Edited by Joe Bloggs - 10/8/13 at 6:28am
- 9,418 Posts. Joined 10/2001
- Location: Hong Kong
- Select All Posts By This User
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 10/8/13 at 6:28am
One issue with magazine reviews is that the reviewers are representing themselves (or being represented by their editors) as expert listeners. The implication is that they are better and more capable of determining the "quality" of the item being tested. Yes it is just their opinion but we are supposed to think that they have a certain expertise, funnily enough when Harman tested listeners they found that HiFi salespersons were actually better than professional reviewers, were more capable at detecting the more objectively capable speakers.
Conforming to reality due to biases?
But reviewers somehow have to convey that their reviews are not heavily biased else they'd be more or less useless and I'd argue that most reader will read reviews in that light. I'd also argue that they read those unsubstantiated claims ("best DAC for years to come" etc.) as more than just claims.
Thanks. Couldn't the aurisonics (?) asg-2 though.
Will add those I could find to the first post.
So subjective reviews can be completely fictitious, purely invented nonsense? Are subjective reviews of real things not supposed to be a description of the experience of these real things? I always thought that when someone did a review on a component on a forum he wanted to convey his experience of the real thing to others, not some made up stuff.
Let's take one of the IEMs from above for example. 20 dB dip at ~3 kHz but reviewers say it is a "giant slayer" with treble having "nice details" and being "well balanced". That's nonsense.
I'm sorry, but your premise makes no sense. You're saying that subjectivity fails because it's not objective. But by that token, one could just as well say that objectivity fails because it's not subjective.
No, there's nothing wrong with subjective tests per se (already mentioned in #3). I'm saying those reviews fail because they're nonsense. Nonsense because they're interminably biased with no basis in reality, there are no attempts of controlling variables, no attempts of a proper test setup.
Just sitting down and putting one's oar in it seems.
PS: We're not talking about the meaning of someone's dreams here.
That was quick.
So are you saying that experiences can be off but because they're subjective it's all dandy even if they're completely off (and by the linked reviews that seems to be more the rule than the exception)?
A: "The moon is made of cheese!"
B: "You belong in an asylum."
A: "No, that's just my subjective review of the moon."
B: "Oh, in that case it's fine."
I don't think sighted tests are entirely subjective at all. A direct A/B matched comparison can give you a very good idea of the general lay of the land. The only time a blind test is really needed is if two sounds are so close it's hard to tell them apart. That rarely matters in home audio.
I was going to point you to rinchoi's review but did a double take when I looked at your updated OP. I think you need more different sources, and rinchoi gets enough eggs thrown at his face as it is Then again, I suspect the objective performance of these phones is good enough reason why more major, more commercial measurement-based review sites like headphone.com haven't got a hand on them
I think subjectivity is fine, but where most of us falter is clarifying the fact that the assertion is subjective.
-- The moon is made of cheese
as compared to:
-- In my opinion, the moon is made of cheese.
This makes a huge difference, the first one seems like a universal truth, while the other one seems like an individual opinion, meaning you may be open to changing it based on better evidence.
As you might have seen in the media, most good publications follow either of the two styles:
-- Just report the facts, and let the readers make up their mind. BBC is a good example.
-- Admit upfront that the statement is the newspaper's stand on the issue. The Economist does that often.
I don't think either of them are wrong, the idea is to know what a claim is as opposed to a fact.
Just don't have the time to bang my head against a wall that I used to.
"Off" from what? In the context of someone relating their subjective experience, how can it be "off" unless you're going to accuse that someone of lying about what their subjective experience was? One's subjective experience is what it is. And in my opinion the only thing that counts for anything at the end of the day. I don't understand why you insist on imposing objectivism into a context where it is utterly irrelevant.
That's a decidedly objective claim. Do you even know the difference between subjective and objective?