The Absolute Sound’s Review Methodology: First Principles

[Kingrex]

Have you ever thought about sight perception. Walk a person in a room, then take them out. Ask them to tell you all they saw in the room. You can get wildly different answers. Some notice people. Others decorations. Others colors and structure. Some people remeber a whole lot more than others. Some can't remember a thing outside the name of the person they talked to. They won't even remember the clothes the person had on.
Sound perception is exactly the same. We hear the same stuff like were all in the same room. But our focus heavily impacts how we perceive and remember it.

 

[Kingrex]

Per post 61, anyone can validate what I tell you I saw by going back in and looking. With sound, no one can reenter the room. Once the door is closed, the reality has ended and its all just memories from different people that all had different take away from the experience.

The ability to validate what I saw by looking back in the room allows me to say my response was objective.

With audio sounds assesed the same way, someone could say they are being objective. The issue is you can't validate it. And we have no idea how and what the perceptions of any reviewer really are. They could be the person that only remembers a name. Or they could be like my wife and tell you what everyone was wearing with great accuracy and all the decorations in the room. Reviewers have to be entertaining writers. Does that mean they are highly perceptive of the environment around them????? I don't see a corelation.

 

[Tim Link]

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.

I totally agree with the spirit of what you are saying, but an observation doesn't become subjective just because it is inaccurate due to human bias. Using evaluation methods that don't properly account for human biases is not a good way to do science, I agree. But it doesn't make the effort a subjective one. It makes it a poorly controlled attempt to state objective facts, which are likely not going to be accurate.

Subjectivity is a different realm, and by its very nature you can't test the objects of a subjective opinion to prove that opinion right or wrong.
If a house is blue, and most agree that it is, you can check the wavelength of the light to verify that it's blue. That's objective. But if someone says that house looks good in blue, while another says it looks bad in blue and ought to be red, that's subjective. What are you going to test about the house to see who's right?

 

[ssfas]

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.

I just spent $10 for 12 months of stereofile, so at least I could now say I have a subscription to an audio rag. And what a rag it is! Every single product is highly recommended, including a streamer that has software that isn’t fit for purpose and the thing still costs $30,000. The review is just pages of waffle, an endless stream of marketing comments given to the reviewer over the telephone by people associated with the manufacturer and then a load of subjective listening comments.

He gives them the benefit of the doubt, saying “ like some other server manufacturers, ideon has some software work to do“. Well, I’m sorry, this isn’t the case. I’ve been streaming for 15 years and whilst there may have been a bit of latitude back then, now it is a given that any streamer at any price should have effectively faultless software. This thing had fundamental problems with cover art, booklets and can only connect to one NAS drive at a time. To its credit, it can’t process MQA files.

Who would recommend buying a $30,000 streamer with faulty software? An unbiased review would suggest that you wait on this product until they fix the software. The conclusion states “never before have I reviewed a standalone streamer/server so accomplished in the hardware department, yet so behind the best in software implementation. … one way or another you’ve got to give (product name, too long to type) a spin.”

There are reviews of three more affordable products, but two of them are listed in the EISA awards at the back of the magazine, implying that they have already been widely reviewed as I understand those awards are based on the opinions of a range of international audio journalists. One of the products has been widely reviewed going back at least to December 2023. So this magazine seems to be a bit late to the party.

I wonder if there is a shortage of people willing to write reviews. Someone mentioned the UK publication where most of the reviews were written by one person.

 

[Rt66indierock]

I don't have Pet Sounds.

Ron, it going to be hard to discuss TAS’s review methodology or what John Atkinson calls sighted subjective evaluation without talking about the basics. Pet Sounds has two things that are the basics.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Sounds pretty much in line with my own views.

As I've said before: An audio review is expository writing and the root of 'expository' is 'expose'.
Having a reference allows observational comparison against that reference to be objective for the observer. Imo broad exposure to live music is a key to having a reference -- it is an accumulation of facts.

