Subjective Reviews

[Xmech team]

Hey guys, something has been bothering me. Since subjective reviewers keep ignoring measurements, why don't they buy studio monitors and use them as a reference point to their preferences? For example, how about one buys something like Yamaha HS5 for $250 and see whether he or she likes it? Through such a speaker, he or she will know whether their favourite brands are colouring sound or not. Then they should admit this to their viewers/ be ethical about it.

I am asking this since I don't think studios use Klipsch or SVS to mix their content, and if you're not judging the content as it is supposed to be, then you're kind of lying to the audience in the "speaker review." Everyone should enjoy their speakers rather than care too much about the measurements, but as a reviewer you have a responsibility to disclose what a speaker is doing to the original content.

Am I wrong?

 

[Purité Audio]

Years ago, a fine measuring loudspeaker was kept as a ‘reference’ against which others were judged, seems like a good idea.
Keith

 

[storing]

You're not really wrong, but you left out the room coloring the sound so the solution of just buying studio monitors and using that as an authoritative reference is still not ideal in my opinion.

 

[Xmech team]

left out the room coloring the sound

Considering that the reviewer will listen to studio monitors near field and the fact that room affects bass frequencies, I don't see much issue with that. Maybe experts can elaborate further.

 

[storing]

the reviewer will listen to studio monitors near field

That's an assumption though. Well, I assume

 

[Xmech team]

That's an assumption though. Well, I assume

Most studio monitors are meant for near field listening, I believe it's because they are limited by power? Unless the reviewer also doesn't know about this too.

 

[Frgirard]

Most studio monitors are meant for near field listening, I believe it's because they are limited by power? Unless the reviewer also doesn't know about this too.

Directivity: A paper, a pencil and draw with different angles, different distances the interaction between the listener (moving along his console) and the speakers.

 

[aac]

Most studio monitors are meant for near field listening, I believe it's because they are limited by power? Unless the reviewer also doesn't know about this too.

Studios have very different (usually much bigger) demand for power compared to home use. There are monitors for every distance, however the larger the more expensive, so certainly they are not bought in the same quantities.

 

[MNMLSM]

I think your idea is not that bad but the Yamahas wouldn't be the best "reference". They have boosted mids and the bass is almost nonexistent. You can find a review and measurements in the speaker section.

 

[Xmech team]

I think your idea is not that bad but the Yamahas wouldn't be the best "reference". They have boosted mids and the bass is almost nonexistent. You can find a review and measurements in the speaker section.

The Yamaha was an example. My point was about getting a good studio monitor to judge other speakers against. Many subjective reviewers say we don't listen to measurements, but how sure are they that they are judging speakers using the correct content? They will do anything to get the "best" sound from their uncompressed albums, but how will they know what the "best" sounds like without a neutral reference point? How can you even appreciate a good album mastering with a speaker that colours it?

It's a win-win for any subjective reviewer by the way. It makes it easier to review gear and be as neutral as possible to all audience.

 

[Mart68]

I see what you're getting at. I doubt it is still the case but in days gone by some speaker companies would use the QUAD ESL as a reference for subjective listening.

But the point of subjective reviews is they are by subjectivists for subjectivists. Neither reader nor writer cares about neutrality or accuracy. Can the speaker convey the 'emotion' of the performance? That's what it's all about now (and has been for some time in fact).

 

[Xmech team]

for subjectivists

In most cases their audience don't even know the reviewer is a subjectivist. They will never know until, maybe by a miracle, someone educates them about acoustics etc. Most people I have met don't want to start reading graphs and just need a good speaker. Sadly, "good" is what a popular reviewer recommends. In short, subjective audience are victims of constant "brainwashing." If the reviewer knows the truth and keeps ignoring it, then he is intentionally misleading millions into bad decisions.

 

[Ultrasonic]

Subjective reviews usually do include comparisons to other models, and if these are models that the readers are more likely to be familiar with than a studio monitor then this seems to be me to be the most useful approach to take.

