I don't get why hifi specifically is this way. In computer graphics, we had a period of YEARS, where the GPU manufacturers tried to sneak "optimizations", ie. performance-improving image-degradation past reviewers and consumers alike, and only stopped when they were called on it. There was no talk or someone "liking" the objectively degraded or distorted image.
Same goes today with TVs and monitors. There's no talk in reviews or industry documents about "pleasing" deviations from the intended image. Every screen is expected to be able to hit the same standards. Sure, most let you tweak or add image enhancements or interpolation and such, but the screens aren't judged like they come out the box because THAT'S NOT RIGHT.
Where did this "our hearing is more subjective than our vision" bull come from? And why is hifi still struggling with moving towards higher standards as an industry?
If people want deviations from authentic reproduction, we've had that for years. It's called EQ.
I suspect it comes from the fact that speakers (audio in general?) is so simple to produce that any moron with space on the kitchen bench can assemble and produce finished products that works without prior knowledge. The audio industry is riddled with small producers without tools, resources or technical understanding - and the reviewers praise this stuff.
If technical brilliance is to be expected, we need big companies with resources and rigid enough standards that some
Absolute-moron cannot possibly achieve it from his kitchen table. Genelec, Neumann, Harman/Samsung, Monitor Audio, Focal, Canton, Kef etc are examples of companies that can produce products of high enough standards at acceptable prices if they choose to.
In my mind it would be better for us audiophiles if we
forced them to.
Hopefully that would rid the world of one-man shit-shows with creative solutions to problems they don't understand. We avoid cars that doesn't score 5 stars at EuroNCAP crash testing, I would assume we would do the same if standards were applied to audio as well - at least in the more expensive part of the spectrum.
At the same time, speakers are a bunch of opposing compromises that can never be perfect because of it. Let's say you can have broad dispersion or perfect directivity, what would you choose? Or perfect spinorama, but no bass? Or the same but with tons of distortion?
In TV's you know that you can measure whatever goes in comes out, but when it comes to speakers that will never happen. You would need standards for different criteria, perhaps like the labels on a tire?
You know, noise, wet grip, dry grip, rolling resistance etc.
I understand Your attempt to not exaggerate the conflict. But times, as sad as it is, people behave as an offense to honesty or human intelligence in general. This is the case here. I raised a lot of critiscism against the Olive / Harman rating myself. A spinorama is just a comprehensive, yet not complete sketch of the objective performance.
But the author of the article obviously doesn't understand the least, except that You have to buy and buy and buy, which makes his business, namely to make You do so. In order to protect his self-acclaimed status as an audio-guru he uses worst 'black rhetoric' The article is plain lie.
I depends on You if You accept this as an adequate social behavior.
In my eyes you are projecting feelings and viewpoints to the author that has no support in what was written. The author didn't show a misunderstanding of the research in the article, he pointed out quite specifically that the research intended to find averages and avoided stand-outs like hearing-impaired people to make the process simpler.
That's true, of course.
While I don't agree with the author philosophically, I can understand his position and why he assumes it. There doesn't need to be a lack of understanding or contempt involved to disagree.