Benchmarking is absolutely critical in assessment… one of the challenges in our pursuit of sound fidelity is that as fabulous as synthetic/electronic music can be (I love electronic guitar/keyboards and am listening to jazz marvels Grant Green and Jimmy Smith as I write) but its simply much harder to benchmark against the sound of electronic instruments as opposed to an acoustic instrument recording.

Good recordings and a mix of varying styles and scales into more complex and wider frequency acoustic instrument recordings serve generally much better guides to the authenticity of your sound. For me the better the performance and recording the better as a guide to represent a systems ability to convey context like balance, timbre, dynamic shading, nuance, energy and beyond ultimately into spirit in music and performance. You can learn a whole lot from a reviewer’s choice of reference music in their assessing.

 

[Sampajanna]

Good recordings and a mix of varying styles and scales into more complex and wider frequency acoustic instrument recordings serve generally much better guides to the authenticity of your sound. For me the better the performance and recording the better as a guide to represent a systems ability to convey context like balance, timbre, dynamic shading, nuance, energy and beyond ultimately into spirit in music and performance. You can learn a whole lot from a reviewer’s choice of reference music in their assessing.

I love this! “Spirit of the music” is what I’m after. For me, that is more important than its ability to sound like live music, which no system has ever done for me…. That doesn’t mean clarity/fidelity isn’t important, but only as a part of that spirit. If even half the articles in a magazine were about the things discussed in this thread, and especially this paragraph, I would happily subscribe and read avidly. I love hifi and reading. These are my favorite things in life. (I even reread good books again and again. There are books I have read several times.) If your magazine turns me away, you are doing something seriously wrong….

I totally agree with the spirit of what you are saying, but an observation doesn't become subjective just because it is inaccurate due to human bias. Using evaluation methods that don't properly account for human biases is not a good way to do science, I agree. But it doesn't make the effort a subjective one. It makes it a poorly controlled attempt to state objective facts, which are likely not going to be accurate.

Subjectivity is a different realm, and by its very nature you can't test the objects of a subjective opinion to prove that opinion right or wrong.
If a house is blue, and most agree that it is, you can check the wavelength of the light to verify that it's blue. That's objective. But if someone says that house looks good in blue, while another says it looks bad in blue and ought to be red, that's subjective. What are you going to test about the house to see who's right?

You are smart and have obviously thought this through well. I like your perspective. I agree that this is all a spectrum and recognize the definition of subjective vs. objective which you are positing. On the quantum level, the observer affects the experiment anyway . I still think TAS’s attempt to come off as objective is not a good look. They won’t appeal to hardcore “objectivists” who will just argue that they should do it all blind then, and with controls. And subjectivists (and I would count myself among them) don’t really care that their reviews are biased attempts to be objective by your thought or more subjective by my account. Even if I agree that they are making “poorly controlled attempts to state objective facts” they do then turn those “facts” into subjective opinions when they conclude by rating the product, no? Any time they tell me how “good” the (insert cliche term like PRAT) is, they have slipped into what you are calling subjective also ( in effect saying the “house looks good in blue”). Maybe I haven’t read enough (very possible), but I haven’t seen a single TAS article that didn’t include at least one of the “house looks good in blue” statements. In fact, as others have suggested, it is my experience that authors over there live in neighborhoods where all the houses look good (if you catch my drift)…

Just got an original pressing of GO…. So, old man’s salute and off to find that spirit….

 

[Tim Link]

I agree that this is all a spectrum and recognize the definition of subjective vs. objective which you are positing.

I'm not saying it's a spectrum, as if there are degrees of subjectivity and objectivity.

On the quantum level, the observer affects the experiment anyway .

That's a purely objective problem.

I still think TAS’s attempt to come off as objective is not a good look. They won’t appeal to hardcore “objectivists” who will just argue that they should do it all blind then, and with controls. And subjectivists (and I would count myself among them) don’t really care that their reviews are biased attempts to be objective by your thought or more subjective by my account.

