[XXhalberstramXX]

Quote:

And it's important to me, and (I assume) to others that listen to classical, to be able to know in advance of purchasing whether or not a recording has good sound quality or is just an old crappy AAD CD.

I hear ya, but still for me the most important thing is by far is the proformance quality. This is why i have a Toscanini box set of Beethoven's symphonies and why i listen to my rather dry (with coughs) Horenstein live proformance of Mahler's eighth much much more than my much newer Chailly recording.

For me, it'll always be the music that inspires me, and although the deep sound of the timpanis and the blare of the horns brings chills to my spine, if they aren't artfully and skillfully conducted, they just sit there.

I think the model should be something like what Stereophile has. i personally don't see a lot of importance in an associated equipment section, people should be able to judge for themselves what a bright/warm/dry recording is based on other recording they've heard (in other words, in context). just my two cents

oh yeah, and the AAD recording of Puccini's Turandot with Pavarotti and Sutherland has great sound, and is probably the best recording you can buy.

 

[JK1dotNET]

Quote:

I hear ya, but still for me the most important thing is by far is the proformance quality. This is why i have a Toscanini box set of Beethoven's symphonies and why i listen to my rather dry (with coughs) Horenstein live proformance of Mahler's eighth much much more than my much newer Chailly recording.

Sorry if my note came out the wrong way. I assmed (stupidly) that you weren't a classical fan. Should have checked your profile, eh? Anyway, I agree with you that it is very important to rate the music. I think I'm liking the idea of two ratings more and more, giving the user an option of searching/listing based on either or both.
Quote:

I think the model should be something like what Stereophile has. i personally don't see a lot of importance in an associated equipment section, people should be able to judge for themselves what a bright/warm/dry recording is based on other recording they've heard (in other words, in context). just my two cents

I agree 100% with this. I'd like to make it so people can list their equipment, since our gear means a lot to each of us, but not make it a prominant part of the review summary.

As far as AAD recordings, I didn't mean to make a sweeping generalization, but I've heard plenty of crappy ones that were downright difficult to listen to.

 

[BenG]

Great idea. A separate rating for performance & sound would be needed. Also, the type of recording should be mentioned in the review if possible - AAD, DDD, live to two track, multi-track, etc(this criteria could be confirmed by the moderator). I also think the reviewer's equipment and musical preference should be mentioned.

Trouble is consumer reviews would have to be moderated to some degree (and there are alot more albums than stereo gear!). Therefore, I think you should require registration to lessen moderation headaches.

In addition, I think the site should feature "pro" reviews that analyze a recording to determine objectively if it was compressed, eq'd, and to measure frequency reponse and dynamic range. This would truly expose the lame recordings. Trouble with that is the major labels would not give you much in the way of support!

 

[BenG]

This is another concern. Judging the recording & mastering quality of acoustic music is much easier and is less related to the performance than primarily electronic-based music.

When judging the recording quality of primarily electronic-based music, production values could be argued to be part of the quality of the performance. Techno or electronica music would be the prime example - the production values are really the creative engines behind the music. This is where the line between performance vs. recording/mastering quality becomes blurry and needs to be defined.

 

[XXhalberstramXX]

i think AudioReview's model is pretty good. i mean, you get a bit of discussion which belongs in message boards, but mostly it's just reviews. and for the most part, discussion is breif and to the point (and rather informative). Also, for example, when you don't put in anything for "where product was purchases" the box simply does not appear in the review. A similar effect might be attempted with fields such as "sound quality" "associated equipment" "label" etc...

Hmm.... maybe it would be useful to put guidlines as to what kind of stuff should be put in a review, though. and some moderation too i suppose. maybe include a message board for people to use if they want to talk about how Brittany Spears is the next Maria Callas, or whatever.

sorry if all these suggestions are overwhelming