I completely agree with pretty much everything you said, but have you ventured over to the the Munich Hi Fi Show thread here. It’s smack full of listening impressions. A serious buyer not at the show asked if they could go to the Speaker booth X (highly regarded brand here based on measurements, etc.) and compare two of the speakers. People at the show gave their thoughts on how things sounded, some unsolicited, some only when asked.
Everything flys out the window measurement and objectivity wise.
Audio magazines have been publishing measurements since the 50s, then quite heavily in 70s all the way up until the 90s, with one still doing them but not ever saying, better start over on this one.
Dispute a general audience here, presumably, being about measurements and objectivity, it shifts to “what did you think” in an instant.
Subjective opinions about cars, audio, boats, music (and its subparts), airplanes, wine, bourbon, cigars, movies, and everything else is never going to go away. There is a market for it and people will continue to patronize those opinions. Too much money to be made on YouTube and other outlets for it not to.
You missed something I wrote yesterday, perhaps in that post. I don't mind purely observational reviews, and even respect them when they come from people whose opinions have stood the test of time with me. I also read newspapers (or, at least, I used to back when there were such) and read both in the news section and on the editorial page. For me, an editorial opinion in a news article is bad form, but it is expected and appropriate on the op-ed page. The columnists writing for the op-ed page seek to persuade, and their use of fact and logic will dictate how well they persuade
me. Also, the reliability of their past observations. Reports on the news page should be reporting verified fact. To the extent that reporters editorialize and report unverified hearsay as fact without acknowledging it, my willingness to believe anything they say is undermined. How does that translate? When Amir writes a review, he backs up his impressions (which are editorial) with measurements and data (fact). I trust his facts because he has established a trustworthy reputation. And I separately value his opinions because the stuff he has recommended has performed well for others and is consistent with the measured data.
Similarly, I valued Kal's opinions of the speakers I bought, but to an even greater extent valued the test results from testing done in the Canadian NRC anechoic chamber.
When experienced people report their observations from a show, I don't take that as a recommendation, "you should buy this" or even "this is excellent" even if that's what they write. I take it as "this impressed me because of..." and what follows gives me an idea of whether it will fit my own use cases. That observation still has to be coupled to measurements that verify the specific features of value to me. Going back to my speaker choice: The measurements in the anechoic chamber specifically noted the ability of my speakers to remain clean at very high listening levels (at least for anything I can afford or that would fit in my house), and I do have one use case that demands high listening levels. (I sometimes want to play along with an orchestra recording, and be able to hear the orchestra over the tuba without having to hold back on the tuba. This requires playing the recording at stage sound pressure levels.)
This is especially true for speakers, whose performance is so closely linked to 1.) their interaction with a room over which their makers have no control, and 2.) their tendency to compress or break up when driven to boundary extremes. Also, most speakers, particularly in low frequencies, exhibit distortion that is most assuredly in the audible range, particularly at elevated levels. Distortion levels of 5-10% are not uncommon at all even at normal listening levels, and even with respected speakers. Turns out the transducer that vibrates the air in the room may not be a completely solved problem when constrained in ways speakers are often constrained (i.e., size, appearance, and cost).
But I don't really pay much attention to reviews of electronics, particularly observational reviews, unless there is evidence that the device was overdriven. That's because, for the most part, electronics is a solved problem, and measurements have not yet been shown to be unreliable indicators of that.
Works of art are appropriately reviewed subjectively, because they produce a subjective experience intentionally. I think that includes most of things on your list. There are specific performance metrics for cars, boats, and airplanes, and anyone rating opinions over measurements in those areas is risking their (large amounts of) money unnecessarily. But those things (like speakers) also have to live in a visually aesthetic environment, and so their visual aesthetics count in addition to their practical performance. The other things you mentioned benefit from technical measurement only to determine craft and consistency, not enjoyment. I want my favorite distiller to have a precise measurement regime in their distillery so that I can count on each bottle being as good as the last, for example. But that doesn't answer the question for me if I'll like it in the first place. I know quite a lot about music for someone who did not study it in college, but it has never come to pass that a theoretical discussion of any particular work has altered my aesthetic subjective enjoyment of it one way or the other, at least once I had developed a mature enough aesthetic sense to know my own mind.
The distinction between the art and the engineering is central to the discussion of audio equipment. Musicians an to a lesser extent producers and mixing technicians produce the art, but it's the job of the playback equipment to deliver that art to me unenhanced by whatever opinion of art might be possessed by the equipment's designer.
I'm always trading out the equipment in my systems (except for speakers), because that's part of the hobby. But I don't ever expect to hear a difference with stuff that is working properly.
Rick "probably going to attract disdain from Rick S for wordiness" Denney
