[chadbang]

Remember the golden rule of reviewing. Don't give your headphones a bad one until after you've unloaded them.

 

[Vergex2]

Quote:

Remember the golden rule of reviewing. Don't give your headphones a bad one until after you've unloaded them.

Way, way, too late

 

[Yikes]

Great post! (I've posted basically the same point at least twice in the last 6 years)
Quote:

I think sometimes too many people on Head-Fi, including myself at times, take ourselves too seriously. This is a hobby we're supposed to enjoy. I get entertained by reading reviews. I have fun writing them. Just about every review I've read has a good does of subjectivity to them. Hell, I always qualify mine reviews as being just my opinion. I accept that reviews are opinions.

When you read enough of the reviews here on Head-Fi you will get to know the personality and preferences of the writer. Based on those that either closely match your own or are contrary to your, they can help.

I don't think we're doing anyone any disservice. If someone here purchases a $500 'phone, $300 amp and $200 DAC and it takes food out of their or their family's mouth shame on them. No-one here had a hand in that. But the money we all spend on our gear is disposable income. Not a necessity. So if we make an error in judgment based on a review, so what? Sell the gear and move on.

As informative and terrific as this site is with it's wealth of knowledge, it's still entertainment. And entertainment is subjective. It's the responsibility of each of us to make our own purchasing decisions.

So have fun with your headphones folks. It doesn't matter if you've spent $25 or $2500 for your rig. Listen to your favorite tunes.

Anyone's review can be useful for determining a products features, build, and perhaps ergonomic quirks, However as far as sound quality goes a single review by an unknown reviewer is useless. Before I'll pay attention to someones opinion concerning any gear I need to know their tastes, what other headphones have they liked? What sources and amps do they use and have used? When their tastes are similar to my own I give their opinions more weight, otherwise you might as well ask your plumber what headphones to buy.
 
Read peoples reviews (Opinions) and after a while you'll get to know those members whose tastes are similar to your own. Then use them as a guide, but remember there is no replacement for a personal audition.
 

 

[Prog Rock Man]

There was a thread which was a series of impressions of headphones. Whilst all were subjective and often contradictory, as a whole they were very helpful in deciding what was the overall sound of different headphones. I take a statistical view where I discount the extremes and look out for the truncated mean. 
 
Comments about looks are irrelevant to me, but info such as leaking of sound and comfort are very useful.
 
Then, as Yikes says (and someone with loads of posts has in their signature), the rest of the kit is vital to get a really good idea of how something sounds.
 

 

[sgrossklass]

Quote:

The only opinions I trust are casual impressions from members who have tastes similar to my own.

Sounds like a fairly reasonable approach. If they have a decent amount of listening experience on top of that, I'd expect pretty decent results for stuff like cans. (IEMs tend to vary to a larger degree, but one can usually tell whether people have similar ears by their take on a few different models.) I'd never trust any subjective review of components which in general only have very small sonic differences (unless, err, "tweaked"), like DACs or CD players purely as high-level sources - save for the usual look and feel stuff, of course.

 

[jax]

 
Quote:

Music is art and art is subjective, but here we don't judge music, we judge equipment, and equipment is engineering, not art.
The fact that the reviews are subjective is a flaw, if one could measure the accuracy* of audio equipment perfectly, we would not be having this debate.

*to my knowledge, there's no means to measure soundstage, attacks, decays, transients perfectly.

Music and art is not "subjective"...it simply is what it is.  It is the idea of "bad" and "good" anything that is subjective.  Bad music...bad art?  No such thing without a point of personal reference.  It is entirely subjective at the point when there is a human being doing the judging.  If you actually could come up with some theoretical magic black box to measure how well a pair of headphones succeed in duplicating a live performance in every way imaginable,  you'd STILL have various people preferring other headphones and other ways of 'interpretting" a live performance.  It does not promise that everyone who hears them will necessarily like them best because they mimic verbatim.  It's like having a device that measures the taste of chocolate cake.  Even if you get that device and works 100% of the time it will not report how that measured item occurs to any random individual.  It will just measure a fixed set of criteria to match to some established standard.  In the case of what your proposing, the standard would be to match the actual sounds of an instrument, a performance.  Is that what everyone wants? Does everyone hear it the same in the first place? I doubt it.  But it would give some of us a self-righteous box to perch upon and feel justified in choosing the device that measured "best in show" according to 9/10 dentists who chew gum. 

