I'm not certain that it is not understanding the underlying concepts. I am pretty certain that it is not agreeing with you.
The Absolute Sound’s Review Methodology: First Principles
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
Sorry but we must be listening to different electronics. A large percentage of high end audio equipment is not at or below hearing thereholds.Sorry but we must be listening to different electronics. A large percentage of high end audio equipment is not at or below hearing thresholds.
An extremely prevalent form of unconscious bias is likely a preference for hifi made in the USA, or a preference against hifi made in China.
A dislike for Chinese hifi might also just be a conscious bias for economic or political reasons, or because they've had to get a taxi in Shanghai.
This is a very nice and impactful demonstration but, fundamentally, such unconscious biases are unavoidable filters of all our perceptions.
...where does the experience that a house is always taller than a car come into the mix? And sure, I recognize one could build a tiny house or a monster car that would not be bound by "normal" circumstances.
We're both certain that it's not agreeing with me.I'm not certain that it is not understanding the underlying concepts. I am pretty certain that it is not agreeing with you.
My subscription to Stereophile lapsed last year and I did not renew it.
My subscription to TAS expires in May. An issue arrived a few days ago and I perused it as usual. I don’t enjoy the BS and gobbledygook anymore. I just don’t relate to things like subject of this post.
Personally, I think they’re just building a house of straw while arguing that the straw is really brick. It’s not.
My subscription to TAS expires in May. An issue arrived a few days ago and I perused it as usual. I don’t enjoy the BS and gobbledygook anymore. I just don’t relate to things like subject of this post.
Personally, I think they’re just building a house of straw while arguing that the straw is really brick. It’s not.
A big part of the issue is your trying to tell people something sounds good or bad or inbetween.
Let me drag the color example in now. I'm right in the middle of it. We all seem to agree what is red, green, blue, yellow, orange etc. But when it comes to what shade of a color looks good on a cabinet or wall, we may disagree on what we feel is correct. And them you have to take multiple colors into account when it comes to floor, furniture, walls, ceiling. Now were really discussing what is correct.
Let me drag the color example in now. I'm right in the middle of it. We all seem to agree what is red, green, blue, yellow, orange etc. But when it comes to what shade of a color looks good on a cabinet or wall, we may disagree on what we feel is correct. And them you have to take multiple colors into account when it comes to floor, furniture, walls, ceiling. Now were really discussing what is correct.
Does it sound like real music?
Shouldn't that be the one thing (deflections aside) that is correct?
Tom
Shouldn't that be the one thing (deflections aside) that is correct?
Tom
You mean like tuning an instrument? It's either in tune or it's not. Many can do this by ear. They get it not all can without help. So if you can reliably define pitch does that make you a better reviewer?
Rob
That's not what the TAS essay said. Please see Post #1, above.
A simple example may help make some sense of this important distinction. If your car is parked next to your house and we ask “which is taller?” you will observe that your house is taller than your car. It isn’t that you feel your house is taller, it is that you are fully capable of objectively observing the height differences.
What I wonder is why “subjective” is pejorative in the first place? If you want truly objectivity, you are forced to reside in the small domain of audio that is measurable or done blind with controls. I think they are taking a misleading tact here. Why not say that our reviews are subjective but not all opinions are equal. Ours are trained, educated opinions based on lots of experience with many types of gear, including components many will not have had a chance to listen to. You may not agree with our opinions, but they are a worthwhile addition to a conversation on the merits of one piece vs another.
Aside from that, my main issue with these reviews was pointed out by Rex: you cannot isolate the influence of a single component from the system and room. I think these magazines would be far more successful if they balanced half the magazine with other topics than reviews, like system building, room treatment philosophies, stories of audiophiles, more music, breakdowns of tracks and how to use them, how to set up gear, synergy between certain types or specific pieces, etc. I dropped all my subscriptions because the endless positive reviews is so boring and every one is “the best.” I had one British magazine coming where 90% of the reviews every month were done by one guy…. If they looked at the topics discussed on forums like this, they would get a decent survey of the types of things we are interested in reading about.
Aside from that, my main issue with these reviews was pointed out by Rex: you cannot isolate the influence of a single component from the system and room. I think these magazines would be far more successful if they balanced half the magazine with other topics than reviews, like system building, room treatment philosophies, stories of audiophiles, more music, breakdowns of tracks and how to use them, how to set up gear, synergy between certain types or specific pieces, etc. I dropped all my subscriptions because the endless positive reviews is so boring and every one is “the best.” I had one British magazine coming where 90% of the reviews every month were done by one guy…. If they looked at the topics discussed on forums like this, they would get a decent survey of the types of things we are interested in reading about.
TAS is saying that objectivity can be achieved without measurements by reference to a familiar source.