I think people are always wanting a good subjective experience. If I go to TAS as a resource in my quest for that experience, I'm hoping they'll give me useful information that will lead to success without spending more than I need to. It doesn't seem useful to divide people into categories of "subjectivist" and "objectivists." There are objective claims, and subjective assertions. People can assert their subjectivity with certainty. Objectivity always needs some element of skepticism and doubt. Claims are never subjective. I think people get called "objectivists" when they notice and complain about objective claims that are not well supported.

Even if I agree that they are making “poorly controlled attempts to state objective facts” they do then turn those “facts” into subjective opinions when they conclude by rating the product, no?

If they give their emotional opinion on it, then yes. If they are just scoring it as more accurate or less accurate, but not how much they personally enjoy or prefer it, then no. If someone is rating things by how tall they are, and they eyeball one to be taller, and rate it better on tallness, that is an objective assessment .

Any time they tell me how “good” the (insert cliche term like PRAT) is, they have slipped into what you are calling subjective also ( in effect saying the “house looks good in blue”).

If they define PRAT in objective terms, and then by ear determine that a speaker scores high in this area, then that is an objective assessment. Their metric may be how much the sound causes them to tap their toes or uncontrollably move to the beat. This opens an interesting opportunity to very carefully measure that in blind testing rather than just go by their recollection of how much they think they're tapping their toe. Saying the house looks good in blue is subjective. But the person could further define something about trim thickness and roof angles and color, making an equation of some sorts for scoring a house, and they could say that with blue that house scores high. That becomes objective. The subjective part is whether or not a house should score high on that metric, or whether a speaker or soundsystem should score high on the PRAT metric, whatever that may be.

Maybe I haven’t read enough (very possible), but I haven’t seen a single TAS article that didn’t include at least one of the “house looks good in blue” statements. In fact, as others have suggested, it is my experience that authors over there live in neighborhoods where all the houses look good (if you catch my drift)…

Just got an original pressing of GO…. So, old man’s salute and off to find that spirit….

It may be that they include a subjective assessment, and it's always a positive assessment or they don't write the review at all. In that case, the lack of a review on a widely available product is an implicit bad rating.

 

[Sampajanna]

I see your points but still fail to see how it benefits TAS to argue that they make unverified, unmeasured and unproven “objective” reviews peppered with subjective ratings.

There is no journal on earth that would peer review a single TAS review. Why step out and tout some fact-based methodology? What if the makers of medical technology didn’t test or measure their machines other than using the perception of a few doctors and then said “Don’t worry, we are attempting to be objective.” Obviously, the stakes are higher there, and so must the rigor therefore be. But my money is hard-earned and also comes with stakes for me. I would never spend it based on somebody’s “poor attempt to be objective.” They are trying to establish themselves as an authority to sell magazines and adds. They would be better off creating an epic magazine full of a variety of interesting articles, education, exploration, music, etc. I genuinely tried:, subscribing for 2 years to 3 magazines and did my best to like them. I enjoyed bits but very soon got oh so bored of 50 pages of reviews (X3). I started skipping to the few album reviews at the end, ultimately realizing these magazines aren’t for me, which is telling since, as I mentioned, I am an avid reader and also love Hifi….

And, finally, this doesn’t address why all the reviews are positive. I disagree that a lack of review implies bad rating. Are readers supposed to psychically know which reviews are yet to come, which are off the radar versus the ones that are ignored because they are implicitly bad? And if they are objectively “measuring” (with their ears/brains?) well-defined parameters against a reference, why do majority to all of every parameter for every product endlessly turn out to be “great,” “amazing,” “game-changing” and “revolutionary”? If the system were impartial, wouldn’t we find strengths and weaknesses in every product save the very rare perfect piece? And what of setup? Room acoustics? I have heard the same exact speakers sound great with one amp and awful with another, sound weird in one room and great in another. What if they review a tube-based product with stock tubes and it sounds very different with NOS? There are way too many parameters for the reviews of any magazine, YouTube or whatever to, in the end, be anything other than someone’s opinion. That doesn’t mean all opinions are equal. But they are opinions. I find it strange that this is up for debate at all….

