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 4

post #46 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

 the numerous expensive iems / ciems in vogue that have atrocious phase performance

If you think those look bad, you should look at what your EQ is doing to the phase too :v

post #47 of 71
Wait a minute! No one told me about the hype train! I want to get on the hype train!
post #48 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by higbvuyb View Post

If you think those look bad, you should look at what your EQ is doing to the phase too :v

Which EQ? Minimum phase EQ used to correct the FR of headphones with minimum phase behaviour actually *improves* the phase response. And one can always opt for linear phase EQ instead if desired.
post #49 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post


Which EQ? Minimum phase EQ used to correct the FR of headphones with minimum phase behaviour actually *improves* the phase response. And one can always opt for linear phase EQ instead if desired.

It would, if headphones were minimum phase, LTI systems. I wish they were too.

post #50 of 71
The bit about phase was just a throwaway remark. It probably isn't audible but the 4kHz suckout that you cut out definitely is (is there a practical joke in this somewhere? rolleyes.gif)
post #51 of 71
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

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

And I really don't understand what you're on about.

 

I'm totally fine if someone takes the subjective route (although I think that high fidelity and subjectivity for some people sometimes don't go in the same direction).

If you prefer a frequency response with bumps and dips that is fine, unless you say the component has flat frequency response.

If you prefer harmonic and nasty intermodulation distortion which go hand in hand then that is fine, unless you say the component has low distortion.

If you prefer a high noise floor that is fine, unless you say the component has a low noise floor.

If you prefer wow, flutter, clicks and pops that is fine ...

...

and vice versa.

 

 

This thread is not about intolerance or ridicule towards subjectivity per se. I'm saying this for the 3rd and last time.


Edited by xnor - 10/9/13 at 5:04am
post #52 of 71
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by higbvuyb View Post
 

It would, if headphones were minimum phase, LTI systems. I wish they were too.

 

Are we talking specifically about multi-driver IEMs here? The crossover in the 3/4.Ai seems to be an engineering fail (wrong polarity or corner frequencies off by several hundred Hz?).

 

You indeed gonna have a hard time correcting that with an EQ.. but then you're not going to turn earbuds into <insert nice headphone here> either.

post #53 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post
 

I'm totally fine if someone takes the subjective route (although I think that high fidelity and subjectivity for some people sometimes don't go in the same direction).

 

That isn't a given. I have absolutely no interest in performing double blind tests of minute differences. I just want MY system to sound good. I use scientific theory and subjective listening to determine how to do that. I focus on broad strokes and work my way down until the effort doesn't justify the improvement. It gets me 99% of the way to the same place. The things you can clearly hear ar the things that matter. The rest is superfluous.

 

The problem with home audio among both subjectivists and objectivists is that they spend WAY too much time worrying about shaving fly's wings. You really don't need to determine the effect of everything to with a tolerance of +/- .005dB on a spec sheet. Likewise, if the only way you can determine if a difference actually exists is to do a double blind test, odds are the difference doesn't matter anyway. Why waste time and effort on stuff like that?

post #54 of 71
Thread Starter 

I'm not sure what you're replying to specifically. Maybe you misunderstood "subjective route". I was thinking of ignoring any kind of objective data and, for example, basing your purchase decisions solely on subjective "data". That and overestimating your own hearing ability and bias immunity (warning: oxymoron) can lead you to buying expensive rubbish.

 

The problem is again not personal preference but the claims. Rod Elliott wrote (regarding tube amps, but I think it's equally applicable to other components):

Any two amplifiers of good performance should sound the same, and if any difference exists there will be a good reason for it. The nonsense you may hear that some amps are hugely better than others is just silly - there is no logical or scientific reason that two amplifiers of similar overall specification can possibly sound different from each other. Strangely, the amps that are supposedly superior almost always have more distortion, higher output impedance and worse frequency response than their 'inferior' brethren. The basic criteria for hi-fi were established a long time ago, and have improved over the years, yet we have some reviewers claiming that valve equipment that was below par 50 years ago is better than transistor amps that trounce these 'new-old' amps in every respect.

Edited by xnor - 10/9/13 at 12:51pm
post #55 of 71

My hearing and analysis of what I'm hearing has led me to buy very efficiently. I don't need blind testing. All I need is level matched A/B comparisons. If an A/B indicates that the differences are so close, I might have to do a blind test to determine which is better, then I just say to hell with it and go with whatever is cheaper.

post #56 of 71
Thread Starter 

But you are a very reasonable guy with a down-to-earth approach.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

All I need is level matched A/B comparisons.

Guess that's better than many reviewers ... which is kinda shocking considering that it's crucial.

 

Also, I'd say the necessity of blind testing is lower if you really want just the better sounding component instead of the one with the better reputation, brand name, looks, higher price tag, bragging rights and so on... Still, nobody's immune to bias.

 

Take a look at Olive's blog post about sighted listening tests. Even "trained audio professionals'" (Harman employees) ratings were influenced by brand biases and by size, price, materials.


Edited by xnor - 10/9/13 at 3:02pm
post #57 of 71

It helps to be cheap.

post #58 of 71
Thread Starter 

Indeed. :smile:

post #59 of 71

If they made reviewers pay for the equipment they reviewed, there would be less reviews but better ones.

post #60 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post
 

 

Also, I'd say the necessity of blind testing is lower if you really want just the better sounding component instead of the one with the better reputation, brand name, looks, higher price tag, bragging rights and so on... Still, nobody's immune to bias.

 

 

 

I don’t think this idea you have about bias being the main cause for what audio component someone might choose, it’s a sound one.

 

I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s at some point bought something that they liked the look of it, paid good money for it, really really want to like it, but it just didn’t work as expected, and ultimately got rid of it.

 

Biases exist, yes. If I’m auditioning two CD players - one is a beautiful built/designed with a price tag of $5k, and the other is a regular $500 one, I’m expecting the former to perform better - that’s obvious - but whether I’m actually going to like it, is a different matter that's based on its performance, and its performance alone.


I’m afraid you’re gonna have to find some other ideas to base your argument on, as these of bias ones are getting kinda tiring.

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