What % of equipment reviews do you believe?
Jun 8, 2015 at 8:26 AM Post #46 of 381
and btw, the results are to be expected in the sound science forum. I'd be very curious to see the results of the same poll running in one of the standard forums ... maybe with a more neutral headline cause the current one will probably make some of the audio souls in those parts of headfi inflame & explode.
 
Jun 8, 2015 at 8:28 AM Post #47 of 381
voted 10% ... and that only because I still trust some forum-reviews and partially some pro magazines. The rest is simply paid-advertising, IMHO.
Below are a few somewhat related opinions coming from a pretty unlikely source: Stereophile

*************************
Excepts from a November 2007 interview, the retired J. Gordon Holt & John Atkinson

JA: Do you still feel the high-end audio industry has lost its way in the manner you described 15 years ago?
JGH: Not in the same manner; there’s no hope now. Audio actually used to have a goal: perfect reproduction of the sound of real music performed in a real space. That was found difficult to achieve, and it was abandoned when most music lovers, who almost never heard anything except amplified music anyway, forgot what the “real thing” had sounded like. Today, “good” sound is whatever one likes. As Art Dudley so succinctly said [in his January 2004 “Listening,” see “Letters.” P.9], fidelity is irrelevant to music. Since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes it, that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because different people rarely agree about sound quality. Abandoning the acoustical-instrument standard, and the mindless acceptance of voodoo science, were not parts of my original vision.
...
JA: ... do you feel that the commercial failures of DVD-Audio and SACD could have been avoided?
JGH: I doubt it. No audio product has ever succeeded because it was better, only because it was cheaper, smaller, or easier to use. Your generation will probably be the last to even think about fidelity.
...

JA: Do you see any signs of vitality in high-end audio?
JGH: Vitality? Don’t make me laugh. Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. This refusal is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment to me, because I am associated with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel. For the record: I never, ever claimed that measurements don’t matter. What I said (and very often, at that) was, they don’t always tell the whole story. Not quite the same thing. Remember those loudspeaker shootouts we used to have during our annual writer gatherings in Santa Fe? The frequent occasions when various reviewers would repeatedly choose the same loudspeaker as their favorite (or least favorite) model? That was all the proof needed that blind testing does work, aside from the fact that it’s (still) the only honest kind. It also suggested that simple ear training, with DBT confirmation, could have built the kind of listening confidence among talented reviewers that might have made a world of difference in the outcome of high-end audio.

 
 
It is personally disappointing for me to, as a fan of JGH since he wrote for High Fidelity Magazine in the 1950s and charter subscriber to Stereophile, read such seemingly cynical comments. He is obviously and quite intentionally overlooking one of the greatest innovations for accurate sound quality in the 20th century, digital audio. But that was stylish then.
 
Jun 8, 2015 at 8:47 AM Post #48 of 381
It is personally disappointing for me to, as a fan of JGH since he wrote for High Fidelity Magazine in the 1950s and charter subscriber to Stereophile, read such seemingly cynical comments. He is obviously and quite intentionally overlooking one of the greatest innovations for accurate sound quality in the 20th century, digital audio. But that was stylish then.


The interview is not so much about formats ... mostly audio press and it's credibility. And I think he is right on the money.
Wish there was at least one (D)BT in every single review .. .otherwise is just "literary opinion" ... actually it's even worse nowadays, it is mostly "sponsored opinion"
 
Jun 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM Post #49 of 381
The interview is not so much about formats ... mostly audio press and it's credibility. And I think he is right on the money.
Wish there was at least one (D)BT in every single review .. .otherwise is just "literary opinion" ... actually it's even worse nowadays, it is mostly "sponsored opinion"

 
Your comment about formats kinda struck me because prior to digital, the format and the implementation technology were inextricably connected, but after digital the actual data format could be a  large number of different things and so could the transport media.
 
 
With analog, the format and the transport media were permanently wed. 
 
Jun 8, 2015 at 5:38 PM Post #50 of 381
Why would you believe any review? The sole purpose of a review is to make you buy one kind of gear or to steer you away from the purchase. The latter almost never happen, unless it's a reputable magazine and a newcomer to the market.
 
Just compare measurements that can be compared (check methodology behind the measurements).
 
Jun 8, 2015 at 10:18 PM Post #51 of 381
  Why would you believe any review? The sole purpose of a review is to make you buy one kind of gear or to steer you away from the purchase. The latter almost never happen, unless it's a reputable magazine and a newcomer to the market.
 
Just compare measurements that can be compared (check methodology behind the measurements).

 
At least most reviews on this site aren't so much about trying to get people to buy as they are about the reviewer sharing their honest experiences. "Professional" reviews, on the other hand, are little more than hype. Some of those "reviews" may as well copy and paste a press release...
 
Measurements are only the beginning to a headphone's sound, unfortunately. Many headphones with the same measurements in the bass sound quite different in the bass, for example.
 
