[MindBreak]

I understand completely that everyone perceives sound differently, but I think that the issue is in the way he states his "opinion". Saying something "is" or "is not" good for a particular use case when you are a reviewer will be perceived as a definitive answer to the audience. That is why some reviewers will say "to my ears", "my take", or "in my opinion" to prevent that misconception from occuring. It matters not the reviewers intent if the message is not conveyed to the audience in a manner that they can understand.
That being said, he is kind of beating a dead horse with that many videos on the subject.

 

[up late]

^ he usually states in his videos that all thoughts and opinions are his own, although he didn't do it in his follow-up review of the tungsten. that said, i think it is apparent from the review that he is describing his own experience with the tungsten. but as he says in the video 'to each their own'. and he did use phrases such as 'for me', 'for my ears' and 'i think' during the course of the review btw. i'm also under the impression that Ryan from Mod House Audio doesn't have a problem with his reviewing style.

 

[MindBreak]

The "all thoughts and opinions are my own" part is to say that the ones who sent him the gear are not influencing his review. Most reviewers say something similar. In his Mjolnir 3 review he did state that it "is not" a good pairing with 300 ohm headphones to my recollection. He uses different phrasing in different reviews. Regardless, my beating a dead horse statement in regard to his Tungsten videos still applies.
I am not saying you should or should not watch his videos, but he does have a lot of room for improvement. As I have said in my previous comment, it doesn't matter his intent if the viewer perceives it differently. That is true of all content made for public consumption.
I am not trying to be combative. These are things all reviewers have had to work on over time. Although short lived it was something I had to consider when writing articles & opinion pieces for a friend's tech website. The message has to be easily understood by those with little to no knowledge of the subject matter. That way those who are just getting into the hobby will walk away with a reasonable understanding of what the reviewer was trying to convey.

 

[MindBreak]

Well, the thunder storm just rolled in. If I lose power I hope you all have a wonderful day, and Happy Listening.

 

[up late]

The "all thoughts and opinions are my own" part is to say that the ones who sent him the gear are not influencing his review. Most reviewers say something similar. In his Mjolnir 3 review he did state that it "is not" a good pairing with 300 ohm headphones to my recollection. He uses different phrasing in different reviews. Regardless, my beating a dead horse statement in regard to his Tungsten videos still applies.
I am not saying you should or should not watch his videos, but he does have a lot of room for improvement. As I have said in my previous comment, it doesn't matter his intent if the viewer perceives it differently. That is true of all content made for public consumption.
I am not trying to be combative. These are things all reviewers have had to work on over time. Although short lived it was something I had to consider when writing articles & opinion pieces for a friend's tech website. The message has to be easily understood by those with little to no knowledge of the subject matter. That way those who are just getting into the hobby will walk away with a reasonable understanding of what the reviewer was trying to convey.

yes, that is the purpose of the statement and i think it goes without saying that the reviewer's 'thoughts and opinions' are informed by their auditory perception, personal preferences and biases, likes/dislikes, etc. we are talking about a subjective headphone review that was uploaded to the reviewer's youtube channel after all - it's not science or a legal judgement. some reviewers include objective measurements and their interpretations of them in their reviews and they make a point of distinguishing between those and their subjective impressions, which i think is appropriate.

if he said in his mjolnir 3 review that it 'is not' a good pairing with 300 ohm headphones then that is his opinion based on his own experience. i find it hard to believe that his audience would mistake that for a statement of fact.

as for your 'beating a dead horse statement' regarding his tungsten videos, i don't share your opinion but i do think that some of his videos are way too long.

 

[Menkau-ra]

I understand completely that everyone perceives sound differently, but I think that the issue is in the way he states his "opinion". Saying something "is" or "is not" good for a particular use case when you are a reviewer will be perceived as a definitive answer to the audience. That is why some reviewers will say "to my ears", "my take", or "in my opinion" to prevent that misconception from occuring. It matters not the reviewers intent if the message is not conveyed to the audience in a manner that they can understand.
That being said, he is kind of beating a dead horse with that many videos on the subject.

