• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Message to golden-eared audiophiles posting at ASR for the first time...

raistlin65

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
2,279
Likes
3,421
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
@MattHooper I think you're wrong. Completely discarding and disregarding sighted listening test has nothing to do with the fact that they always lead to error. It's just that since reliability can't be established you throw them all out the window, yes, the proverbial baby with the birth water.

Some of your sighted listening tests may very well confirm the exact same thing that the blind test would tell you. But it's random and thus unreliable. It's like Amir said on YouTube on the subject of DBT; if you toss a coin and guess it's head, you can't conclude that you can predict tosses. So the fact that some of your sighted tests might be right is, sadly perhaps, not a reason not to throw them all out the window. Since you can't discern which sighted tests were the "correct" ones, the unbiased ones, you can't use any of them. That's why they're useless even when they're accurate. You can't make reliable statements and judgements based on them so you really have no use of them.

The right judgements in sighted test are, if nothing else, arbitrary.

Exactly.

Plus, when it comes to sighted listening tests of highly accurate dacs and amps, where subjectivists claim that they can hear a difference, what are the odds that the individual has properly volumed leveled the comparison, if they're tuning the volume by ear? And some of them do try to do it with an SPL meter, without realizing it's not discriminating enough.

So I would say in such comparisons, where there are two potential perceptual biases--expectation and volume difference--that it is accurate for us to say such comparisons are highly unreliable.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,197
Likes
11,813
Man, don't you love hearing yourself talk.

Charming.

All based on false analogies and handwaving like equating our sensorial reliability concerning something as vital as sight of near objects and the assessment of sound quality on relatively artificial material (music). Or a big strawman made of solipsism and other intellectual impostures/traps.

Ok...I'll wait for an actual argument....


You seem to be natively English speaking, so I doubt I have to explain that the concept of reliability doesn't correspond to either case: you can't be "reliable once", only always or always minus a known probability of error. Unless you know that error margin, you can't even say "less reliable".

You seem to have missed the point(s).

1. I emphasized the fact that we can not abandon a PRACTICAL concept of "reliability" and assessing claims based on human perception.
Do you perform studies to accurately quantify the probability of error of everything you do, from every claim anyone ever makes, to your every perception, to even just trying out new cooking recipes at home? Of course not. And it's on this level silly to imply that the concept of "reliability" ought to be applied ONLY when one can quantify or know the probability of error! As if it's invalid to say that "reliability" can be seen to scale from "less reliable" to "more reliable." The logic you are using here is like saying we can never decide anyone is basically honest because "everyone has told a lie at least once, and that makes everyone a liar." But of course we actually rightly make judgements of whether someone is "more or less" reliable - not on if a person is entirely honest or entirely dishonest. And we don't require a scientific level of quantification to have some justification in doing this. Same with perception. Yes perception can be on a scale of more or less reliable, not just "off and on/either or." I may fall to the classic optical illusions which point out errors in how I see, nor can I give you a quantified error margin for my every perception-based action. But I routinely find my away around the house and in the outside world with my eyes, which points to some general reliability (even if not perfect) in what my sight perceives. It would be placing untenable restrictions on such inferences to demand scientific-level quantification for our every inference.

How can we deal with the fact we can't have a scientific level of quantification or confidence in everything we perceive or infer? I suggest we often already have a heuristic at hand. As Carl Sagan phrased it "“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." If I say I bought a new car that's at least a plausible claim and we an accept it provisionally. We'd never get through life if we placed a scientific-level demand on such claims. But if I claim to have just bought a perpetual motion machine, then it makes more sense to presume I'm likely wrong and seek a scientific level of scrutiny.

Applied to audio: If I audition "Expensive Audiophile Ethernet Cables" and report that they greatly enhance the sound of a system (vs cheaper, working, properly spec'd Ethernet cables), that amounts to an extraordinary claim given how digital audio works. We have good reason to reject it and demand a much higher level of evidence.

Whereas if I audition some speakers and report I heard certain differences, e.g. lower tighter bass on one, more forward brighter highs on the other or whatever, that at least plausible, given speakers can indeed have such audible characteristics. So unless you have evidence specifically related to the speakers in question that indicate what I reported was impossible, it's reasonable to accept such an account (provisionally).

Are there variables involved to keep in mind? Of course - the specific characteristics noted in such a report could be due to sighted biases, not the actual sound. Nonetheless, you would not be in a position to dismiss the claim as "mere sighted bias" without much more rigorous study of that particular claim and the speakers involved. You can't conclude something is only sighted bias merely because it could be sighted bias.
It may be quite plausible the person heard true, audible characteristic differences between a set of speakers.
But a lot of people make that implied leap from "it COULD be sighted bias to" "this can be DISMISSED AS SIGHTED BIAS."

