The Reviewer’s Fallacy: When critics aren’t critical enough

[semente]

I think that the following text makes sense in this thread:

 

"AUDIO RELATIVISM"-THE NEW DISEASE AND EXCUSE

There has been a growing (and unspoken) "trend" in the audio magazine industry for more than a decade. In fact, I understand that one editor/reviewer (Jonathan Valin) finally stated and defended (a version of) this "theory" (or "belief") in a major magazine (TAS). Later on, another audio writer, Michael Laborgna, this time in Stereophile, made the same claim, in almost the same words.

I call this new "theory": "Audio Relativism".

 

What is Audio Relativism?

It is the belief system that virtually every component has strong merit and can produce "great sound", for someone's "tastes", if it is matched correctly with other components.

What are (some of) the ultimate implications of this theory?

1. Every component has some validity in the audio marketplace.

2. No component is inherently superior to another.

3. All sound reproduction differences are just a simple matter of taste.

4. There is no objective standard to aim for.

5. (High) Fidelity to the source, or in general, is irrelevant.

6. Audio is an "Art Form", like poetry and sculpting, rather than a science.

This "belief system" is very convenient for its creators; the audio magazines and their 'reviewers'. It provides them with the ability (and the excuse) to find some "good", or some "justification" to purchase, within every single component that is reviewed by them. How?

Because, if their belief is true, each and every component, under the right conditions, can equally satisfy listeners as much as any other component, for either the money or in the absolute sense. It's just a matter of time, or luck, before you find the right "match".

In effect: this theory means that all component performance is "relative" and with no "absolutes"; only "possibilities" exist.

I profoundly disagree with this belief.

 

The Problems with Audio Relativism

1. If true, in effect there has been no real progress in audio for the last 40 years or more, since any "improvements" are simply a "matter of taste", and that's all.

2. If true, there can never be any true, objective (or even "subjective") progress in audio reproduction in the future.

In theory, only "relative" progress can ever be made, depending only on the changing tastes and feelings of the listeners, and based on how they "relate" to the sound of the components.

3. If true, no component, let alone complete system, can ever be honestly described (or declared) to be closer to the sound of "The Reference" (the original recording, or "live music"), as any other component or system.

 

My Opinion on "Audio Relativism"

I am the first to admit that "priorities" and "tastes" are critical when choosing components, because nothing is "perfect". That being said, this is still very different from proclaiming that:

1. "Tastes" are all that matter, and 
2. All components are the same or equal otherwise.

Those two statements are false, period.

Audio is not like wine or food tasting. It is a scientific and technical attempt to perfectly recreate a previous (musical) event. It is engineers and technicians that by and large design and build audio components, not Master Chefs.

Because it is still (and may always be) "imperfect", there will be unavoidable subjective elements within its pursuit, but there are existing objective and fundamental standards (the original recordings and "live music"), even though they are a moving and nebulous target. This can never be true with "wine and food tasting".

There is a huge difference between a subjective description of imperfect music reproduction and a subjective response to imperfect music reproduction. That vital distinction must never be blurred.

This "theory" is just one more pathetic attempt by the magazines and their 'reviewers' to compromise their prime responsibility to their readers:

To separate the truly "outstanding" components from the vast majority that do not reach those same demanding performance standards.

Elementary Imperfections are Not a "license" to ignore that serious responsibility.

Anyone who claims that there has been no true progress in home audio reproduction, and/or that virtually all components have an equal potential to reveal the reality and essence of "live music", subject only to "taste" and matching, is either highly misinformed, ignorant, a liar, a coward or an incompetent.

 

http://www.high-endaudio.com/philos.html#Rel

[semente]

47 minutes ago, Musicophile said:

Since I started systematically reviewing music on my blog, I actually thougtabout this problem quite a bit. 

 

Some observations from my side:

 

I agree with the statement above that reviews are essentially subjective. Even professional critics that have years of experience and writing well reasoned reviews often completely contradict each other.  So what to make of this? My way out is to find reviewers I like and often agree with. My biggest overlap is with the French magazine Classica, and to a lesser extent with Gramophone. So I check out both. With music it is easier than with equipment as thanks to streaming we now can sample everything and don’t have to buy blindly any more. 

 

Subjective music reviews are fine  but I expect an equipment review to describe different aspects of its performance. Of speakers I want to know about things like tonal balance, distortion at high volumes, low level detail, driver and cabinet resonances, dispersion characteristics, driver integration...

This one is a reasonable example:

 

S100-HiFi+News.pdf

[semente]

1 minute ago, Musicophile said:

I'm not so sure one can be much more objective on gear review than on music or other art. But I agree, good reviews are very descriptive.

 

I think it is possible perform a listening assessment from an observationist perspective and then impartially describe what you are hearing in an unbiased manner. Why should a reviewer characterise performance according to his taste when by doing so he's rendering the review absolutely worthless for the reader?