[markl]

I think redshifter is right-- there are simply too many outside factors that can color our perceptions. I also think there's a way we can minimize some of these problems by encouraging "full-disclosure". Not to hi-jack this thread, but my humbly submitted idea can be found here:

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showth...&threadid=2656

markl

 

[Tim D]

I think if you subscribe to redshifter's thoughts on reviews...I believe standardization does nothing but add cement to the weight of reviews to which he is saying should be taken with a grain of salt in the first place.

I think it would be horrible if we were able to pull up a list of headphones and see numbers next to them. Audioreview = horrible.

I like the concept that this forum is just that...a forum. Not a standardized review section. If I want a quick and dirty public opinion review I go to audioreview. And indeed it is both quick, yet also dirty IMO. If I wanted numbers, go look at a headroom graph. If you want discussion than only a forum would do. Oh almost forgot...If I wanted to hear how it sounds...I buy/try it.

Of course I do understand the issue that...say a newcomer would have no idea how ummmm, say Aphearheds opinions may differ from Vertigo's. But there are some advantages of a higher learning curve. And there are some disadvantages of a low learning curve. Audioreview has a low learning curve.

The biggest thing that needs to be changed, that doesn't help either veterans or newcomers...is the "folklore" situation that redshifter talks about. That is the phenomena of parroting. This doesn't mean you have to be married to a headphone to comment on it, but it'd be nice if people at least touched a headphone or something or other before describing its soundstage LOL.

 

[stymie miasma]

I think that in some cases, you can help 'validate' a person's review/opinion - at least on this board - by having a peak at their profile.

if someone gives a headphone massive props and I find out they are only listening to classical through some high-end components in a quiet room (assuming they put that much detail in the profile), then i would perhaps shy away from that headphone until such time as:

(a) someone who listens to similar music as me gives the same headphone the thumbs up, or
(b) i actually get to audition the headphone for myself.

that said, the majority of the good reviews do include details of the source, the type of music being listened to etc.

just my 2c

sm

 

[jaghouse]

The "wallet teaser" analogy is an understatement. A hyped product on the forum will garner my attention and $$$, whereas multi-million dollar marketing schemes are ignored.
My headphone trip was born less than a year ago... and its somewhat frustrating to decipher the wide range of opinions on a product.
But it is fun, and most of here are music lovers who enjoy discussing what brings us closer to it.

 

[rodchenko]

"If 75%+ critics says it's good then there's got to be something in that which makes it good. IF a film gets less then 40% approval from critics all over the country then the chances of me watching it is slim"
----

Ugh. All I can say is that it really depends on who's writing the reviews. If you go strictly by the numbers, you've got a situation like audioreivew. Often, I find that you should check out the films that got all 5 stars or 1 star - they've got something amazing going on. The one's that get 3 stars, it's like - whatever. It's ok, but why waste the time? Plus most of the decent films being made today just aren't being reviewed by most of the reviewers, cause most of them are getting paid off by the studios.

Headphones seem different. I remember someone on this forum saying something like - "well, the X phone is $200 more than the Y phone, so it HAS to be lots better." He was serious too. Part of what's so great about reviews like this is that, yes - at the end of the day, some phones are not worth the money. They're the result of a clever marketing plot and people buy them because they don't know any better. I think of point and shoot cameras. The Olympus Stylus Epic ($90) is simply the most durable, best picture-taking camera out there. It's clearly better than most of olympus' other models. Now they're certainly not going to go around saying this, because their profits would drop off rather fast. Same with CD-players- I LOVED reading that cheap CD players without the huge anti-skip technology sound better because of lesser compression. I just never considered it, but it makes perfect sense. Endrant-

 

[sapphiremodena]

"what's the point of comparing headphones online?"

cuz it's fun

 

[sapphiremodena]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim D I know there are people that would think Iron Monkey is the cheesiest POS movie...but its one of my all time favorites!

Ooh, I wanna see that, just because I know that I will probably either think it is awesome or I will feel ripped off, and I wanna see for myself. But hey, movies are cheap, and lots of times I don't feel ripped off by movies that I see.