Jun 8, 2015 at 10:30 PM Post #52 of 381
 
  Why would you believe any review? The sole purpose of a review is to make you buy one kind of gear or to steer you away from the purchase. The latter almost never happen, unless it's a reputable magazine and a newcomer to the market.
 
Just compare measurements that can be compared (check methodology behind the measurements).

 
At least most reviews on this site aren't so much about trying to get people to buy as they are about the reviewer sharing their honest experiences. "Professional" reviews, on the other hand, are little more than hype. Some of those "reviews" may as well copy and paste a press release...
 
Measurements are only the beginning to a headphone's sound, unfortunately. Many headphones with the same measurements in the bass sound quite different in the bass, for example.

I do not agree at all. at best they may have the same kind of FR in the bass, but what about distortions, or decaying time? measurements are all of the sound, because sound is pretty simple. if 2 headphones measured the same they would sound the same.
 
Jun 9, 2015 at 9:35 AM Post #53 of 381
  I do not agree at all. at best they may have the same kind of FR in the bass, but what about distortions, or decaying time? measurements are all of the sound, because sound is pretty simple. if 2 headphones measured the same they would sound the same.

 
It was just one of many examples. I suppose you're right if enough measurements are taken.
 
...But how do you measure soundstage and imaging? I've never seen measurements that show things like that.
 
Jun 9, 2015 at 10:37 AM Post #54 of 381
   
It was just one of many examples. I suppose you're right if enough measurements are taken.
 
...But how do you measure soundstage and imaging? I've never seen measurements that show things like that.

 
If the FR and phase shift of an impulse measured in the ear canals match up between the two cans, the other fuzzier terms should match up as well. The issue is getting measurements with a good enough S/N ratio and reporting them in an accurate manner. FR graphs for headphones almost always fail in the latter, being typically smoothed.
 
Jun 9, 2015 at 10:58 AM Post #55 of 381
  If the FR and phase shift of an impulse measured in the ear canals match up between the two cans, the other fuzzier terms should match up as well. The issue is getting measurements with a good enough S/N ratio and reporting them in an accurate manner. FR graphs for headphones almost always fail in the latter, being typically smoothed.

 
So, for example, what is there in the HD 800 measurements that show it having a larger soundstage than most other headphones?
 
Jun 9, 2015 at 11:01 AM Post #56 of 381
   
So, for example, what is there in the HD 800 measurements that show it having a larger soundstage than most other headphones?

 
You'd have to know what actual measurements correlate to the latent construct "soundstage" for headphones; has anyone attempted this? Surely a pure left channel sine wave sounds pretty separated from a pure right channel sine wave on lots of headphones.
 
Jun 9, 2015 at 11:05 AM Post #57 of 381
  You'd have to know what actual measurements correlate to the latent construct "soundstage" for headphones; has anyone attempted this? Surely a pure left channel sine wave sounds pretty separated from a pure right channel sine wave on lots of headphones.

 
Seems like speculation at this point then. I just wasn't aware that everything about a headphone's sound could even be measured.
 
I would be very interested in how to measure things like soundstage and imaging. Keep me posted on any info you find.
 
Jun 9, 2015 at 11:06 AM Post #58 of 381
I voted 30%
 
Too many reviews on the web are full of self-interest and lack any meaningful testing methodology.
 
Jun 9, 2015 at 11:54 AM Post #59 of 381
   
At least most reviews on this site aren't so much about trying to get people to buy as they are about the reviewer sharing their honest experiences. "Professional" reviews, on the other hand, are little more than hype. Some of those "reviews" may as well copy and paste a press release...
 
Measurements are only the beginning to a headphone's sound, unfortunately. Many headphones with the same measurements in the bass sound quite different in the bass, for example.

 
Then they rather obviously measure differently in the bass!
 
When bass performance changes as you mildly vary the inward pressure on the cups, this only points out how difficult it is to stage the measurements so that if the devices are different, then they measure different.
 
Of course there is no one ideal standard measurement for the distance  between the ears - everybody is a little different. This means that judging headphones by bass balance can be difficult or futile, especially if the differences are small (but still measurable and audible).  
 
Hence, the utility of flexible equalization in maximizing listening pleasure.
 
Jun 9, 2015 at 12:00 PM Post #60 of 381
   
It was just one of many examples. I suppose you're right if enough measurements are taken.
 
...But how do you measure soundstage and imaging? I've never seen measurements that show things like that.

 
A lot of what is written about soundstaging and imaging IME has to be primarily illusions, because the listening tests that are done are obviously so crude as to be inadequate to accurately log those kind of differences.
 
How do you measure soundstage and imaging?   Let's put it this way, an amplifier that is subjectively a straight wire with gain (not rocket science these days) makes no audible changes in these areas.  Obviously, there is no pair of headphones whose FR and distortion measurements are in the same country, let alone zip code as good amplifiers. And that is considering the relatively easy part of performance - the audible differences.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top