Even after reading the comments on this thread I still think I don't agree with TAS (and with Todd, I think), and that I agree with you
. . . and to this TAS can add "with frequent reference to live acoustic music performances."
Your view that reviews are subjective but not all opinions are equal makes sense to me.
Because of the misuse of the term "subjective", it has come to mean objective assessments of sound accuracy under circumstances where our hearing perception has been shown to be unreliable. Subjective has come to mean poorly supported objective claims. TAS has their terminology correct. What they are doing is offering objective assessments about the accuracy of the sound that they've made without certain controls and without other means of testing. Objective perceptions can be unreliable under those kind of circumstances, but that doesn't make them subjective. So good on TAS for getting the terms correct, and recognizing that their method raises an issue of trust.
Agree. Endless reviews become boring. Poor guys have to come up with ever more "nuanced" differences to explain why this latest piece in for review is better than the last great review. It leads to some silly distinctions, even from experienced reviewers.
But reading about trends in audio is interesting. DACs seem to have matured greatly in the last five years. Why? (I'm not saying it is a mystery, just never discussed). Now streamers seem to be reaching that point too. How did that occur? There needs to be greater variety and more creativity.
Perhaps I just don't get their concept of objective. To me, if a human is evaluating something, it is subjective. And unconscious bias is just that, unconscious. You cannot separate what you are not aware of from your perception.
Ron - Your notions of objectivity and subjectivity have never made sense to me. Your notions of "subjective reference" and "objective reference" are like a linguistic category mistakes. You put two English words together and create some sort of dichotomy but it is nonsense.
"But isn't that reference
"Since we perceive sound from live music differently, even though it seems like we are all listening to the same acoustic guitar, aren't we taking away from that experience different "references"?" Differently from what? Each other? That person X has an understanding of what a guitar sounds like and person Y has an understanding of what a guitare sounds like when each is derived from multiple listenings to guitars does not mean that either does not know what a guitar sounds like nor does there being two people each having an understanding mean that understanding is subjective.
Why do hearing tests work? We may have different preferences for what we like, we may think different aspects of what we hear are more meaningful to us, but we hear far more similarly to one another than we do not. The "aren't we taking away from that experience different "references"?" is a non-sequitar. It doesn't "seem" like we are all listening to the same guitar if we agree that (pointing to it) is the guitar we are hearing. Do you really see a problem in identifying the referent of sounds?
"We don't have with audio the same ability to measure objectively the reference in question." The same ability as what? What is being measured? That we can (for example) tell the difference between live music and a stereo reproduction? Who among us cannot?
I wrote the above after reading your reply to my first post. I see @Tim Link also wrote cogent replies and while we come from different angles and possibly different epistemologies, we are not far apart -- at least that's my view. The robot pieces together what it has read elsewhere and is limited by its sources; some use it as an appeal to authority -- not a good debate tactic.
I do not think it is possible for a human being to evaluate sound objectively. Most of the energy used to design successful scientific experimentation is about barricading feelings and biases from the results. The complexity involved in architecting proper experiments is based on this. This is analogous to why “legalese” is such a complicated form of syntax and grammar, since the ideal is that the words are so clear that they deflect interpretation and force only the meaning that is intended
We are, after all, talking about reviews. Reviewing a product implies value. Value is subjective. Even if product A has measurably more bass than B that doesn’t make it better, especially when someone has a small room like me and more bass is usually a negative. There is no way you will convince anyone that the price tag also doesn’t bias a listener (Otherwise why do every single review in the magazine always verify that the more expensive product higher up the line is better?) Claiming that “our opinions are objective because we say so” is the opposite of the scientific method and simply would never hold up in any serious discussion of what objectivity means. The fact that they have a reference system, or have been to many live concerts and are comparing the sound of the reproduction to the original is irrelevant. There are way too many biases for such a process to be considered objective by any scientific standard. Even the type of music is relevant, for example. Maybe I like rock and you like rap. The type of system that will make listening to either more or less pleasurable is an opinion.
You could hand TAS to any serious academic on earth, whether they know anything about audio or not, and they would quickly recognize that it is a bunch of opinions, not objective facts.
Even if their reviews are objective and not biased by advertising, cost, music, etc., my OPINION is that they are boring. They need to start publishing a much wider range of articles for me to spend any of my cash on them. (PVP and I came up with several interesting topics in a short brainstorm, so surely they could find much more if they really wanted to.) What’s more, these publications are by and for a very specific demographic and one that may not have longevity, though time will tell on that front.
I’d rather read forums or just listen to music and forget about the gadgetry making it happen. The more of the latter in my life, the better for my wallet and my well being. Instead of PRAT or other cliched descriptives, I like rating gear by how quickly, deeply and for how long do I completely forget gear in favor of music…. That is why I am a Lampi fan, for example.
Similar threads
