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.
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?