Also, studio monitors don't all sound the same anyway .

 

[Xmech team]

studio monitors don't all sound the same anyway

Could you please elaborate this? (using some of studio monitors that are in the review section as examples).

comparisons to other models

If the reviewers don't have the model at hand, I doubt they can remember accurately how it sounds.

As a speaker reviewer I think it is good to invest in something neutral that can validate your assessment. You don't need to measure a review speaker, but at least you can use a good monitor as a reference point when explaining how the review unit is handling the content.

 

[abdo123]

It would be great to have a Neumann KH80 crossed with KH750 as the "Reference" for near-field / small speakers.

As for bigger speakers I can't think of one speaker that would act as a Reference, too many different design philosophies.

 

[Mart68]

In most cases their audience don't even know the reviewer is a subjectivist. They will never know until, maybe by a miracle, someone educates them about acoustics etc. Most people I have met don't want to start reading graphs and just need a good speaker. Sadly, "good" is what a popular reviewer recommends. In short, subjective audience are victims of constant "brainwashing." If the reviewer knows the truth and keeps ignoring it, then he is intentionally misleading millions into bad decisions.

Subjective audience are victims of being too idle or stubborn to learn what measurements mean and why they are important to good sound quality. if they're being misled they've only got themselves to blame. It's not the reviewer's fault, or the salesman's, they're just doing the job they are paid for.

I think mostly they will audition the speaker and if they like what they hear they buy it. If not they don't. At best the subjective review lets them know the speaker exists and put it on their shortlist.

 

[Ultrasonic]

Could you please elaborate this? (using some of studio monitors that are in the review section as examples).

Find me two studio monitors with identical measured performance... I'm sure you don't really think all studio monitors do sound the same, or everyone would just be using the cheapest ones.

If the reviewers don't have the model at hand, I doubt they can remember accurately how it sounds.

Agreed.

 

[Xmech team]

I'm sure you don't really think all studio monitors do sound the same, or everyone would just be using the cheapest ones.

I would categorise this as a fallacy, maybe appeal to popularity or hasty generalization, I don't know which. I asked you to elaborate how studio monitors that measure neutral sound different, then you say "because everyone would be using the cheapest." That's not how you support your argument. You're trying to steer us back to subjective views about speakers.

I expected you to have an experience with objectively neutral speakers, especially those that have been tested in the review section. You should be the one to find the speakers that measure neutral and sound different, then make your case on what I asked. Really?

 

[Ultrasonic]

I would categorise this as a fallacy, maybe appeal to popularity or hasty generalization, I don't know which. I asked you to elaborate how studio monitors that measure neutral sound different, then you say "because everyone would be using the cheapest." That's not how you support your argument. You're trying to steer us back to subjective views about speakers.

No, I was specifically doing the opposite of the point in bold. I stated a simple fact and was avoiding getting into a subjective discussion about how studio monitor speakers sound different.

 

[ahofer]

The purpose of subjective audio equipment reviews is to get readers excited about the potential expensive upgrades that they might not be considering. Put another way, reviews are intended to be symbiotic with the advertising to keep fans on the treadmill, reading the magazine and buying new stuff. This is accomplished by establishing the idea that reviewers have "Golden Ears" and can hear things that the rest of us can't. WIth this credibility (ha!) established, they move on to the business of magnifying small differences into big ones, or inventing differences altogether, and reinforcing the correlation of price with sound quality. That shiny, overpriced shit on the ad pages really can 'lift veils' and 'reveal whole new levels of detail' (causing your wife to run in from the kitchen etc. etc. - poor woman)

Using tools, controls, and neutral reference points weakens the Golden Ears appearance and runs counter to the project. Similarly, nobody in that world wants any audio problems to be solved, for the same reason.

I'm sure the reviewers notice lots of details, but the Golden Ears part is absolutely the Emperor's New Clothes. The whole enterprise exists to rationalize what everyone wanted to do anyway, which is buy lots of fancy-seeming equipment.