 

[tima]

I still think TAS’s attempt to come off as objective is not a good look. They won’t appeal to hardcore “objectivists” who will just argue that they should do it all blind then, and with controls. And subjectivists (and I would count myself among them) don’t really care that their reviews are biased attempts to be objective by your thought or more subjective by my account. Even if I agree that they are making “poorly controlled attempts to state objective facts” they do then turn those “facts” into subjective opinions when they conclude by rating the product, no? Any time they tell me how “good” the (insert cliche term like PRAT) is, they have slipped into what you are calling subjective also ( in effect saying the “house looks good in blue”). Maybe I haven’t read enough (very possible), but I haven’t seen a single TAS article that didn’t include at least one of the “house looks good in blue” statements. In fact, as others have suggested, it is my experience that authors over there live in neighborhoods where all the houses look good (if you catch my drift)…

I cannot speak for TAS.

Describing sound is difficult but that does not mean sonic descriptions are opinion. My view is the typical 'audiophile language' identifies qualities and characteristics that are used to describe the sound of a stereo. The presence or absence of each quality does not mean the reviewed product is 'good or bad' but simply that its sound has that quality or not. The reviewer may judge a particular characteristic as more or less similar to a characteristic of live acoustic music or not. If you disagree that either the reproduced sound from the review system does not include the characteristic in question, or you disagree that the characteristic is not a characteristic of live acoustic music, then you are disagreeing over facts.

The use of the terms 'subjective' and 'objective' are not particularly fruitful as this thread bares out.

 

[andromedaaudio]

The TAS Staff published today a very interesting and thoughtful essay, styled as answers to questions about, among other things, objective versus subjective reviews, objective observations versus subjective feelings, the value of objective measurements of audio components and issues with double-blind testing.

The part distinguishing subjective reviews from "observational, objective reviews" interested me the most:

Question: Why do you do subjective reviews?

Answer: We don’t. Or for the most part we try not to make that the core of our reviewing. We aim to do observational, objective reviews. Now, there is some confusion about terminology in which “quantification” is “objective” whereas human “observation” is “subjective”. But this is wrong. That notion incorrectly glosses over a critical distinction. “Subjective” in the dictionary means human reactions that primarily involve feelings. But humans are also capable of observing objectively.

. . .

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.

Question: You talk about objective observation as a superpower, but how is your opinion objective?

Answer: To use observation as a meaningful measurement technique, you must have a reference standard. This is the case with quantified measurements too, just as it is the case with objective observation. Comparing what we (or you) hear to a reference gets us out of the realm of opinion (subjective feelings). As we said above, it isn’t your opinion that your house is taller than your car. It is an observable fact. It is an observable fact whether a guitar sounds like a guitar, and if it doesn’t, to what degree and in what way.

In music audio, we use the sound of real music and real musical instruments (the absolute sound) as the reference standard. An audio system that can reproduce a guitar or a singer or a jazz band or a symphony so that it sounds believably real, will tend to be more satisfying for most listeners most of the time. This latter point is our experience from over 50 years of listening to live music and audio reproduction of music across hundreds of reviewers.

The Absolute Sound’s Review Methodology: First Principles — the absolute sound

Q:I’m looking for a reviewer that reviews audio components like an engineer would. While I’m not an engineer, I’m fascinated by technical details and measurements. Is there anyone out there that reviews audio components who not only describes what they hear but breaks down the components i.e.

apple.news

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We always -- certainly I always -- talk about subjective reviews. But is this an incorrect characterization?

Are TAS reviewers stating observational, objective sonic impressions rather than subjective sonic impressions? Are these observational, objective impressions "facts"?