 

[RGA]

KR:

Quote:

Don't you think it's funny that for the most part, the best reviewed films do the worst at the box office.

I would say that's in large part due to the dumbing down of society. We have become sit-com programmed...if something funny, scary or action-packed does not occur every 6 minutes the audience loses their attention span and become bored. Could you imagine Lawrence of Arabia opening today...It wouldn't make 50 million at the box office.

Even the film Halloween...I had the LD director's commentary...John Carpenter has a scene where Jamie Lee Curtis is walking up to the house where Michael Myers has killed her friends...This walk goes on for more than 6 minutes to build suspense...the audience in its original release screamed at her not to go in...John Carpenter said that if he made the film today he would have to cut the walk down by less than half. I wish this was on the DVD release...but that's another issue.

Rotten Tomatoes is a good idea...but I would rather 2 or 3 critics that I respect and agree with. Roger Ebert usually makes a case for his position...and I can see where he's coming from... I like a film that cares about plot first and then character(though these can switch depending on the film).

I don't like films that are all flash and no substance...Gladiator is a start.

 

[raymondlin]

Quote:

Ugh. All I can say is that it really depends on who's writing the reviews. If you go strictly by the numbers, you've got a situation like audioreivew. Often, I find that you should check out the films that got all 5 stars or 1 star - they've got something amazing going on. The one's that get 3 stars, it's like - whatever. It's ok, but why waste the time? Plus most of the decent films being made today just aren't being reviewed by most of the reviewers, cause most of them are getting paid off by the studios

The difference with www.rottentomatoes.com and www.audioreview.com is that one is a professional critics and the other could be a 17 years old kid who knows nothing about the subject. I know at the end of the day it's all a matter of opinions but you have to remember that the critics have seen thousands of movies and they have all that knowledge to compare to. Where the kid could be someone who only like Adam Sandler movies and probably never even seen The Godfather.

And the other thing is that the % is from all the critics, just 1 person saying it's bad doesn't effect it that much, it's not a 5 stars scale. And I am nothing saying I won't watch a film because it gets less certain %, I am saying I am less likely going to pay at the cinema to see it. But I probably going to catch it on DVD when it comes out. It's like a 50 miles round trip to a good cinema from where I live so it's has to be worth it, that's why I like this movie site.

Same thing apply to headphones, 1 peraon's review can only be taken an opinion, but if everyone says it crap. The chances of me liking it is much lower, I am not saying I won't like it but if I have to listen to every headphones on the market, it's going to be one of the ones on the list.

One movie I try to avoid is battlefield Earth, I have not seen one good review on it. My friend also thinks it crap (but I don't trust his judgement on movies normally), I rather give the £3.50 to charity then waste 2 hours of my life on it.

Quote:

I don't like films that are all flash and no substance...Gladiator is a start

I don't like it that much either, it looks cool but the plot is waffer thin, General becomes slave then becomes gladiator........? Croughing Tiger. Hidden Dragon is a better movie in all respect. Both action, story and acting (IMO). But one film I love fro last year is Almost Famous, fabulous soundtrack, wonderful story. Ok, the acting from that kid wasn't the best but all the characters has depth and a touch of authenticity that capture the 70's era so well that I love. It makes me want to go back and live at that time.

 

[redshifter]

re: john carpenter
it is true his movies have sped up in recent years. take a film like his brilliant "assault on precinct 13" (one of hist 1st movies). the commentary on the laserdisc he mentions how he stretched scenes out to fill out his film to 90 minutes (it was a VERY small budget). he kept commenting on how he would speed it up today. i don't think he is bowing to the public's percieved short attention span, rather he is developing his cinematic style. he still has a very old-fashioned approach to film making, and remains on technical merits alone one of our top directors. even a balls-to-the-wall hard sci-fi action flicks like "the thing" or "ghosts of mars" have deep roots in the westerns of howard hawks & john ford.

it's easy to say everyone has a short attention span and only likes brainless entertainment like britney spears or "scary movie", but i think there are a lot more people in the us who have good taste in films & music, many more than the pop entertainment industry would like us to believe.

