A Fellow Skeptic of Subjective Reviews?

[MattHooper]

I put him on my ignore list a couple of weeks ago. My life is better now.

My goodness I had no idea I was affecting this person’s life so badly.

Weird stuff.

But by all means anybody who cannot find anything but snark to say about me… please put me on your ignore list. Best they don’t interact if it risks adding more assholery in the forum.

 

[amirm]

No, the measurements matter Doug has said so, explained why, and that’s why they supply measurements.

You just said that he ignores measurements when writing a review. Therefore, the measurements could be anything but would not impact his opinion of the speaker. It doesn't get more clear than this that the man only provides measurements as a checklist item, likely because Stereophile posts them.

It doesn't any more clear than this.

 

[amirm]

If that were the case, then soundstage would have ended up like positive feedback, magazine, and all the other rags that don’t supply measurements. As long as I’ve known him, Doug has gone on about measurements mattering.

As I said, he talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. He somehow thinks this is a necessary evil to have. Naturally, his typical subjectivist reviewers complain about him posting measurements so he defends the expense. That is all. He doesn't believe measurements provide any useful information or he would be incorporating them in the review, post listening tests. If he had a boss over him, the measurements would have been deleted long time ago.

 

[amirm]

So that the reader, who cares about measurements, can look at the measurements to see how they correspond with the subjective impressions of the reviewer.

First, Doug says hardly one is qualified to read and interpret the measurements, let alone a poor audiophile. Second, why would he assume a reader is interested in measurements when he himself is not when evaluating a speaker?

What you suggest works in Stereophile because the subjectivists reviewers there could care less about measurements. To the extent Doug is doing the same, then he is in the same camp of measurements being without value. Only sighted, listening tests of loaned gear in an advertising ladened magazine matter. This again, is the opposite of what objectivity is about. Don't care how many videos he produces saying measurements matter. They don't in his book.

 

[amirm]

Similar to the type of analysis you’ve made for various speakers. You don’t put much emphasis on subjective impressions so you don’t spend a lot of time on that. But there are plenty of audiophiles who do value the subjective impression portion of reviews, and that includes Doug, and that’s why they provide in depth informal subjective impressions as well as measurements when they can.

I have far bigger leg in the subjective side of speaker testing then he remotely has in objective measurements. I take listening tests seriously, creating EQ and even performing blind tests with them. I use them to also find the limits of playback level/distortion. I use a strict protocol of always using the same tracks and for the same reason. He on the other hand, performs random subjectivist tests with no foundation to back any form of reliability. And of course, totally ignores measurements in his reviews.

So please don't put us in the same book. We have nothing to do with each other. He is a claimed vegetation that eats steak every night....

 

[pablolie]

In other words, measurements have zero value when it comes to reviewing a speaker!

My own thought is that measurements are most needed with speakers. They are the most "organic" element in a chain, given it's not only how they project, but also how they interact.

Electronics have reached a level of sophistication that at a certain price point there is no excuse for not measuring cimpetently- at the very least.

 

[raif71]

"What you know, you can't explain, but you feel it. You've felt it your entire life, that there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad." - The Matrix

 

[wadude]

No doubt, and phono cartridges and microphones fall into that realm as well.

 

[JSmith]

He has been adamant that the reviewer is not cognizant of the measurements - those happen after the review when the speakers are sent to the NRC

I can't help but call BS on that claim... like there is some kind of high morals there that prevent any edit to the commentary after the measurements come back and never look at the measurements before making an article edit. Then often running with commentary that doesn't fit with the measurements, reeks of placing no importance in them.


JSmith

 

[olds1959special]

subjective reviews are better if they also contain objective information.

 

[xanalog]

I like this exchange, after a review of an audio product:

@Ddddd65 >> I always get a kick out of reading comments that disparage a product that the person commenting has likely never used while inserting their brand loyalty in that same comment....
Don't you?

Civil?