I'm talking about taking inferences too far, in that manner.


2. Which brings me back to the post to which I had responded.

Newman had inferred from the study cited here that we could: "bury all notion that the sighted listening audio gear reviewer has anything to offer the audio gear consumer, other than artful deception of a willing subject."

Which is an instance of just the problem I'm decrying: leaping from an experiment which shows our perception can have an element of error to using to dismiss ALL subjective review reports as being "deception" (untrue). It's an unwarranted leap. That's the bogus reasoning I'm pointing out.

(It's not unreasonable for anyone here to say "I don't want to rely on purely subjective descriptions of speakers - I want to stick to MORE reliable methods that include measurements verifying the claims." Totally reasonable of course if someone wants to restrict their review reading to that type of review. But that doesn't entail someone else is irrational to find some level of useful-to-them information conveyed by subjective reports, be it from audiophile buddies or particular reviewers, while considering the plausibility of the reports, and with the understanding that they are working at a lower confidence level than one would have with scientifically rigorous accounts. We operate at this level all the time in other areas of our lives and it doesn't make us unreasonable or irrational nor does it determine we are actually being deluded).
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,197
Likes
11,813
@MattHooper I think you're wrong. Completely discarding and disregarding sighted listening test has nothing to do with the fact that they always lead to error. It's just that since reliability can't be established you throw them all out the window, yes, the proverbial baby with the birth water.

Some of your sighted listening tests may very well confirm the exact same thing that the blind test would tell you. But it's random and thus unreliable. It's like Amir said on YouTube on the subject of DBT; if you toss a coin and guess it's head, you can't conclude that you can predict tosses. So the fact that some of your sighted tests might be right is, sadly perhaps, not a reason not to throw them all out the window. Since you can't discern which sighted tests were the "correct" ones, the unbiased ones, you can't use any of them. That's why they're useless even when they're accurate. You can't make reliable statements and judgements based on them so you really have no use of them.

The right judgements in sighted test are, if nothing else, arbitrary.

Thanks killdozzer.

See my reply to qc3pma. I understand that. Please keep in mind I was specifically responding to what I saw as an obvious overreach by Newman, though, as an inference from that study.

Remember that we can't reason in a bubble, and that we ought to be able to see how the implications of a train of thought stretches in to the rest of what we do and believe, to make sure we remain coherent and practical. And that's what I'm talking about.

Everything you wrote could be applied to almost anything we do. For instance exchanging notes on a recipe we have been trying "I found it worked adding salt; it helped dial down the sweetness of the X in the recipe" or whatever. There are all sorts of biases and confounding factors involved in such exchanges, same as in audio. But we don't therefore throw all such exchanges out as "unreliable" because "you never know if it was just an expectation effect.". It would actually be irrational, make life untenable, so it's reasonable to make these exchanges of "information" provisionally on the basis they are plausible. (E.g. adding salt really can alter the taste of food). And given we can seem to come to some agreement on the effects of altering the recipe. Strictly speaking we won't know we aren't fooling ourselves unless we started doing double blinded studies on the recipes. But as I said, that's untenable for much of life, which makes it still reasonable to use the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" heuristic and provisionally accept subjectively-exchanged "information" provisionally.

So, again, it helps to stretch out the logic as far as possible to see if/where it breaks.

If "sighted" listening is unreliable, do we throw out all intersubjective exchanges of information that are not scientifically controlled?

Do we stop exchanging notes about how different albums are mastered? Do we stop exchanging notes on the very production sounds of albums? I work in film post sound - virtually all our communication involves conveying sound subjectively to one another, to say what we want and if we've achieved it or what needs to be fixed. If I'm to throw all that out as "UNRELIABLE" do we just fold the business...or how would you replace it? And how would you actually account for how well it actually seems to work to achieve the goals of a production?

See, unless you can stop this slippery slope somewhere you end up leaving much of life both incoherent, and actually unexplained.

The issue then is if you can say "Well, ok, yeah lets not go too far, it's at least reasonable to use intersubjective reports to convey information in these cases..." My challenge will be then "Ok, give me the basis on where you draw this line, when it becomes reasonable to accept information relayed by subjective descriptions." Could you provide an account that ISN'T some version of the basis I'm already claiming - e.g. that we are justified in provisionally accepting plausible claims. And if my account is generally correct in "how we get off this slippery slope" then it applies to speaker evaluation too. Like everything else, yeah there are variables that aren't being weeded out. But that doesn't mean we can't actually come to provisional "knowledge" claims based on intersubjective agreement. Especially if there is some level of experience that induces a level of trust in someone's reports.

