Subjective impressions are just that: impressions. They are not data. Data are numerical facts used in the calculation of mathematical problems.
Are you certain this is correct?
I always thought data was really just a piece of information.
Especially as it relates to statistics, which uses what it gathers(data) to subject to analysis and (hopefully) generate an expression of probability.
Data also relates to philosophy and just generally to quality of conversation as well, as in giving someone enough information to drive to your house without getting lost. It doesn't have to be mathematical, as I understand it.
Anyway data is still data even if the quality is low. One just has to know that as such and state it clearly. 'This is low quality data', 'this is high quality data', ect.
If I say these were my sighted impressions that can be easily be translated into multiple data points for multiple purposes.
Sighted testing for most people creates issues by adding
known complexity and
known interferences, not because it is not 'data'. I emphasize known, as it takes some time (often much time)to asses issues and hone the process so that data is affected by less distraction, noise and outright issues.
It took some time and effort and now with speakers and audio equipment it has been shown that double blind(and regular blind) testing creates more reliable data, in some cases much more reliable. It should be noted that in some cases the specific pieces of data should be and will be outliers and will not be best understood when grouped but rather best understood in isolation. Some examples --- there will be listeners who are unbiased and neutral enough that sighted or blind the results are the same, even if very few, even if rare @1/100,000. There will also be listeners who are so inconsistent that sighted or blind that data has no value at all, (and actually from my understanding this extra inconsistency issue has been found to be fairly common.)
In any case most of what happens really is all data that informs. But where you draw the line on the 'quality', of it is certainly important.
I ask my girlfriends son 'did you wash you hands'. He answers yes. Now mind you I know the water was running for maybe 2 seconds. I say wash them again, use plenty of soap and count to 15 slowly. Two different opinions of the quality required for one to objectively say that kid washed his hands. To find out if my version of his hand washing is meaningfully better than his would take some real work, and most certainly context. Are we taking about averaging out all handwashing one does over the course of a year, or are we taking about unique washing after getting lots of drying paint or mud all over them or maybe just washing a splash of apple juice off a finger tip.
With these Audio gear
impressions, I personally enjoy them as part of the ASR content canon.
As a hobbyist ultimately looking to enjoy myself, I want to talk with folks about experiences we have, not just what our microphones generate. I think it is understood here by a great many that our general sighted impressions are flawed in the context of ultimate accuracy. I think many find they are not flawed in context of ultimate enjoyment. I see zero point in accurate audio reproduction without joy on the journey.
That said I do take note of whether the poster seems to be generally science and reason forward vs maybe someone getting hyped at the '4db of added 20hrz bass their new Audioquest power cable & riser set added to their 4" full-range drivers.