@Eeee55555 >> I do , or I wouldn't have made it.
I also get a kick out of reading comments in response to said comments that have to insert their own defense of a product they likely own and can't take the fully justified criticism.

Civil?

 

[DVinylfan]

Respectfully, notwithstanding that I dig this Doug thread, it should probably now be closed.
The bro isn't here to defend himself.
Take care of yourselves out there..aand each other.

 

[kyuu]

The bro isn't here to defend himself.

And?

 

[Multicore]

You dominate the discussion.

Hard to accomplish without the participation of an audience. Most prophets will try something different or give up when it's obvious nobody is paying attention. My own interaction ended in 2022 when I was convinced of bad faith: the argument from authority, flooding, insisting on last word...

 

[Sal1950]

Respectfully, notwithstanding that I dig this Doug thread, it should probably now be closed.
The bro isn't here to defend himself.
Take care of yourselves out there..aand each other.

He was and choose to leave.

 

[MattHooper]

I can't help but call BS on that claim... like there is some kind of high morals there that prevent any edit to the commentary after the measurements come back and never look at the measurements before making an article edit. Then often running with commentary that doesn't fit with the measurements, reeks of placing no importance in them.

You can call BS all you want and have any opinion you want… but what have you provided beyond cynicism? No actual evidence as far as I can see.

I’ve been friends with a soundstage reviewer who has been with soundstage since almost the beginning. I am very familiar with his reviewing process, and I can tell you that…no… he does not know the measurements during the subjective review portion.*. He reviews the loudspeakers and then if they’re going to be measured, they are shipped to the NRC afterwards. He writes his reviews without knowing the measurements.
And since I often hear the equipment myself at his house and he is often telling me what he thinks of the speakers as he’s going through the review process, I have found that his final output reflects just what he was telling me and do not show signs of any of the editorial shenanigans you were suggesting.

Of course, you can ignore the evidence of my testimony and say “ well you could be lying too”… but how far you want to run that conspiracy theory is up to you I guess.

*(with rare exceptions, such as the exception of a loudspeaker a while ago that he was having a lot of trouble with, and which were measured as part of solving the issue)

 

[MattHooper]

Hard to accomplish without the participation of an audience. Most prophets will try something different or give up when it's obvious nobody is paying attention. My own interaction ended in 2022 when I was convinced of bad faith: the argument from authority, flooding, insisting on last word...

I think this comment highlights that people tend to be pretty poor at inferring (and ascribing) the intentions of those they disagree with. We can be quick to assign the lowest of motivations to the person on the other side of the issue.

For me, it’s almost the theme of this thread.

 

[Curvature]

I think this comment highlights that people tend to be pretty poor at inferring (and ascribing) the intentions of those they disagree with. We can be quick to assign the lowest of motivations to the person on the other side of the issue.

For me, it’s almost the theme of this thread.

You seem to want to avoid seeing the contradictions in Schneider's personality and how he presents his opinions. Since his account was deleted, it is hard to find his posts, but I did not see even once that he engaged seriously with anyone by referring to the measured data. He would either ignore or always answer vaguely ("philosophically") and refer to his personal listening experience.

 

[amirm]

He reviews the loudspeakers and then if they’re going to be measured, they are shipped to the NRC afterwards. He writes his reviews without knowing the measurements.

Once again proving what I said about him. That he puts no value on measurements when it comes to performance of speakers. They are mere window dressing for the site.

 

[thewas]

And since I often hear the equipment myself at his house and he is often telling me what he thinks of the speakers as he’s going through the review process, I have found that his final output reflects just what he was telling me and do not show signs of any of the editorial shenanigans you were suggesting.

I don't think the descriptions of the positive sides of reviewed devices are made up and not correlating to the experiences of the reviewers add other listeners, the issue is that usually the negatives are toned down a lot of phrased in some elegant "code". This is less an issue when well engineered devices are reviewed but a significant one in the other case.