Posted by: "Curt Olson"
> Points well taken, Walt. I'm sure nearly all 1138 readers of this
> e-mail group would pretty much agree. However, I find these tests to be
> useful (not definitive, of course -- nobody claims that they are -- but
> tremendously informative nonetheless). Rob probably gets "out there"
> more than most of us. The fact that many of these comparison tests are
> done at 3AM in his urban attic tells me that he's a practical guy with
> a passion for the subject. And the fact that he shares them here in
> this forum is a gift that I think we should appreciate and not
> disparage.
I've been in Rob's attic, I have some idea how well it might represent a
natural sound environment. Rob does good getting as much as he does in
his tests. The problem is that many are interpreting very small
variations in the sound in those tests as meaningful, when you cannot
rule out the acoustics of that attic as being controlling. To say
nothing of things like the sound sources used.
That's why I say we should not loose focus on the natural acoustics of
our outdoor sites for testing equipment. Otherwise we might as well just
use the indoor reviews of music recordists.
It's not disparaging, it's a caution about how far removed from real
nature recording these tests are. I listen to at least some of Rob's
tests, limited by being on a modem connection. Taken as a very crude
beginning in evaluating equipment they are fine. I don't take them as
definitive. But it's clear many do.
At the moment I can't even follow my own advice. It will be many months
of recovery before I'm cleared for being out in the field without
restrictions. I'm not even supposed to lift the weight of my recording
kit. So maybe there is just a tiny bit of envy of all you folks who have
no such limitations and a bit of wondering why you are not out there. So
ignore my grumping if you wish.
Walt
|