Is the example of visually observing objectively that a building is taller than a car a valid analogy to reporting on the sound of audio components?

Is the sound of an acoustic guitar an objective reference? Does a reference of the absolute sound of an acoustic guitar allow an observation to rise above a mere subjective impression and become an observable, objective fact?

What do you think?

TAS is a business .
To sell / be succesfull in your business you need to have added value over another business.

So subjective wont cut it otherwise anybodys opinion is as usefull as a " TAS opinion ."
Its just marketing talk to distinguish your self from other publishers.
Nothing wrong with that.

 

[PYP]

For me, practically speaking, the goal is to find a reviewer who hears it like you do. If you own a piece of equipment and a reviewer provides insights that agree with your own listening observations, then you may have found someone who can introduce you to new equipment. That said, I have never purchased equipment based upon a review.

Given the strange wiring of my brain, I do enjoy reading reviews of equipment I already own to gauge how the reviewer goes about their job. I do not envy anyone who has to translate what they hear/feel into language. The interviews that interest me are the ones that avoid the usual claptrap and write about meaningful insights into the music that the equipment provided rather than insights into sound per se (not, "I can hear the hammer strike the string," as one YouTube reviewer explained of the sound of a piano. Yes, just as one does in the concert hall? Factual note: there are 88 keys and typically 230 strings - plural - in a piano.).

TAS, and other such magazines, are for-profit enterprises. I have no actual knowledge (but plenty of assumptions) about how that business works. If their readership holds steady or increases, they are doing something right. I would prefer more interviews with designers, articles about trends in audio land, articles about the role of software vs. hardware, and some recognition that diminishing returns do exist for anyone who is thinking of purchasing gear. Perhaps I am not their typical reader.

 

[tima]

Given the strange wiring of my brain, I do enjoy reading reviews of equipment I already own to gauge how the reviewer goes about their job. I do not envy anyone who has to translate what they hear/feel into language. The interviews that interest me are the ones that avoid the usual claptrap and write about meaningful insights into the music that the equipment provided rather than insights into sound per se (not, "I can hear the hammer strike the string," as one YouTube reviewer explained of the sound of a piano. Yes, just as one does in the concert hall? Factual note: there are 88 keys and typically 230 strings - plural - in a piano.).

"88 keys and typically 230 strings" -- some notes come from a hammer striking a single string and other notes come from striking multiple strings with a hammer.

I have no reluctance writing about piano hammers striking piano strings. I may not be the reviewer for you.

"The soundstage is broad and layered with Duke Ellington’s piano at center stage, faultlessly mic’d, its top open wide. I heard that unique piano sound of hammers striking strings, resounding within the piano’s chamber and off its lid. Ellington’s touch is simply wonderful – to my ears no one in jazz comes close to his nuance with the ivories."

"If you’ve ever sat near someone playing a grand piano you know the sound up close is more complex, more resonant than twenty feet away. Here, those complex harmonics were very much in evidence. The piano’s single string bass notes and multi-string mids and highs were defined and very realistic. As Ellington turned notes into chords and phrases with both left and right hands, shifting the music’s center away from and then back to consonance, the LP2.1’s tonal rightness – its density and weight - was among the most realistic I’ve heard. Occasionally I heard the mechanical sound of Ellington’s pedal press and I could easily tell when he used either the damper or the sustain pedal."

 

[PYP]

"88 keys and typically 230 strings" -- some notes come from a hammer striking a single string and other notes come from striking multiple strings with a hammer.

I have no reluctance writing about piano hammers striking piano strings. I may not be the reviewer for you.

"The soundstage is broad and layered with Duke Ellington’s piano at center stage, faultlessly mic’d, its top open wide. I heard that unique piano sound of hammers striking strings, resounding within the piano’s chamber and off its lid. Ellington’s touch is simply wonderful – to my ears no one in jazz comes close to his nuance with the ivories."

