or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Evidence that subjective, sighted reviews fail
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Evidence that subjective, sighted reviews fail - Page 3

post #31 of 71

If I say, "Music sounds clearer when I don't have my fingers plugging my ears." it may be a subjective observation, but it's also an accurate one.

post #32 of 71

"Life is full of oxymorons."

post #33 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post


Apparently there were claims made about the objective performance of the Wadia in the subjective reviews (I say "apparently" because I haven't bothered to look closely at them at all)
 

 

But any objective clams don't take away from the subjective experience.

 

Quote:
 The other contention was that looking at an item's shiny exterior and shiny price tag may bias one's impressions of the item.

 

Well sure. That's part of the gestalt.

 

Quote:
 While one might say that such biased impressions are still valid subjective impressions one might also say that those are silly reasons for liking an item that should be filtered out.

 

And how exactly, as an end user, do you propose to go about filtering that out?

 

se

post #34 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

If I say, "Music sounds clearer when I don't have my fingers plugging my ears." it may be a subjective observation, but it's also an accurate one.

 

All objective experiences are universally subjective.

 

The opposite doesn't apply.

post #35 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

But any objective clams don't take away from the subjective experience.


Well sure. That's part of the gestalt.


And how exactly, as an end user, do you propose to go about filtering that out?

se

1. The contention was that the reviewers thought the Wadia performed objectively flawlessly based on subjective listening. I guess xnor would want them to say "we have no idea how the thing measures since we only used our ears. But it sounded pretty darn good to our ears. But then that could just be the shiny box and the shiny price tag telling our brains it should sound good." rolleyes.gif

3. By staying piss poor? tongue.gif How about by looking at objective measurement data?
post #36 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post


1. The contention was that the reviewers thought the Wadia performed objectively flawlessly based on subjective listening. I guess xnor would want them to say "we have no idea how the thing measures since we only used our ears. But it sounded pretty darn good to our ears. But then that could just be the shiny box and the shiny price tag telling our brains it should sound good." rolleyes.gif
 

 

The latter should go without saying for any subjective review.

 

Quote:
 3. By staying piss poor? tongue.gif How about by looking at objective measurement data?

 

So looking at objective measurement data turns you from a subjective being into an objective being? I don't think so.

 

se

post #37 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

The latter should go without saying for any subjective review.


So looking at objective measurement data turns you from a subjective being into an objective being? I don't think so.

se

It depends on the predisposition of the individual. An "objectivist" already values actual sound quality over brand name and appearance and will be happy picking out the best performing amp for the least money and tweaking its sound with EQ to suit his ears while a subjectivist won't be satisfied with the best sound in the world if it isn't coming out through metre-thick garden hose power cords, solid gold interconnects and megawatt monoblocks driving full range horn speakers for maximum headroom. tongue.gif
post #38 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post


It depends on the predisposition of the individual. An "objectivist" already values actual sound quality over brand name and appearance and will be happy picking out the best performing amp for the least money and tweaking its sound with EQ to suit his ears while a subjectivist won't be satisfied with the best sound in the world if it isn't coming out through metre-thick garden hose power cords, solid gold interconnects and megawatt monoblocks driving full range horn speakers for maximum headroom. tongue.gif

 

Sometimes I wonder, if someone has that much money, why not hire a band to play part time? Then the question of reproduction just goes away.

post #39 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

If I say, "Music sounds clearer when I don't have my fingers plugging my ears." it may be a subjective observation, but it's also an accurate one.

Of course, taking into account the shape of the ear canal, the relative flabbiness of the fingers and how well they fit the inner ear, and conductivity of the finger's skeletal structure!
post #40 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by proton007 View Post

Sometimes I wonder, if someone has that much money, why not hire a band to play part time? Then the question of reproduction just goes away.

I doubt any amount of money in the world will get Perfume or ClariS to come from Tokyo to sing in my living room... redface.gif
post #41 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by proton007 View Post

All objective experiences are universally subjective.

Ah yes! But you can only objectively verify the results with YOUR fingers in YOUR ears! You'll never know how it subjectively sounds with MY fingers in MY ears!
post #42 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

I doubt any amount of money in the world will get Perfume or ClariS to come from Tokyo to sing in my living room... redface.gif

Dennis Rodman went to North Korea!
post #43 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

It depends on the predisposition of the individual. An "objectivist" already values actual sound quality over brand name and appearance and will be happy picking out the best performing amp for the least money and tweaking its sound with EQ to suit his ears while a subjectivist won't be satisfied with the best sound in the world if it isn't coming out through metre-thick garden hose power cords, solid gold interconnects and megawatt monoblocks driving full range horn speakers for maximum headroom. tongue.gif

No, the subjectivist is satisfied with what gives them the most satisfying subjective experience, whatever that may be. And that's not always meter-thick garden hose power cords, solid gold interconnects and megawatt monoblocks, etc.

I really don't understand the intolerance and ridicule of subjectivity here.

se
post #44 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

No, the subjectivist is satisfied with what gives them the most satisfying subjective experience, whatever that may be. And that's not always meter-thick garden hose power cords, solid gold interconnects and megawatt monoblocks, etc.

I really don't understand the intolerance and ridicule of subjectivity here.

se

Fine. But the topic of this thread is audio reviews. And if you don't agree that the objective of reviews, subjective or otherwise, is to pick out good sounding things, then there is not much to discuss. An objectively abysmal sounding POS can be made to sound good by raising the price tag, gold plating it and gathering glowing reviews--a self fulfilling prophecy.

On the other end of the spectrum you have people like Dsnuts driving hype trains on budget items. Those may not perform up to par in objective measures either but we're not condemning them here. If it's fun and costs little what's not to like? But those hype trains never get taken seriously. If you are a subjectivist that holds objective data in contempt, you WILL end up with the garden hose power cord sooner or later. You might have to mortgage your home to do it, you might subjectively be very happy to do so but that doesn't stop us here from shaking our heads... rolleyes.gif
post #45 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post


But we're talking about subjective reviews. What the hell does conforming to reality have to do with it? Conforming to reality is decidedly objective.

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.

It's nonsense.

se

 

Not really.

 

A subjective 'review' of a product's sound is a subjective evaluation of what something sounds like. Not a subjective evaluation of how nice the brushed aluminium faceplate feels. Not a subjective evaluation of how it felt to pay that many dollars to obtain it. Not an evaluation of how strongly the writer feels brand loyalty. You can tell that they're reviewing what it sounds like from the fact that they're describing what it sounds like.

 

Do you think that I should say that some earphones 'look good' because I thought they sounded nice?

Subjective or not, a measurement that doesn't actually measure what it's claiming to is a worthless measurement. That's also why we have blind tests.


Edited by higbvuyb - 10/9/13 at 12:22am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Evidence that subjective, sighted reviews fail