 

[khaos974]

 
Quote:

Music and art is not "subjective"...it simply is what it is.  It is the idea of "bad" and "good" anything that is subjective.  Bad music...bad art?  No such thing without a point of personal reference.  It is entirely subjective at the point when there is a human being doing the judging.

I agree with you, that's what I previously meant. It's just that a headphone (or any audio gear) is a medium for art, not art itself. It's a medium that should allow us to judge the original performance.
 
Quote:

If you actually could come up with some theoretical magic black box to measure how well a pair of headphones succeed in duplicating a live performance in every way imaginable,  you'd STILL have various people preferring other headphones and other ways of 'interpretting" a live performance.  It does not promise that everyone who hears them will necessarily like them best because they mimic verbatim.  It's like having a device that measures the taste of chocolate cake.  Even if you get that device and works 100% of the time it will not report how that measured item occurs to any random individual.  It will just measure a fixed set of criteria to match to some established standard.  In the case of what your proposing, the standard would be to match the actual sounds of an instrument, a performance.  Is that what everyone wants? Does everyone hear it the same in the first place? I doubt it.  But it would give some of us a self-righteous box to perch upon and feel justified in choosing the device that measured "best in show" according to 9/10 dentists who chew gum.

This is where we disagree, to me, a headphone is not part of art, it's not a conductor which interprets a composer's work. It is purely a technical device, it job is to reproduce the signal it receives, perfectly... An analogy with an amp would be "wire with gain". There's not chocolate deliciousness measurement device simply because there's no reference chocolate, everyone likes something different. On the other hand in audio, the reference would be live unamped performance, the device that match the closest to this sound would be the greatest. With such a device I would know that if what I hear through it is too schrill/bassy/has a bad resonance (or whatever fault), I would have found the same thing if I was at the live performance.
 
Each step has its lot of imperfertions, the mics, the AD, the mixing, the engineer, the mastering, the DA, the amping, the headphones... As for headphones I'll settle for one which reproduces a soundwave of the exact shape of the electrical signal it receives from the amp. If I rated a live performance at 7.2/10, The same performance through my headphones shoulf be heard rated at 7.2/10, not 9/10 or 6/10.
 
Ideally speaking, I'd rather have a headphone that makes everything sound like a 10/10, (for my tastes which could also change from time to time) or turns a performance by the local college orchestra to one of the Concertgebouw. Since this is impossible, I'll simply settle to what's closest to the original performance.

 

[baka1969]

Quote:
Originally Posted by khaos974  


<quote>"snip..... This is where we disagree, to me, a headphone is not part of
art, it's not
a conductor which interprets a composer's work. It is purely a technical
device, it job is to reproduce the signal it receives, perfectly... An
analogy with an amp would be "wire with gain". There's not chocolate
deliciousness measurement device simply because there's no reference
chocolate, everyone likes something different. On the other hand in
audio, the reference would be live unamped performance, the device
that match the closest to this sound would be the greatest. With such a
device I would know that if what I hear through it is too schrill/bassy/has
a bad resonance (or whatever fault), I would have found the same thing
if I was at the live performance.

Each step has its lot of imperfertions, the mics, the AD, the mixing, the
engineer, the mastering, the DA, the amping, the headphones... As for
headphones I'll settle for one which reproduces a soundwave of the
exact shape of the electrical signal it receives from the amp. If I rated a
live performance at 7.2/10, The same performance through my
headphones shoulf be heard rated at 7.2/10, not 9/10 or 6/10.

Ideally speaking, I'd rather have a headphone that makes everything
sound like a 10/10, (for my tastes which could also change from time to
time) or turns a performance by the local college orchestra to one of the
Concertgebouw. Since this is impossible, I'll simply settle to what's
closest to the original performance.</quote>"

If all headphones were perfect and reproduced exactly then Head-Fi would be
moot. All headphones at each price point would sound exactly the same.
They don't. Each company has it's own approach on how to design it's
headphones and the sound signature it want's to have. That, in and of
itself is subjective. If each company objectively tried to perfectly
reproduce the recorded music, then none of us would have to decide if
the T1, PS1000 or HD800 is our ultimate goal. We'd just (metaphorically)
flip a coin and choose one. It wouldn't matter. The headphone
companies make subjective decisions when designing a headphone. As
are every piece of the puzzle that goes into reproducing music. They
haven't made a wire with gain yet...

 

[khaos974]

 
Quote:

If all headphones were perfect and reproduced exactly then Head-Fi would be moot.