"If you’ve ever sat near someone playing a grand piano you know the sound up close is more complex, more resonant than twenty feet away. Here, those complex harmonics were very much in evidence. The piano’s single string bass notes and multi-string mids and highs were defined and very realistic. As Ellington turned notes into chords and phrases with both left and right hands, shifting the music’s center away from and then back to consonance, the LP2.1’s tonal rightness – its density and weight - was among the most realistic I’ve heard. Occasionally I heard the mechanical sound of Ellington’s pedal press and I could easily tell when he used either the damper or the sustain pedal."

oops. Awkward. Just kidding. I would need to read your entire review and listen to that particular recording to better understand your observations, which are much more insightful and nuanced than the YouTube influencer (I've watched a few of his videos). I enjoyed your recent review via the WBF link and found it provided insights to gear I will never use (IIRC, a cart as you vinylistas would say).

That said, I don't remember listening to the sound of hammers on the strings, either live or in recordings. I would notice complex harmonics, density and weight, timbre and tonality (in the context of the music, of course). But I think that even if the little thought bubble saying "it's a percussion instrument!" appeared, I would not connect that to the hammer/string thing.

As we know, the piano is difficult to record and sounds very, very different from recording to recording (even taking into consideration the use of different pianos). It can sound ethereal on one recording and like a full orchestra on another (taking into account the different compositions).

You gave me an excellent recommendation for Handel's Messiah, so I trust your ears and musical taste.

 

[Tim Link]

I see your points but still fail to see how it benefits TAS to argue that they make unverified, unmeasured and unproven “objective” reviews peppered with subjective ratings.

I don't know for sure how it works for them either. As long as there are enough people who find it interesting enough to subscribe I'm sure they'll keep going with it.

 

[Holmz]

ChatGPT:

Question:
If a listener has a good sense of what acoustic instruments sound like when played in real life does this convert his subjective impressions into an objective observation?

Answer:
A listener with a good understanding of how acoustic instruments sound in real life can certainly enhance their subjective evaluations of audio equipment, but this does not automatically convert their subjective impressions into objective observations.

Key Points:

1. Subjective Expertise:

• A listener who is familiar with the natural sound of instruments may have a more refined ability to articulate their impressions and preferences when listening to recordings. They might identify specific characteristics, such as timbre or tonal balance, that align closely with their real-life experiences.

• However, these evaluations remain subjective because they are still rooted in personal perception and emotional response, even if informed by experience.


2. Objective Observations:

• Objective observations are grounded in measurable and quantifiable data. For instance, using audio analysis tools to assess frequency response or distortion provides an objective framework for evaluating sound quality.

• A listener’s assessment, regardless of their expertise, does not replace the need for empirical measurements that can be universally agreed upon.


3. Bridge Between Subjective and Objective:

• While subjective impressions can be informed by expertise and may align with objective measurements (e.g., a system reproducing sound accurately as measured), they do not inherently become objective.


Question:
If two people are looking from a distance at a car and the roof of a house next to the car, and both feel that the roof of the house is higher than the roof of the car, are these observations by these people subjective or objective?

In the scenario where two people observe a car and a house from a distance and both believe that the roof of the house is higher than the roof of the car, their observations are primarily subjective.

Reasons for Subjectivity:

1. Personal Perception: Their conclusions are based on personal perceptions and judgments rather than measurable data. They may interpret the visual information differently based on their viewpoints, experiences, or biases.

2. Lack of Measurement: Without measuring tools (like a ruler or laser rangefinder) to provide objective data about the actual heights of the car and house roofs, their observations remain subjective.

Objective Aspect:

• If the heights of the car and house roofs were measured and found to be different, then those measurements would constitute objective observations. In this case, any conclusions drawn based on these measurements would be considered objective because they are based on quantifiable evidence.

Conclusion:

Thus, while both individuals may agree on their observations, those observations are inherently subjective as they rely on personal interpretation rather than empirical evidence.

