Reviewers should have their hearing tested and post results

[TankTop]

As the title says, reviewers should have their hearing tested and post the results annually.

I saw this posted elsewhere, but thought it might be a good thread for a good chuckle. Since we are on ASR and AMIRM states that he is trained in critical listening maybe he should volunteer to be the first of many. Not trying to accuse him of anything, but he does post subjective listening tests for many speakers and headphones (along with measurements) why not subject himself first and ask others to follow suit?

 

[Moderate Dionysianism]

1. Measurements are always the core of each review, the subjective part carries much less importance here on ASR. I usually only glance at Amir's impressions. When it comes to reviewing electronics, I take a half-deaf competent engineer over an esoteric with perfect hearing any day.
   
   
2. Describe the 'hearing test' you'd like to see. Regarding Amir, I've only seen info that he's a trained listener (as in able to pick up specific artifacts representing sonic phenomena), not that he has perfect hearing in medical or musical sense. These are all very different things, with different degrees of usefulness in reviewing audio equipment.

 

[Purité Audio]

‘Reviewers’ ( not Amir) don’t need decent hearing because they trot out the same platitudes in every review, inky black, trickle down, more live more analogue, etc etc.
Decent hearing acuity might actually be a disadvantage for them.
Keith

 

[VintageFlanker]

As the title says, reviewers should have their hearing tested and post the results annually.

What about regular audio buyers ?

Not sure that would be any kind of relevant, anyway. AFAIC, I do not refer to subjective impressions from others. And I mean, from anybody (no offense, boss ).

I'm here for objective data and analysis, that I could mix with my own subjective preferences and experience. That's enough for me.

 

[bodhi]

Things that will never ever happen. The results would make most of the subjectivist claims seem even more questionable.

 

[Vincent Kars]

As they do sighted tests, better test there eyes....

 

[SSS]

Since most tests state that the sound is beautiful and super perfect I don't give a dime on this kind of results. Serious measurements will tell me more about a product. And, if I want to buy, I must listen myself to the product sound. But this is hard because of the room influence where the product is demonstrated. Luckily due to streaming services the demonstration can be done with music I like and own and be used to it.

 

[Joffy1780]

These reviews remind me of commercials for washing powder. They were getting whites 'whiter than white' back in the 1980s (and before I was born, I'd assume) and they have been getting 'whiter' ever since.
'This £5,000 R2R DAC has a dead silent (white) background, just a little bit noisier than our reference £15,000 DAC which is actually dead silent (whiter than white).'

 

[JSmith]

hearing tested

Let's keep in mind most musical content falls below 10 kHz, excepting harmonics and overtones.


JSmith

 

[Purité Audio]

These reviews remind me of commercials for washing powder. They were getting whites 'whiter than white' back in the 1980s (and before I was born, I'd assume) and they have been getting 'whiter' ever since.
'This £5,000 R2R DAC has a dead silent (white) background, just a little bit noisier than our reference £15,000 DAC which is actually dead silent (whiter than white).'

I think you will find the £5k R2R dac will have unsurpassed musicality, holographic soundstage and will allow you to grope Patricia Barbour’s thigh.
Keith

 

[Joffy1780]

I think you will find the £5k R2R dac will have unsurpassed musicality, holographic soundstage and will allow you to grope Patricia Barbour’s thigh.
Keith

But the £15k DAC has a little more authority!

 

[Purité Audio]

Yes that dial is in between ‘air’ and ‘perceptual accurcy’

 

[Talisman]

I'm confused, but I realized I want a white DAC now

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

I would have thought that knowing a reviewer’s auditory acuity would be of almost no use in ameliorating the biggest issue with sighted reviews - sighted bias.

Sighted reviews are opinion pieces. The reviewer is entitled to their opinion regardless of how good their ears are.

 

[Mr Swing King]

Perhaps…but I would strongly advise anyone to steer clear of ‘listening training’ or whatever you want to call it.
I so regret having my producer friend help me out in understanding and hearing some of the problems he some times come across in his work. Well…once you hear it, you can’t turn it off…and who wants to spend the rest of their lives with an incessant sound connoisseur in their brain - always complaining about minuscule stuff that nobody ever hears unless someone is foolish enough to point it out.
In some cases, ignorance is bliss….unless you work with sound professionally.

 

[Basic Channel]

I think subjective reviews could be improved by using more concrete and less abstract language. The problem for a lot of equipment is that the differences are so small it’s probably difficult to hear never mind describe in clear terms.

Similar for music reviews the reviewer who says it’s “like a collab between x and y” is far more useful than the one that says “the hi hats sound like interplanetary war”.

 

[Purité Audio]

That would mean that the reviewer would have to have at least some technical knowledge.
Keith

 

[Multicore]

Objective testing of reviewers so that our choice of reviewers can be more scientifically informed. Sounds good. No wait, ... the other thing.

 

[Booker]

As the title says, reviewers should have their hearing tested and post the results annually.

Some of them should also take a polygraph test.

 

[Pareto Pragmatic]

Pick the worst "subjective" reviewer you can think of. If you found out they actually had perfect hearing from a test given by an audiologist, would that change your opinion of what they have said about products?