For instance, I hear a lot of speakers at my friend's place who is an audio reviewer. Numerous times when he's sat me down and asked what I'm hearing, e.g. compared to the last speakers or to his own speakers, I'll describe the character and he will find I've described essentially the characteristics he hears as well. It often works in the reverse too (if I ask him to describe the sound, before telling him what I think). So I do find I have some justified level of confidence in his subjective inferences, as he has in mine. All without controls or measurements.
Is this a scientific level of confidence? Of course not. But it's the type of intersubjective confidence-building exchange (e.g. like food recipes) that we all accept as rational and warranted. (Even when, strictly speaking, we could of course be in error). Oh...but isn't this just another slippery slope? After all, people use intersubjective exchanges like this to come to believe in anything, from cults, to crazy religions, to new age nostrums etc. No. This is where the heuristic "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" cuts that slippery slope. So long as the claims are not in conflict with known empirical facts, and are plausible, we can accept them provisionally in this manner. Not if you are doing science! The "extraodinary claims require extraordinary evidence" isn't good enough if you are studying a new vaccine, or Floyd Toole looking for a higher level of confidence and predictability. But for much of life outside the lab, lots of empirical conclusions and life itself would be untenable without allowing a lower level of evidence for plausible claims.

(BTW, even if we are strictly talking about science, I also pointed out that Newman's leap of inference from a scientific study was not, itself, very scientific).

Cheers.
 
Last edited:

killdozzer

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Messages
1,615
Likes
1,628
Location
Zagreb
@MattHooper if you understand that, I apologize for stating the obvious. It seems to me I'll have to read what Newman said in order to understand what prompted your response. Without that, you still look like you're getting lost on those slippery slopes of yours. I'm having a hard time imagining that Newman said if one greets you with "Good day, sir", that you jump right at him and ask if he did a DBT on whether the day is indeed good.

I don't feel like being on a slippery slope at all. I can exchange whatever thoughts I like with my friends, but in the very instance when we ask ourselves; "can we actually assert that what we did made the difference?" that's when we have to find a way to neutralize all biases and all other variables.

There's one more thing about subjective I find very important. Subjective is at the same time of utmost importance and completely irrelevant. It is all one man has, even after all the testing, and still it means nothing to anyone around you except perhaps to someone who loves you. Even the friendliest and most well intended advice you give someone based on your subjective experience is completely wrong. Or, rather, illogical. One man's subjective can't be other man's subjective. So when you say: "I find Marantz warm, you should buy Marantz", that would be as true as saying: "I like blue, you should buy a blue raincoat". That is what subjective is. When you realize that you can have two people attend the same listening session, one coming out saying he though the sound was warm and the other saying the sound was cold, that's when you realized what you're dealing with when you address subjective. It's not even about trust or mutual respect or anything. Who would you trust among the two guys with cold/warm references? I can offer an answer - the one who said what you hold true. That's what subjective is. Subjective is much like personal experience. It is... unrepeatable.
 

Mart68

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 22, 2021
Messages
2,609
Likes
4,861
Location
England
^^^^ And here we see yet again the naive overreach concerning the reliability of our senses and perception.

It's similar to leaping from studies showing we experience optical illusions to "therefore our sense of sight is wholly illusory and unreliable."

And yet, we manage to find our way out the front door whenever we want. And navigate the world mostly successfully using our sight and other senses.

.
Lots of people are run down by motor vehicles every day because their senses- both sight and hearing - failed to alert them to the presence of such.
How often have you tripped over something or bashed into something that was in plain view but which you didn't 'see'?

We mostly navigate the world successfully, until we don't.

Sometimes are impressions are correct sometimes they aren't. The level of failure is enough that they cannot be considered reliable. Look how many people think a power cable changes the sound. 'My friend heard it too' is not any use as evidence. Neither is 'All those thousands of people who hear a difference can't be wrong.' Yes they can!
 
Last edited:

killdozzer

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Messages
1,615
Likes
1,628
Location
Zagreb
Inconsistencies in your audio system sound is more than just mental instability :)

Humidity and temp will affect some loudspeakers more than others and check if you have any noise in your current setup, you need to tend to it ..

audible back ground noises at wide open gain can be helped with a proper grounding scheme between units and will go along way in consistency of sound reproduced ..