 
The basis is that headphone companies don't really have the means to "measure" perfection, so at least part of the design process is made by ears. And since hearing involves perception and interpretation, we can't help but have headphones with different sound sigs. And there are people like jax who would prefer a headphone to sound good rather than "true" to the source.
 
EDIT: while our povs differ, jax approach is perfectly valid.

 

[jax]

Headphone listening comes so, so short of the mark in terms or replicating the experience of live music that you can just give up all comparisons there.  It ain't going to happen.  Physics makes that impossible for those of you who insist on hanging on science and proof.  Pumping music directly into your ears cannot replicate the experience of that music enveloping all of your senses.  True to source is a total fallacy, and there is no magic box like I offered up as a hypothetical.  It is a completely ridiculous notion to expect headphones to replicate live, and to fabricate an "objective" means of measurement and review is just a need to put things into pigeon holes of bad and good, black and white, right and wrong.  Ridiculous and worthless, IMHO.  Even for those who rely on such numbers who may STILL prefer a headphone that does not comply.  Who's to say what "live" sounds like to another person?  It's like saying what "Red" looks like, or what chocolate tastes like.  It's utter nonsense.  You can describe what you hear and what you experience and, as Erik points out, you may have similarities in how you experience that and what your preferences are with a particular group of individuals (I'll buy that...you also may find you part ways at times), but to think yours, or that group, is the end-all word on how anything should be is pretty silly.  So, "people like jax" are all people, whether you rely upon a set of measurement standards that someone has dictated represents a measurement of good and bad, or whether you rely on your own ears...you are still stating a preference based upon something conceived by humans.  As I said before, my choice to to rely upon the senses I've been given to make such judgments rather than someone else's concept of what good and bad is, whether it be graphs and numbers or their own ears.  I do also pay attention to those with a track record that I can relate to.  I certainly don't take anyone's word but my own as the last word in what is right for me.

 

[jax]

It may not be a conductor interpreting an artist's work, but it is a device that is interpreting the electrical information that is delivered to it.  It is an interpreter as well.  It is doing a translation.  The content it is translating is emotionally charged material for most humans who experience this translation and each may respond entirely differently to another to how it is translated.  You choose something that you define as "objective" that takes the human opinion out of the equation...to me that suits no purpose at all.  Well, let me qualify that:  It is a point of departure like any other piece of information or response to this device you are accessing...not a be all end all determination of how it will occur to everyone who experiences it.  If it 'interprets' verbatim, then you'd call it "good".  OK, so where does that get us?  Someone else still may not enjoy it as you do (or perhaps you may not even enjoy it as much as something else).  It may actually give someone else a headache to listen to.  So is it still "good" for everyone?  This idea of objectivity is such a quagmire of pig slop that I tire of the stench, and of having to don my hip waders to move around in it.  It's an abstract reference but it reminds me loosely of a conversation I had the other day.  It was around the idea of those magical moments of connection one might experience with another, or a group of others, or even alone.  You know those moments...where you actually feel alive and connected.  Well the idea of some form of "objectivity" that defines "good" and "bad" in the reproduction of sound, is just as absurd a notion to me as going back to recreate all the things that made one of those magical moments where you felt alive.  You bring together the same people in the same place and have the expectation of the same feeling occurring...well, most of us know it'll never happen.  Human experience really has little to do with the objective.  Things change. We change. We are as different from each other as our fingerprints.  You can objectively read fingerprints....does that tell you anything really about the person beyond their identity?  What is it with the idea of objective measurements being able to define the response of a human being? 
 
Rambling on...part III.
 
Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by khaos974  


<quote>"snip..... This is where we disagree, to me, a headphone is not part of
art, it's not
a conductor which interprets a composer's work. It is purely a technical
device, it job is to reproduce the signal it receives, perfectly... An
analogy with an amp would be "wire with gain". There's not chocolate
deliciousness measurement device simply because there's no reference
chocolate, everyone likes something different. On the other hand in
audio, the reference would be live unamped performance, the device
that match the closest to this sound would be the greatest. With such a
device I would know that if what I hear through it is too schrill/bassy/has
a bad resonance (or whatever fault), I would have found the same thing
if I was at the live performance.
 

 

[LFF]

I try to present any reviews and opinions as honestly as possible. In the end it comes down to your own ears and what your preferences are. Hence, I always recommend they listen to things before they buy them with music they know well.

 

[Snake]

ALL reviews must be "taken with a grain of salt".  ALL - every single one.
 
