Aren't the measurements supposed to confirm what we hear and not the other way around?
Measurements stand on their own. Measurements made here today are directly transferable information to someone wanting to know the same information five years from now, half-way across the world. If they do the same tests and measurements, they should get the same results. Therefore, if they
know that, they don't even need to do the same tests and measurements ... they can trust the ones that are made here, today.
This is because the reproducibility (ability to be replicated) is part and parcel of the usefulness of scientific investigations. It's one of the pillars of the scientific method.
What we hear, what we see, and what we taste can change ... change with location. with time, with temperament, with age and with circumstances. Sensory input is ephemeral. Not only that, but our opinion of that sensory input is even
more ephemeral. What we like today, we hate next hear. What we think is too hot today, we think is comfortable next year. Opinions change, sometimes faster than underwear.
Put those two factors together, and you have an EXTREMELY unreliable anchor or reference, one that cannot be relied upon whatsoever. So the measurements might correlate* to what we hear today, and be way off to us two months from now.
*You are possibly referring to "correlation", which is not quite the same as confirmation. It's useful to say, "The measurements correlate to what we hear." I keep stressing that people should correlate their opinions to measurements, so at least they get the idea that measurements have communicable value. If something is confirmed, that means that it is validated or proven, in the sense that others can use it as reference. As I pointed out, subjectivism lacks that characteristic.
I don't get this idea that no subjective descriptions of how loudspeaker sounds can ever be trusted. I have read a lot of user reviews of speakers which many times have accurately mirrored my experience with the same speakers.
If you saw the review before you heard the speaker, the b.s. reviewer set up a tremendous
expectation bias in your mind. If you heard the speakers first and
then saw the review, the review represented
confirmation bias.
Subjective descriptions are moderately reliable - at least short-term - to the person who has them. Not his buddies, not his parents, not his girlfriend and not the family dog. Just him. If he thinks that a speaker is "bright" today, he will probably think it's "bright" tomorrow.
But his parents may think he's crazy, his girlfriend might think it's not bright, and his buddies might argue because one of them agrees that it's bright and the other one thinks he's nuts.
And to make a point ... if he goes on a trip for six weeks and comes back, he might wonder what's wrong because the speaker isn't "bright" anymore.
There have been many instances where two members of ASR, both level-headed and reasonable, have had diametrically opposite opinions of the sound of a certain speaker. These weren't people who were in love with subjective foofaraw, they were objectivists. They thought they were correct. They thought they were accurate.
Either one or both were wrong.
Who's next?
I often find the subjective listening part of a review to be a great supplement to the measurements, a good example of that is Erin’s reviews which always contain a fairly long talk about how he subjectively finds the speakers to sound.
Correct. He's telling you what
his impressions are. Remember the phrase, "Your mileage may vary"?
What you are listening to there is basically entertainment. The reason is that a hundred people could listen to the exact same description that you listen to, then all of you buy the same speakers, and when all of you listen to them there might be blocs of two different opinions, or three, or four or even more. That can happen if you would listen to them in the same location, but would be even more likely to happen if you listened to them each person in their own room.
The
BEST thing you can say about subjective descriptions is that
if you find a person who
you know by experience has a set of opinions that correlate to your listening impressions, then you can consider that person useful .... today. Next year? Maybe, maybe not. In a different room, either more absorptive or less absorptive? Maybe, but probably not. After one of you has a bout with COVID? I seriously doubt it.
And like I said, that's the
BEST thing you can say about subjective descriptions.
Truth be told, you can't trust subjective descriptions of sound any more than you can trust subjective descriptions of beauty, tastes of wine or food, odors (of flowers or anything else) or impressions of heat, cold or pain.
Subjective impressions are unique to the person who generates them.
Jim
