Jump to content
IGNORED

Should reviews of sound quality comply with officially approved international guidelines?


Boris75

Should subjective reviews of sound quality try to follow official international guidelines?  

10 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

In its resolution BS.1284-1, the General Assembly of the ITU adopted guidelines for the subjective assessment of sound quality.

 

Would it make sense for reviewers to try and follow them inasmuch as possible?

 

 

Here are a couple of examples of what this standard has to say:

Location accuracy: The subjective impression that all sound sources are accurately positioned in the sound image.

(...)

Timbre: The subjective impression of the accurate portrayal of the

different sound characteristics of the sound source(s).

Link to comment

There's something about the notion of an international standard for subjective assessment of anything that makes me want to bang my head against the wall.

 

--David

Listening Room: Mac mini (Roon Core) > iMac (HQP) > exaSound PlayPoint (as NAA) > exaSound e32 > W4S STP-SE > Benchmark AHB2 > Wilson Sophia Series 2 (Details)

Office: Mac Pro >  AudioQuest DragonFly Red > JBL LSR305

Mobile: iPhone 6S > AudioQuest DragonFly Black > JH Audio JH5

Link to comment

Well, my initial impulse was to vote no, but after skimming through the document, it looks to me like everything in it makes very good sense. Of course, I can't see ten audio "experts" agreeing on anything. Much less the sound of a new device. (grin)

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

I voted "No" because I simply can't envisage agreement or consensus on what the subjective standards or terminology should be. While I can appreciate the goal of such an approach, the notion of imposing standards on subjectivity can be viewed as tending toward the oxymoronic. OTOH, I'd be glad to be proven wrong.

 

Of course, to an extent, there is some terminology that has broad acceptance, e.g. timbre, tone, PRAT, depth of sound stage, etc. Agreement on how to rate those criteria is another matter. :)

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to comment
Perhaps a standard checklist that accompanies each review. Such as

 

Veil lifted: ____

If veil lifted, number of veils: ___

Punches above its weight: ____

Spouse recognized improvement in sound: ____

Reviewer Will__Will not __be returning demo unit

 

etc etc

 

Can we add ...

 

Like night and day? [] Yes [] No

The difference was [] subtle [] not subtle

 

--David

Listening Room: Mac mini (Roon Core) > iMac (HQP) > exaSound PlayPoint (as NAA) > exaSound e32 > W4S STP-SE > Benchmark AHB2 > Wilson Sophia Series 2 (Details)

Office: Mac Pro >  AudioQuest DragonFly Red > JBL LSR305

Mobile: iPhone 6S > AudioQuest DragonFly Black > JH Audio JH5

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...