Thread: De Selby's reviews

Posts: 100
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 next

Post by Castor February 19, 2005 (41 of 100)
LC said:

Allow me once again to plug International Record Review www.recordreview.co.uk. This is the best magazine I've seen for SA-CD coverage. At the very least, they almost never neglect to indicate when an item is available on SA-CD, even if surround sound reviews are still fairly rare. The "Next Month" preview in the current issue specifically indicates that they will review the new Avie Brahms set on SA-CD.

I think that the reviews in IRR are generally more detailed (and better written) than those in other magazines, but Gramophone does also indicate whether the release is available in SACD.
The December issue of IRR featured a very good article on multi-channel audio and more is promised.
I was, however, disappointed to see no reference to SACD in the favourable review by Nigel Simeone of the Avie Brahms set nor the LSO Live Shostakovich 5th which makes me wonder how many IRR reviewers are actually able to play the hi-rez layer.

Post by brenda February 21, 2005 (42 of 100)
just one question to de Selby, - i have less of a problem with short reviews than some, but can you tell me why in your most recent reviews you give five stars for sound for different discs which you indicate are anywhere betweeen "very good" and "perfect". If perfect is 5, then surely excellent (another term you use) is 4 and very good three? Just giving everything the same score even when the quality clearly differs isn't helpful.

Post by dabl February 21, 2005 (43 of 100)
Get rid of this guy's 'reviews' they are worthless.

'stereo sonics'? What is this supposed to mean? That he can only listen in stereo? Very useful for the multiple multichannel discs he's 'reviewing'.....

Post by mandel February 21, 2005 (44 of 100)
Dabl> Not that I find those review particularly helpful but it's wrong to totally dismiss people reviewing the stereo layer of multichannel SACDs. Many people here have made a decision to spend their money on a stereo rather than multichannel system...

Post by Dan Popp February 21, 2005 (45 of 100)
dabl said:

'stereo sonics'? What is this supposed to mean? That he can only listen in stereo? Very useful for the multiple multichannel discs he's 'reviewing'.....

dabl,
Most of the planet is listening "only in stereo," and this will remain true for the forseeable future.

Post by brenda February 22, 2005 (46 of 100)
dear de selby, four more reviews today. I want to be able to defend anyone's reviews and encourage all reviewers but I really have to ask, - I must know, - forgive me, - but are you deliberately taking the piss?

Post by beardawgs February 22, 2005 (47 of 100)
brenda said:

dear de selby, four more reviews today. I want to be able to defend anyone's reviews and encourage all reviewers but I really have to ask, - I must know, - forgive me, - but are you deliberately taking the piss?

Dear Brenda and the others,

I think he’s a man with a mission – why not registering every single SACD he’s ever heard with a few limited remarks and make us others think why do we spend time and effort going into details in our reviews. Tream went into great detail to explain how his conception of Scheherazade changed over the years, Eric gave us great insight into disc that I wouldn’t consider buying ever and have it now in my wish list, Hanser starts an intriguing discussion and I’ve spent hours today listening again and again great Accentus disc and writing my review. Maybe the difference is that we have something to say, while DeSelby have ‘slightly dull but…’ limited vocabulary and have nothing to say. To be honest, I don’t think he reads what has been said in the forum, or if he does, he couldn’t care less. Eventually he’ll tell us about all SACDs he has in his collection, so it will have to stop somewhere. Until then, I and probably many more, will just be disappointed (and pissed off) with many new reviews every day that are actually his public listings (we are impressed DeSelby, can we call it a day now please!).

Post by nickc February 22, 2005 (48 of 100)
brenda said:

dear de selby, four more reviews today. I want to be able to defend anyone's reviews and encourage all reviewers but I really have to ask, - I must know, - forgive me, - but are you deliberately taking the piss?

didn't oscar wilde say the only thing worse than being talked about was not being talked about?
cheers
nick

Post by tream February 22, 2005 (49 of 100)
beardawgs said:

Dear Brenda and the others,

I think he’s a man with a mission – why not registering every single SACD he’s ever heard with a few limited remarks and make us others think why do we spend time and effort going into details in our reviews. Tream went into great detail to explain how his conception of Scheherazade changed over the years, Eric gave us great insight into disc that I wouldn’t consider buying ever and have it now in my wish list, Hanser starts an intriguing discussion and I’ve spent hours today listening again and again great Accentus disc and writing my review. Maybe the difference is that we have something to say, while DeSelby have ‘slightly dull but…’ limited vocabulary and have nothing to say. To be honest, I don’t think he reads what has been said in the forum, or if he does, he couldn’t care less. Eventually he’ll tell us about all SACDs he has in his collection, so it will have to stop somewhere. Until then, I and probably many more, will just be disappointed (and pissed off) with many new reviews every day that are actually his public listings (we are impressed DeSelby, can we call it a day now please!).

You know, these reviews are starting to feel like Spam. Besides being an irritation, someone coming to the site for the first time and seeing the first page of reviews, or non-reviews, by this guy might feel that the site is just a waste of time. While I hate to see Zeus starting to act like, well Zeus, I think we may have arrived at the need for an editor. I am not at all certain what the standard is supposed to be-maybe there should be a place for deleted reviews, so if someone really wants to see what DeSelby has to say they can go there. But I personally like to see stuff with a higher standard than this, and while a few are not hard to wade through, an excessive number becomes a detriment to the site.

Post by DrOctodivx February 22, 2005 (50 of 100)
tream said:

You know, these reviews are starting to feel like Spam. Besides being an irritation, someone coming to the site for the first time and seeing the first page of reviews, or non-reviews, by this guy might feel that the site is just a waste of time. While I hate to see Zeus starting to act like, well Zeus, I think we may have arrived at the need for an editor. I am not at all certain what the standard is supposed to be-maybe there should be a place for deleted reviews, so if someone really wants to see what DeSelby has to say they can go there. But I personally like to see stuff with a higher standard than this, and while a few are not hard to wade through, an excessive number becomes a detriment to the site.

I hate being the lone dissenting voice here but I still feel all of you are overreacting. Granted DeSelby is far too concise, but even his limited sentences and odd format still give some useful, albeit limited, information.

Some examples of his reviews:
"stereo sonics: perfect sound"

"stereo sonics: slightly dull but good recording"

"stereo sonics: very good, warm sound"

"stereo sonics: dull bass, the soundstage is diffuse, should be more
definite, a piano isn`t 5 meters wide, but you can find that on so
many records. It seems to be one of the most difficult things, to
place a piano correct into a soundstage."


These are mostly making two statements "stereo sonics:" indicating he is reviewing the stereo portion of the disc, followed by as much information (or rather as little information) as necessary to make his point about the sonics on the disc and sometimes a bit more.

I contend that absent any other reviews this gives me at least some information affecting my decision to purchase a title I am curious about. Though I would rather he provided more content, I still feel we are being a bit harsh and intolerant of his reviewing approach and serious doubt any malicious intent on his part (I suspect that he is even "proud" of his concise approach).

Having said all this, however, I do not think a word from zeus to this reviewer to beef up his content would be ill-placed.

-Karl

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 next

Closed