A review is a personal opinion, nothing more.  The problem with personal opinions as reviews is that the principle of the review is comparison : one item against another.  The issue with such a comparison is How much exposure to comparisons does the reviewer have? and What is the mindset of the reviewer doing the comparison?
 
Regretfully, unless you follow a single reviewer consistently across time, you don't know the answer to either of those questions.  Experience is a major factor in the review process: if reviewer (A) has exposure to 6 items of a category, while reviewer (B) has exposure to 50 items of the same category, reviewer (B) will be much harsher (and, possible, more "true") to express his/her opinions of comparison of the object against the competition.  Reviewer (A) may proclaim "It's the best evar!" while reviewer (B) says "It's a solid 3 out of 5 stars"...and both statements seem equally valid to an individual reader who simply came across the review.  Yet one reviewer has a broader range of comparison and therefore is probably more "true" due to the fact that the reviewer has indeed been exposed to greater, or at least different, device performances.
 
The second clause is harder to pin down.  This clause is where the reviewer's personal preferences can come in, and unless you know that preference you can't say what they are thinking.  For example, I'm an AVID motorcyclist.  Motorcyclist Magazine's new editor, Brian Catterson, for the first year to 1 & 1/2 of his position, canned any bike that did not show a "sporting" performance.  That's because he was a racer, rode a tremendous amount on the track...and he actually admitted, for example, not understanding why people would bother to ride a cruiser (or anything not supersport).  He had a personal preference that clouded his review comparisons: all motorcycles tested had to perform, and indeed were mentioned by word in comparison to, a sportbike...even if the motorcycle had no pretensions of being used in a competitive manner.
 
So, for Catterson, "everything" had to equal "one thing" - a sportbike - and therefore no bike was truly reviewed for what it was: most bikes ended up being reviewed for what they were not.
 
All reviews can go that way - what, exactly, ARE you mentally comparing the object to?  A reviewer can voice their thoughts about it but the mind is complex and what they believe they are mentally doing, and saying they are doing, might not be the entire case.  They say they are comparing (A) to (B), but what about their memory of (C), (D), (Q) and (F) still lingering about?  Are they hoping more for the experience of (G) but romancing back to (Z)?  Remembering the glory days of (R) but feel they are stuck in the days of (M) because of a poor initial impression?

 

[khaos974]

 
Quote:

Who's to say what "live" sounds like to another person?  It's like saying what "Red" looks like, or what chocolate tastes like.  It's utter nonsense. [...] As I said before, my choice to to rely upon the senses I've been given to make such judgments rather than someone else's concept of what good and bad is, whether it be graphs and numbers or their own ears.

 
Sound reproduction is not about perception, it's about stimulus. Response to a stimulus varies from person to person, thus your choice would be to get the equipment that you have the best response to, I think that's the point you are trying to make. But, by getting the reproduced stimulus as close to the original stimulus, you would get a response as close as possible to the original response you had, that's why high-fidelity is important to me.
 
Quote:

If it 'interprets' verbatim, then you'd call it "good".  OK, so where does that get us?  Someone else still may not enjoy it as you do (or perhaps you may not even enjoy it as much as something else).

 
Your analogy to a translation is good. Suppose that you have novels written in French, that's the live performance, now because you can't read French or go to the concert, you are using headphones or reading the English translation. Above all, you want to read a well written novel, with good figures of speech (not sure of the English word  I mean things like metaphors, alliterations, innovative metonymies...) and thus you would want the translation to be well written. I would rather have a a faithful translation, if the novel was well written in French, the same characteristics should be found in English, if the author wrote like an uncultured lout, the translation should reflect that, and not attempt to present a more civilized language.
 
In short, it brings us to the point where should I learn French and read the original novel, I can tell "the translation is good, but the novel itself was badly written, or the translation is good, as was the novel" rather than "Wow, the English version was good, but its style was not that of the original version". To me audio equipment is the translator, it should remain as faithful as possible to the original within the technological limits.
 
Quote:

What is it with the idea of objective measurements being able to define the response of a human being?

 
As I said and repeated, measurement does not define the response of an individual, merely the stimuli. And for that matter, I remember writing that I thought we haven't developed all the means to measure the "fidelity" of audio equipment yet.

 

[khaos974]

 
Quote:

ALL reviews must be "taken with a grain of salt".  ALL - every single one.

 
I know, that's why the title was with a "bag" of salt, with how many grains of salt do you trust a reviewer when selecting equipment you want to try.
Otherwise, your post was very informative about to means you use to determine how big the bag would be depending on the reviewer's previous behavior.