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

[Boris75]

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).

[orgel]

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

[Stereolab42]

Somewhere out there an EU bureaucrat is preparing to make this guideline mandatory and start arresting dissenting audio reviewers.

[semente]

Somewhere out there an EU bureaucrat is preparing to make this guideline mandatory and start arresting dissenting audio reviewers.

 

That made me laugh.

 

Cheers,

R

[Paul R]

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)

[Allan F]

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.

[speavler]

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

[orgel]

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

[pdvm]

LOL at last two comments

 

For headphone gear, add "authority of the grabbing"

[wgscott]

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

 

I had the exact same reaction (apart from it being my head -- no offense.)

[RealAudio]

Seems like they have assembled a reasonable set of guidelines. For all you objecting kibitzers, specifically what do you object to. What would you add or remove or change?