a simple "good", "best", or "fail" opinion without qualifying reasons. This allows people with different sonic preferences to calibrate according to their own tastes, or simply discard my opinions.
I wanted to jump in here and second this.
Purrin said he doesn't like it, and he even explained why he doesn't like it. I don't see what's wrong with that. Even if he had no data to back up his statements, it would still be a perfectly valid opinion, and I just don't understand why his review should be considered any kind of anti-hype based on negativity alone. And so what if he was just hatin', why can't he? If he hates it, he hates it. Since when is that a crime?
Must impressions be positive in order to be valid?
For the record, I disagree with purrin's opinion to a limited extent. I had a chance to audition the Explorer at the SF meet (a.k.a. CHANG-fest) a little over a week ago. From lossless files via a Macbook Air > Meridian Explorer > Mad Dog w/Alpha Pads, I enjoyed that listen immensely. Does his review invalidate my experience? No. Does my experience discredit his opinion? Of course not. In fact, taking into account that everything else in the signal path was different, I don't even see how his experience and my experience can be reasonably compared.
Sorry, I'm rambling a bit here.
My point is that there's no reason why this ever needs to get personal. Disagree with purrin? Fine. Feel like saying so? Fine. Saying that he (as a person) should "get out and see the world! Or just stick to reviewing fridges and micro waves" because he really doesn't like a particular piece of gear? C'mon, really? I mean, really?