The Absolute Sound’s Review Methodology: First Principles

[Holmz]

... I had the same result with the Mark Levinson No. 35 which received a rave review. It was nicely built but sounded dark and terribly sterile.

That “dark and sterile”, is sometimes not a bad thing.
(It would certain help to quell a sibilant and bright speaker.)

Unless one is using tube gear, then it is hard to get the frequency response too far out, as amps with feedback are renowned for having low distortion… and flat response from 20 to 20kHz.

Secondly the distortion products are responsible for a lot when amp is sounding sharp and loud, versus when they sound quiet and maybe some people call that dark??

A Jadis set of electronics running into those O/96 speakers look nice and sound good, but I would not refer to the ensemble as objectively low distortion.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Reading through this thread I conclude that the use of 'objective' and 'subjective' bring little insight. It is easy to say "it's just his opinion" or as at least one regular refers "it's just his subjective opinion". I wish someone would lay out the meaning of the phrase "objective audio review" as that pertains to sonic description.

They could be conflating objectively subjective with unbiased. It is a bit like aiming for an unbiased observation or opinion. Though I like the framing of the notion of observation rather than opinion as it leans into the aims of being a more objective subjective view. The weight in focus in terms of how much of what a reviewer expresses as observation and the amount they give over to their opinions in a piece is also telling.

Interpretation of observations and extractions of wisdom from the listening experience is also a potential value here. The more absolute they are in their opinions can reflect less awareness about some diversity in perception or preference in particular elements or experiences of sound.

The strong clues to the assessment approach are also in the format… the essay style report.

So if we look to what TAS publish it is a fairly typical audio review approach… a bimodal mix of subjective and objective testing. So predominantly subjective based assessments (the human interpretation of listening tests) with some supporting objective assessment criteria (typically a small panel of measurements and specs) for supporting technical analysis all built into an essay style report structure.

If it were a YouTube video report the 100% presenter grabs to camera would often typically be dominated by subjective info and any supers on screen as text or any cutaways to graphics or tight shots of the gear are likely to be supporting objective info such as measurements and specs or supporting visuals. The bimodal mix approach rather than unimodal one assessment style approach tends to work in the context of audio gear reviewing. The objective info or data should ideally correlate and support the subjective listening interpretation and vice versa.

 

[tima]

I was royally screwed 30 years ago when I bought all this Jadis equipment after reading a stereophile review. I had the same result with the Mark Levinson No. 35 which received a rave review. It was nicely built but sounded dark and terribly sterile.

Who is accountable for your purchases? Sounds like you screwed yourself.

 

[tima]

They could be conflating objectively subjective with unbiased. It is a bit like aiming for an unbiased observation or opinion. Though I like the framing of the notion of observation rather than opinion as it leans into the aims of being a more objective subjective view. The weight in focus in terms of how much of what a reviewer expresses as observation and the amount they give over to their opinions in a piece is also telling.

Mea culpa I don't understand. "Objective subjective"? "objectively subjective" "They"?

So predominantly subjective based assessments (the human interpretation of listening tests) with some supporting objective assessment criteria (typically a small panel of measurements and specs) for supporting technical analysis all built into an essay style report structure.

What are listening tests if not listening to sound and music by a person? Again I have a problem with 'subjective'. Am I correct understanding you to say that when sound/music is described by a person it is subjective and when sound/music is described by an ammeter it is objective?

 

[the sound of Tao]

Mea culpa I don't understand. "Objective subjective"? "objectively subjective" "They"?



What are listening tests if not listening to sound and music by a person? Again I have a problem with 'subjective'. Am I correct understanding you to say that when sound/music is described by a person it is subjective and when sound/music is described by an ammeter it is objective?

Perhaps this really comes back to whether human perception is seen as interpretation of experience or as exact measure and a recording of the facts. Some things are relatively concrete and easy to ascertain and distinguish even using human perception as the primary tool but some things are more abstract and complex and less absolute. If you say “what I observed” you are technically relating through subjective observation… if you are interpreting experiences you are subjectively doing so, and if you are expressing opinions in a qualitative framework you are engaging in even more subjectivity. If a reviewer chooses to see all these as things as purely objective that’s up to them.