That’s exactly what I’m trying to say. Thank you.

Other reviewers specify when they are talking objective or subjective opinions. And that’s important.
Under subjective they can say anything on their mind as long as everybody understands that it’s subjective.
But under objective you must tell only the truth that other people can confirm, regardless of your own bias.

You’re right about Mj3 review - I can’t reproduce any of the 300 Ohms issues he was talking about. He should clearly define objective and subjective.

 

[MindBreak]

That’s exactly what I’m trying to say. Thank you.

Other reviewers specify when they are talking objective or subjective opinions. And that’s important.
Under subjective they can say anything on their mind as long as everybody understands that it’s subjective.
But under objective you must tell only the truth that other people can confirm, regardless of your own bias.

You’re right about Mj3 review - I can’t reproduce any of the 300 Ohms issues he was talking about. He should clearly define objective and subjective.

No problem, glad I could be of assistance.
I will admit that he did get one thing right in that review. Mjolnir 3 does have some difficulty with some harder to drive planar headphones. My Starry Night is included in that category. Currently driving them off a Gjallarhorn using the Mjolnir 3 as the preamp (excellent combo by the way, in my opinion that is ).

 

[Menkau-ra]

No problem, glad I could be of assistance.
I will admit that he did get one thing right in that review. Mjolnir 3 does have some difficulty with some harder to drive planar headphones. My Starry Night is included in that category. Currently driving them off a Gjallarhorn using the Mjolnir 3 as the preamp (excellent combo by the way, in my opinion that is ).

To my ears, LOL, the Mj3 was perfect with HE6seV2, but Tungsten needs some more power for better dynamics and slam.

 

[up late]

That’s exactly what I’m trying to say. Thank you.

Other reviewers specify when they are talking objective or subjective opinions. And that’s important.
Under subjective they can say anything on their mind as long as everybody understands that it’s subjective.
But under objective you must tell only the truth that other people can confirm, regardless of your own bias.

You’re right about Mj3 review - I can’t reproduce any of the 300 Ohms issues he was talking about. He should clearly define objective and subjective.

and there are other reviewers who don't specify that their reviews are subjective beyond saying that 'all thoughts and opinions are their own'. it's certainly not unique to @WaveTheory.

 

[MindBreak]

To my ears, LOL, the Mj3 was perfect with HE6seV2, but Tungsten needs some more power for better dynamics and slam.

Unfortunately I have never had the pleasure of auditioning any version of the HE6 (I am only 4 years into my mid to high end audio journey), but since people have said the ZMF Caldera sounds great on it, I am not surprised. Starry Night is similar to a speaker load though due to it being rated at 10 ohms 87db* (some debate on whether or not the sensitivity is accurate on the first run of the v1). Once I get the rest of my audio chain upgraded I might look into getting a used pair of HE6seV2s.

 

[Menkau-ra]

and there are other reviewers who don't specify that their reviews are subjective beyond saying that 'all thoughts and opinions are their own'. it's certainly not unique to @WaveTheory.

WaiveTheory makes strong statements. And he presents them as something objective. As long as he separates objective and subjective, he would not be questioned.

 

[MindBreak]

Can we all just agree that word choices matter, and that the intent of the message can get lost in translation. Audio can be perceived differently, but so can text (just read reviews of books). lol

 

[MindBreak]

Now I am the one beating a dead horse here.

 

[Menkau-ra]

Unfortunately I have never had the pleasure of auditioning any version of the HE6 (I am only 4 years into my mid to high end audio journey), but since people have said the ZMF Caldera sounds great on it, I am not surprised. Starry Night is similar to a speaker load though due to it being rated at 10 ohms 87db* (some debate on whether or not the sensitivity is accurate on the first run of the v1). Once I get the rest of my audio chain upgraded I might look into getting a used pair of HE6seV2s.

If you want HE6 series I would recommend to save for HE6 OG. But they cost as much as Tungsten

 

[up late]

WaiveTheory makes strong statements. And he presents them as something objective. As long as he separates objective and subjective, he would not be questioned.

i disagree with your interpretation for the reasons that i have already given