 

[Snipe]

I agree. Everyone is different. Go to a good can shop, and try and try until you find something you like

 

[Snipe]

Quote:

Originally posted by redshifter i've been wondering about the validity of comparing headphones online. iow, when someone says brand x kicks ass over brand y, there are too many variables involved to be accurate: source: almost everyone uses different sources and amps, and different recordings. this has a huge impact on how a headphone sounds. hearing: everyone has different hearing, different shaped ears, more or less wax build up, and differing levels of hearing damage. this will also change the sound. coupling: this is mainly for earbuds. since the earbud's coupling with the ear changes the sound drastically, and people have widely different sized canals, again there is a alot of variation. personal bias: many folks say "i hate brand x (sony)", so when it comes time to review that brand their bias kicks in and the cans don't get a fair listen. use: people use their phones for different things. sure the hd600 may sound better than the v6, but not on a noisy bus! there are other factors involved than pure sound. "different strokes" factor: sometimes for no reason someone will love something but someone will hate the same thing. sometimes it seems like these discussions are like "pizza tastes good." "no it doesn't!". where one person hears "over-bright" treble, someone else hears "detail". there can even be variations in the same equipment. i'm not trying to invalidate this forum (like i could stop you maniacs ), but just wanted to show advice should be taken with a grain of salt (like tequila). i enjoy reading the reviews here, but sometimes the headphone shootouts get a little ridiculous.

I agree. Everyone is different. Go to a good can store and try and try until you find something you like.

 

[Duncan]

I agree with the principle of why this is in headphone reviews... but it is much more like general discussion now... so, thats where its going... see ya there

 

[rodchenko]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ugh. All I can say is that it really depends on who's writing the reviews. If you go strictly by the numbers, you've got a situation like audioreivew. Often, I find that you should check out the films that got all 5 stars or 1 star - they've got something amazing going on. The one's that get 3 stars, it's like - whatever. It's ok, but why waste the time? Plus most of the decent films being made today just aren't being reviewed by most of the reviewers, cause most of them are getting paid off by the studios
------------------------------------------------------------------------


The difference with www.rottentomatoes.com and www.audioreview.com is that one is a professional critics and the other could be a 17 years old kid who knows nothing about the subject. I know at the end of the day it's all a matter of opinions but you have to remember that the critics have seen thousands of movies and they have all that knowledge to compare to. Where the kid could be someone who only like Adam Sandler movies and probably never even seen The Godfather.

And the other thing is that the % is from all the critics, just 1 person saying it's bad doesn't effect it that much, it's not a 5 stars scale. And I am nothing saying I won't watch a film because it gets less certain %, I am saying I am less likely going to pay at the cinema to see it.
---------


Right - I understand your point. And I'm not trying to say that Rottentomatos is a bad site. But I think my point still stands - the net effect of getting together all these reviewers (and the word "professional" is a little bit scary to me, given the paucity of what you have to do to qualify as a professional reviewer) is give a "general opinion". So take a movie like Lars von Trier's recent Dancer in the Dark, which starred Bjork, in an absolutely phenomenal performance. A bunch of critics thought it was the best movie of the year. A bunch thought it was absolute garbage or worse. Well, maybe I'm want more 'interesting fare' than most, but that's the kind of movie I want to check out. Because people are all crazy about it - one way or the other. That's the first point.

The second point is just that I rarely see many critics reviewing movies they should - where is the publicity for great films like Wang Kar-Wi's In the Mood for Love, or Kurasawa's (not akira, the new one) Cure?

To be a good critic, you have to be relatively independent of the system, which most of these people are decidedly NOT. It's a lot like asking an audiophile dealer who only carries sennheiser and grado what the best headphones are. MAYBE they'd suggest sony or beyerdynamic every once in a while, but I seriously doubt it.

 

[raymondlin]

That's why it's good to see a range of critics' reviews, not just one. And then watch the best ones first and decide for myself.