To know beyond this for sure we’d need have to have a detailed working model of perception that could be approached as being framed as a law of perception. There would need to be an exact map and formula for human perception… so consciousness and perception would need to be singularly defined and confirmed through neuroscience. It isn’t. These things are beyond the remit of current science. Maybe consciousness is numinous and beyond exact specification.

As I said earlier I’m just working with the assessment theory we use in education generally for qualification frameworks for assessments.

I’ve given as many examples and explained it as best as I can. As I’ve also said if it’s not an issue of compliance it’s moot if there are no standards used in audio review.

In education we have qualification compliance so our assessment theory tends to have had a lot of work done on it and its all constantly peer reviewed… but even old humble scholars know we’re only approximating in making a call on the process and exactness in perceptual modes.

 

[Holmz]

…

What are listening tests if not listening to sound and music by a person? Again I have a problem with 'subjective'.

Yes to listen implies ears, and a brain, and everything else.

Am I correct understanding you to say that when sound/music is described by a person it is subjective and when sound/music is described by an ammeter it is objective?

An ammeter is possibly a bit of a straw man argument?
(But it would objectively quantify the current flowing in some DC speaker, like maybe a fan.)

However if we say the ammeter becomes a microphone, or a microphone on a Klippel machine.
Then with that we might objectively quantify the SPL, and the resulting frequency spectrum… and in the case of the Klippel we might objectively quantify the radiation pattern, as well as impulse response.

If we say that the bass sounds “tight” or “fast” those words are describing some subjective listening experience.
The objective corollary of “tight bass” would be the group delay, transcient response and impulse response.
With those measurements we can describe it in terms that are quantifiable, and not open to interpretation and clever wordsmithing.

 

[tima]

Yes to listen implies ears, and a brain, and everything else.


An ammeter is possibly a bit of a straw man argument?
(But it would objectively quantify the current flowing in some DC speaker, like maybe a fan.)

However if we say the ammeter becomes a microphone, or a microphone on a Klippel machine.
Then with that we might objectively quantify the SPL, and the resulting frequency spectrum… and in the case of the Klippel we might objectively quantify the radiation pattern, as well as impulse response.

If we say that the bass sounds “tight” or “fast” those words are describing some subjective listening experience.
The objective corollary of “tight bass” would be the group delay, transcient response and impulse response.
With those measurements we can describe it in terms that are quantifiable, and not open to interpretation and clever wordsmithing.

How is the meaning of these two sentences different?

"Then with that we might objectively quantify the SPL, and the resulting frequency spectrum… and in the case of the Klippel we might objectively quantify the radiation pattern, as well as impulse response."

"Then with that we might quantify the SPL, and the resulting frequency spectrum… and in the case of the Klippel we might quantify the radiation pattern, as well as impulse response."

 

[Holmz]

How is the meaning of these two sentences different?

"Then with that we might objectively quantify the SPL, and the resulting frequency spectrum… and in the case of the Klippel we might objectively quantify the radiation pattern, as well as impulse response."

"Then with that we might quantify the SPL, and the resulting frequency spectrum… and in the case of the Klippel we might quantify the radiation pattern, as well as impulse response."

You tell me.

Are you trying to just remove objective?
or
Are you trying to work towards sliding in subjective?
or
Something else?

If you are looking at some frequency response graph, that is more on the objective end.
And hearing something, that makes you reach for the frequency response graph would be the subjective side.

It is not an overly nuanced concept.

 

[Robh3606]

I'm really sorry but I'm afraid I don't understand the question here.

Hello Ron

Should have been more clear I was talking about a Stereophile review with listener impressions and measurement's. If there are issues with either it would call for increased scrutiny of the equipment under review.

Are you saying here that you are not agreeing with the TAS view that live music as a reference means you can make an objective observational assessment?

I don't have an issue with music as a reference just the whole "objective review" part of it. They have how many reviewers all using separate systems in different rooms all using their owns systems as the reference? Depending on who gets the to review X, there can be different outcomes.

The strength of measurements as an objective tool is the lack of bias and standardization. Using a system you picked based on your own bias as a reference defeats any claim of a bias free evaluation. IMHO

I personally don't care about measurements, but I often am curious to see them.

Ok I look at both give them about the same weight.


Rob