Regards
I'll be first to admit in no way would I hear a difference in my system when played on a sunny day or on a rainy day. That's waaaay beyond me. Although I did a detailed test of my hearing and the doc was amazed. He teased me asking if I live under a glass dome like Michael Jackson. He said I hear like 14yo.
 

DSJR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 27, 2020
Messages
3,314
Likes
4,427
Location
Suffolk Coastal, UK
I changed one old (but good?) power amp for another similar the other day and the 'difference on the day' was huge - all my lost 'sibilance and presence' came back and I was thrilled but totally stumped as to how two basically good amps of similar power levels could be that different! A few days later, I ran this system again and it sounded just like it did with the previous power amp (well, maybe very slightly livelier and I believe for measurable reasons). Knowing how my ears are these days (acute Rhinitis and ear infections in my pre-Diabetic days have taken their toll nd they vary hugely), I suspect it was on a good-ear day I changed the amps over (my next speakers will have to be slightly assertive in the lower kHz region and with smooth dispersion too at these frequencies rather than recessed I feel, as my current boxes are).

I visited my dealer friend to help with some turntable work a couple of weeks back and once again had the pleasure of being in the company of some current Luxman amps. Even the cheap one (a mere £3800 or so) has a fit, class and 'feel' that is so luxurious it gladdens this enthusiast heart that's still there inside somewhere. He has an ancient Accuphase 202 integrated nearby and that feels like a tractor in comparison (switches engage with a precise clickety clack). The experience reminded me of the Yamaha 400/600/800/1000 amps we sold in the mid 70's (I owned a CA1000Mk2 for a while) where the tab switches had a glorious silky delicate feel lost in the replacement 410, 610 and so on models with less elegant and chunkier looking switchgear. I kind of went the opposite after owning a perfectly reasonable if very expensive ARC preamp (one of the FET ones) and going to something half the price and just as good (in my system then). Looking back three decades on, I do miss the 'luxury look and feel' of high end gear, but as I'll never be in a position to own such stuff now unless it's old, maybe outclassed and potentially unreliable (old stuff still costs as much to service as new versions), it's a moot point.

I think today that the gear-loving part of this industry and hobby deals with ALL our senses working together. It's just that subjectivists may not realise this perhaps and put it all down to their hearing acuity alone and that I think is where the issues may lie.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,448
Likes
4,211
It seems to me I'll have to read what Newman said in order to understand what prompted your response. Without that, you still look like you're getting lost on those slippery slopes of yours. I'm having a hard time imagining that Newman said if one greets you with "Good day, sir", that you jump right at him and ask if he did a DBT on whether the day is indeed good.

Yeah, all I said is the two posts you already ‘liked’ on the previous page. That’s it.

Not sure if you are aware, but the guy you are trying to reason with has a bit of history and belongs in the Audio Science Denier column, and that is why he will so grossly misrepresent what I say that you are left wondering where my words are written: you have actually already read and liked them, but you can’t even recognise them, based on his misrepresentation.

You may have missed the other thread with his novel-length dissertations in defence of the Poetic Subjective Reviewers, of the Stereophile/Herb Reichert ilk, and their reviews of speakers yes, but also amps with immaculate measurements, and even power cables etc, all described with the same vocabulary, all clearly ascribed to the sound waves, with no grasp of the science of human perception. Defending their subjective reviews is no problem for MH. He can argue a rock into dust with sheer volume of air expelled. He mistakes logic for truth (“Me and my mates can ‘hear’ the same things Reichert writes about, hence they must be in the sound waves” - you get the idea). And he mistakes audio reproduction (an error reduction process) and production (a creative process) as having the same role for subjective listening. Hence he sees my words, about uncontrolled subjective listening not being a basis for assessing the sound waves coming out of playback gear, he sees as a threat to his use of subjective listening in his work in a production environment.

I just thought I would clear up for you the confusion that he is creating in your mind about me, and why he did that, and why it will continue. He has ‘skin in the game’.

cheers
 

killdozzer

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Messages
1,615
Likes
1,628
Location
Zagreb
Yeah, all I said is the two posts you already ‘liked’ on the previous page. That’s it.

Not sure if you are aware, but the guy you are trying to reason with has a bit of history and belongs in the Audio Science Denier column, and that is why he will so grossly misrepresent what I say that you are left wondering where my words are written: you have actually already read and liked them, but you can’t even recognise them, based on his misrepresentation.