While AI can statistically give answers that are better than an average person, it is pretty much trained on what a lot of people have written. But the AI’s responses often do sound very convincing.

Maybe we should have AIs write reviews of equipment?

Another use of a computer would be to use it in the analysis of objective measurements.

In terms of the house and car, then unless the house is a long ways away, and we have some parallax, then we can argue about what the angular difference is between the roof and the car… but one appearing higher than the other seems like it is not very rooting in a subjective opinion… but more rooted in the fact that the roof is higher. (Just not quantifiable as to how much higher, with a single monocular angular amount.)

 

[Tascam]

These magazines are only interested in selling advertising. The entire industry runs on politics. If a company is spending money on ads, they automatically get a good review. Even if the product measured badly, they will point that out objectively), but then say that the product sounds good anyway or at a minimum you should audition it if your system is dark or bright or something else. It’s all about selling ads and using “reviews” to push more product. Maybe that’s why ‘McIntosh doesn’t normally submit products for reviews. Their real customers like me don’t need them to make a purchase decision.

 

[tima]

That said, I don't remember listening to the sound of hammers on the strings, either live or in recordings.

Part of what I highlight is the difference between what one experiences from a piano (or any instrument) when you sit close to it versus 20+ feet away. Up close you hear not only the music but how the instrument makes the music; close proximity yields a more physical sense of both music and instrument. Part of what this means is you can recognize nuanced characteristics of the sound of the instrument -- what it is capable of -- and of the particular performance, that you might not catch from further away.. When you hear similar qualities on a recording you know the stereo is able to resolve those, the sound is realistic as the music comes to life.

Take what have you learned from intimacy and you may find that awareness brings insight to larger settings and recordings where the microphone(s) are farther away. Allow your ear to 'pull in' from the gestalt as it pays attention to a particular instrument or section. For a challenge listen to some part of a sonata that is not the soloist. You my discover some of the nuance from up close listening is available though less heightened. This type of 'analytic listening' informs about the recording and the system, while gauging relative realism. Switch out of 'reviewer mode' and you may find yourself listening the same way subconsciously.

edit: Btw,, the LP is "Ellington's Indigos".

 

[Elliot G.]

I agree with Tima, lets have a celebration lol. that when one sits close to a Piano especially you can hear rht e workings of the instrument, including the keys, hammers and foot peddles , as well as the direction ality of the frequencies from the paino. The lower notes will come from under the piano and the most of the rest from the top side of the piano . I sat front row for three years at concerts I sponsidered in Florida and most of these recitals were solo instruments or at the most 2-3 people with maybe one quartet now and then. Listening to guitar, cello , violin up close is also very different than only a small amount moving back. Many recordings of solo piano have some of these sounds and many which are recorded further away do not. I don't think this is a quality thing just perspective. Glen Gould Bach Goldberg Variationsi , will sound different than say Nojima plays Liszt or John Covelli and Arron Rosand ( someone I have heard up close) doing Hebraic Legacies, and Juha Wang who is very powerfull player on Tilson Thomas Do you come here often? are very very different and a good system will show all of that.Then you have some heavy weight like The rite of Spring PT1 Sylvie Courvoisier and Cory Smyth - this will rock you.
I like Piano and all of these are different and recorded as such. The perspective changes with the distance and of course the micking for the recording

 

[Elliot G.]

These magazines are only interested in selling advertising. The entire industry runs on politics. If a company is spending money on ads, they automatically get a good review. Even if the product measured badly, they will point that out objectively), but then say that the product sounds good anyway or at a minimum you should audition it if your system is dark or bright or something else. It’s all about selling ads and using “reviews” to push more product. Maybe that’s why ‘McIntosh doesn’t normally submit products for reviews. Their real customers like me don’t need them to make a purchase decision.

Yes advertising is an essential part of them however the guaranteed good review I wont go that far however is there some influence and preference to what gets reviewed and who does these reviews I think that for sure exists.