On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:10:07 -0500, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 2/12/2012 11:41 AM, philicorda wrote:
>
>> Sound on Sound is great, and has some very interesting original
>> articles. I particularly enjoy the 'classic tracks' thing they have
>> been doing recently. They take a famous song or album and analyse it
>> from a recording point of view, including new interviews with the
>> original engineers, producers and artists.
>
> Mix has been doing "Classic Tracks" for years, but Sound on Sound's goes
> into a lot more detail about the sessions whereas the Mix version is
> stronger on history.
The Sound on Sound one on The Special's 'Ghost Town' was brilliant.
>
>> I don't enjoy reading the reviews of music gear though. Software and
>> equipment is often so complicated nowadays that most of the article is
>> often just spent explaining what it does.
>
> This is why I enjoy reading some reviews - because it explains what
> something that I don't know about does. I don't usually bother to read
> reviews of mics or compressors or preamps because I'm not in the market
> for any more of them. But since it seems that every new computer audio
> interface has a little different schtick, I like to read those to see
> why this one is different from the last one - and they often really are.
It's more that I can easily download the manual and get a description
from a manufacturer's web-site, and generally hear sound examples too. So
anything I can learn there is a bit redundant in a review. This wasn't
the case when I started out, but the reviewing style hasn't changed all
that much.
I agree that explaining how a product differs from what has gone before
is useful. Saying how the product differs from the manufacturer's
description is important too.
> Sometimes you can get something out of a review that's useful general
> knowledge, perhaps as a technique. For example, a lot of these new
> dynamics processing boxes are coming out with a parallel unprocessed
> signal path that can be mixed in with the processed path. A few
> sentences of how that can be useful can teach the reader that he can do
> the same thing with the stuff that he already has, and that it might be
> worth a try some time.
That is certainly useful, but it doesn't tell me much about the product
being reviewed. I would say though that most of what I actually need to
buy for my studio at the moment is pretty boring, so I do perhaps read
reviews for entertainment and enlightenment.
>
> > Tape-Op tends to assume the
>> reader already has some idea, which makes the reviews more interesting.
>
> Sometimes, though, they assume too much, particularly assuming that
> people recognize names, often nicknames, of programs, plug-ins, and even
> hardware. I usually know what they're talking about when they write "We
> used a 57 3 inches off center" (a Shure SM-57 in front of the speaker
> of an instrument amplifier) but a novice might need all the words.