You may have missed the other thread with his novel-length dissertations in defence of the Poetic Subjective Reviewers, of the Stereophile/Herb Reichert ilk, and their reviews of speakers yes, but also amps with immaculate measurements, and even power cables etc, all described with the same vocabulary, all clearly ascribed to the sound waves, with no grasp of the science of human perception. Defending their subjective reviews is no problem for MH. He can argue a rock into dust with sheer volume of air expelled. He mistakes logic for truth (“Me and my mates can ‘hear’ the same things Reichert writes about, hence they must be in the sound waves” - you get the idea). And he mistakes audio reproduction (an error reduction process) and production (a creative process) as having the same role for subjective listening. Hence he sees my words, about uncontrolled subjective listening not being a basis for assessing the sound waves coming out of playback gear, he sees as a threat to his use of subjective listening in his work in a production environment.

I just thought I would clear up for you the confusion that he is creating in your mind about me, and why he did that, and why it will continue. He has ‘skin in the game’.

cheers
@MattHooper I must say i don't see anything wrong with what Newman writes. I read it and gave it some thought. I was going to come here with my morning coffee and write that same exact thing, but Newman chimed in. Regardless, I didn't get the feeling that Newman doesn't let the opinions flow freely, it's just that when opinions come to test, you'll have a hard time finding a better scrutiny to put it under than what was already agreed upon. But as I say, it's only when you want to firmly establish the cause, the roots of things. It is not supposed to get in anyone's way of free interpretations.

OTOH, if it's true you support what we jokingly call pink prose, I can't subscribe to that. I think it is a con, it's cheating and fooling people and it's not what I approve of.
 

antcollinet

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 4, 2021
Messages
7,409
Likes
12,294
Location
UK/Cheshire
Yeah, all I said is the two posts you already ‘liked’ on the previous page. That’s it.

Not sure if you are aware, but the guy you are trying to reason with has a bit of history and belongs in the Audio Science Denier column, and that is why he will so grossly misrepresent what I say that you are left wondering where my words are written: you have actually already read and liked them, but you can’t even recognise them, based on his misrepresentation.

You may have missed the other thread with his novel-length dissertations in defence of the Poetic Subjective Reviewers, of the Stereophile/Herb Reichert ilk, and their reviews of speakers yes, but also amps with immaculate measurements, and even power cables etc, all described with the same vocabulary, all clearly ascribed to the sound waves, with no grasp of the science of human perception. Defending their subjective reviews is no problem for MH. He can argue a rock into dust with sheer volume of air expelled. He mistakes logic for truth (“Me and my mates can ‘hear’ the same things Reichert writes about, hence they must be in the sound waves” - you get the idea). And he mistakes audio reproduction (an error reduction process) and production (a creative process) as having the same role for subjective listening. Hence he sees my words, about uncontrolled subjective listening not being a basis for assessing the sound waves coming out of playback gear, he sees as a threat to his use of subjective listening in his work in a production environment.

I just thought I would clear up for you the confusion that he is creating in your mind about me, and why he did that, and why it will continue. He has ‘skin in the game’.

cheers

You are the guy making personal attacks here ("science denier", "grossly misrepresent"). This is the opposite of the scientific method, and not what I come here to see. Attack the argument, not the man. It's much harder by the way - you actually have to engage brain and understand the opposing viewpoint.

There is nothing inherently unscientific in what @MattHooper wrote.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,448
Likes
4,211
He attacked me. You got that back to front. Don’t lay into the guy who defends himself against being called “naive”, “Philosophy 101 Student Phenomenon”, “besotted” (with science), “incoherent”, “bogus reasoning”….
….and all because I said something absolutely demonstrable and demonstrated, that “sighted comparison listening is not any kind of pathway to discovery about the sound waves from music playback gear”.
 

Spkrdctr

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 22, 2021
Messages
2,212
Likes
2,934
Lots of people are run down by motor vehicles every day because their senses- both sight and hearing - failed to alert them to the presence of such.
How often have you tripped over something or bashed into something that was in plain view but which you didn't 'see'?

We mostly navigate the world successfully, until we don't.

Sometimes are impressions are correct sometimes they aren't. The level of failure is enough that they cannot be considered reliable. Look how many people think a power cable changes the sound. 'My friend heard it too' is not any use as evidence. Neither is 'All those thousands of people who hear a difference can't be wrong.' Yes they can!

That is why you never trust the wire review UNLESS your wife can hear the difference from the kitchen while the dishwasher is running and she is busy cooking. Then you can take it to the bank! :)
 

Spkrdctr

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 22, 2021
Messages
2,212
Likes
2,934
I could wade into this with long posts trying to explain the hearing vs vision and other items brought up. But I will save you all that reading. What Matt is saying does apply when listening to a transistor radio from the 70s vs a full blown high end Revel sound system. Yes, anyone can tell a difference. But, when it gets much tougher to tell any difference, that is when you have to measure. That is when your brain takes over and changes the sound to what it wants it to be. Others have responded and brought up many good points. I will let this sleeping dog continue sleeping!
 

Spocko

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
1,621
Likes
2,999
Location
Southern California
The biggest shortcoming of subjective review is how adjectives describing tonal quality lacks any usable "degree". Let's take food reviews as an example because these are always purely subjective without measurements. When I say a food is "spicy, sweet, salty or too hot", the reader has zero context. What if I love spicy food and when something is "too spicy" for me that may also mean that if I think it's "just right" it could be too spicy for you. Alternatively, I cannot stand eating food that is a touch too sweet so when I complain that a drink is "too sweet", I know for certain my daughter would respond "no, it's perfect!" and so forth. Now on to sound - my wife and son cannot stand the sound of metal knives and forks scratching the surface of a ceramic dish as it literally sends shivers up their spines whereas I can hear it but am not bothered by it at all. So you see where I'm going here - the problem of subjective reviews is twofold:

(1) A "review" by its nature suggests that their subjective impressions are somehow universally applicable when in fact it's merely stating the reviewer's personal eccentricities, tastes preferences or biases, and even if the subjective impressions are a useful guide, the very words used to describe the subjectivity lacks any standard of measure; when a reviewer says there's an annoying bit of sibilance, we have no context of whether he's hyper sensitive to sibilance or not, and maybe 20 years ago he was hypersensitive but today he can no longer notice it unless it's punched up by 6dB! Many reviewers have been in this game for 20 years - have their hearing changed at all over the years? Absolutely - age, experience, injury - life happens.

(2) What if the reviewer chooses the wrong music and does not catch issues in the speaker simply because his musical selection does not bring out those flaws? We have Stereophile reviews where subjective speaker reviews are followed by JA's measurements and the two are not consistent - in this most recent Stereophile review of the Alumine Three, Herb Reichert's glowing love for this speaker is at odds with John Atkinson's measurements (audible resonance near 1kHz):

HR: "the almost fullrange Alumine Threes made this type of music play bigger, more distinctly, more open, easier to follow, and more interesting than it did with my Falcons or DeVores…delivered a bigger "sound" fueled by more undistorted volume, more unrestrained dynamics, more absolute clarity, and of course, more and deeper and less distorted bass...I never imagined how much previously undelivered recorded information the Stenheim Alumine Threes would bring into my room. Or how powerful and compelling this newly discovered information would be."

JA: I was puzzled by the resonant peak in the port's output and by the small peak/dip just above 1kHz, but to be fair, any audible consequences of these resonances will depend on the music being played. [emphasis added]


And so ultimately, subjective reviews are limited to the reviewer not knowing what music to play in order to bring out the best or worst in a speaker and if you the prospective consumer happen to play the wrong music, well, don't blame the reviewer because he didn't catch it with his selection of esoteric audiophile review music.
 

sq225917

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 23, 2019
Messages
1,360
Likes
1,610
Reviews are just entertainment, nothing more or less. On the odd case where one has built up years of reading reviews by a journalist and you have some shared experience of the devices they review its possible to build up an understanding of how they use language, and thusly their meaning and intent. All based on them not being a schill for hire or a rabid fantasist of course.

Mostly it's just flowery writing meant to stimulate your 'want' glands.
 
Last edited:

Spkrdctr

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 22, 2021
Messages
2,212
Likes
2,934
Reviews are just entertainment, nothing more or less. On the odd case where one has built up years of reading reviews by a journalist and you have some shared experience of the devices they review its possible to build up an understanding of how they use language, and thusly their meaning and intent. All based on them not being a schill for hire or a rabid fantasist of course.

Mostly it's just flowery writing meant to stipulate your 'want' glands.
Great summary!
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,197
Likes
11,813
Not sure if you are aware, but the guy you are trying to reason with has a bit of history and belongs in the Audio Science Denier column,


Pure unadulterated bullshit.

Try backing that up.

Show me once...even ONCE...where I have actually "denied science" in a post.

And do it without misunderstanding, misrepresenting or strawmanning what I wrote.
 
Top Bottom