Jump to content
IGNORED

The problem with subjective impressions


Summit

Recommended Posts

On 12/29/2019 at 7:06 AM, Summit said:

The problem with subjective impressions is not that they are made by listening and comparing different devices. At least not in my opinion. The problem is that when we describe the difference between diverse hi-fi stuff, we are often too subjective in our descriptions. By subjective, I mean that we often use exactly the same terms and adjectives to describe the difference, whether the difference is relatively small or if it is more significant.

 

Now, I'm pretty sure some people disagree with me on this, and think that they describe their subjective observations in an objective way. Okay there are exceptions, of course, but I would say they are in the minority.

 

I think that no matter what parts of a hi-fi system, placement and the room itself we believe are most important, it is often difficult when reading reviews or impressions to understand the reviewer's gradation difference between a little but observable - to that sounds like a completely different hi-fi system. If you do not already know from your own experience that the speakers and their placement in the room almost always have a much greater impact on the sound quality than a power cable, frame memory or a switch, it can be difficult to interpret how much impact we are really talking about. Now, I think most people here know the difference I described, but maybe not between all other parts of our hi-fi chain.

 

Anyway I've read a large number of reviews and impressions and BELIEVE that the “problem” is because we often describe subjective differences too subjective and in more or less the same way regardless of whether we describe more significant differences from two completely different types of amplifiers or two external power supplies of the same type. What I want to say is that although I think there are relevant differences between different cables, hard drives, PSUs, external clocks and so on, but because of how we usually describe our observations in the same way, it is often difficult to know how big a difference it actually is at the system level and compared to other upgrades we can do for the same money.

 

I am all for subjective observations, but think that we can all benefit if we can get a little more objective in our descriptions in our reviews and impressions. I have also observed that the reviews that are more moderate written do not become as "popular" as those where it seems that the difference is of a more revolving nature. Yes, I actually think there has been a steady inflation of superlatives generally in the hi-fi world, and who really benefits from that? Not one of us I would think. If someone buys something and believes now my audio system will sound superb, but does not, well then the person can be burnt and not captivate observations describing the more significant differences of other gear, because the exact same superlative has been used, and reused. What I wish for is that we all would try to describe the subjective differences more nuanced and in a more objective way and not as if all parts of the audio chain play the same role for SQ, although of course many small individual differences together make more significance.

 

The question is how can I / we describe the difference between devices in a detailed way but still not make it sound like the difference is bigger than it really is?

 

I know that some reviewers wait several months before writing and publishing their review. Maybe we can get a better perspective on the actual sound difference that way? Less FOTM and talk about burn in.

 

TD; LR I think that we would all benefit on some sort of categorizing of how big the difference is in relative terms and in the grand scheme of things instead of as it was an isolated part of the audio chain.

 

And rant

Interesting rant and one that I don’t necessarily disagree with but obviously don’t agree with all points. 
 

When I write I am always cognizant of which words I use. If I say something is the best, it must be the best or I’ve just mislead people. I frequently use the terms good and great to describe two different levels of quality. There are gradations within these as well unfortunately. 
 

I think subjective writers must understand they can’t please everyone with their style and choice of words. I write to please the mythical reader that is myself. In other words, would I like the review and get something out of it if I was in the reader’s shoes. For the most part this goes a long way as opposed to writing for other people or trying to please others by writing what I think they want to read. 
 

 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

How old is your oldest DAC Chris and how many do you have?  I'm asking that question because I kind of know the answer, but I think the answer will bolster my position.


I purchased a PS Audio DAC around 2008 and purchased the original Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC around 2009. 
 

Total number of DACs is probably around 5. This doesn’t include the DACs coming in / going out for review. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

I consume music during every part of my day.  In the shower, on the way to work, at work, on the way home, at home, and I even have a bedside headphone rig.

 

29 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

But perhaps we agree that you're even more of a consumer than most?

 

You may have more "systems" than me, based on your previous quote about how often and where you listen. 

 

I'm really not sure what you're getting at with this consumer / consumerism discussion. I'd love to be educated a bit about what you're getting at. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, semente said:

I've wasted too much money in this hobby, partly thanks to subjective magazine reviews, hype and shilling.

And I'm not a flavour-of-the-month kind of guy who swaps gear because he has an itch, nor have an interest for cables.

I genuinely try to identify the problems and the causes, and to upgrade.

I was happy with my homeland system but a move abroad forced me to sell my speakers and rip my CDs. I am a wanderer now, 3 different homes in 5 years. I've since bought three pairs of used speakers, two used DACs and two new Pi DACs. I've had to downsize the speakers but have been struggling to live with that.

 

Now the time as come to stop buying stuff...

I hate to sound like a pusher of products and more buying, but a headphone based system could be perfect for your lifestyle. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment

I was just thinking about this a bit more. Perhaps the reason so many of us like to upgrade or make changes is because of the power of music. We want something more and are willing to try things, sometimes non-sensical things, to get there. And, the journey can be fun. 

 

I know it sounds a bit like chasing the dragon, but this is completely voluntary and enjoyable for so may of us. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, Summit said:

 

Thank you for responding on the topic of this thread. I don’t know how reviews should be written, only how I like them. I agree that not everyone can be pleased. To me the problem is not the choice of words for describing SQ, the problem is to interpret the scale of those sound performance and the value of the product. By quantify in numbers in the summery, like in the end of those two linked reviews I believe it is easier as a reader to know the reviewer’s verdict than if the same is only written in text. It is also easier to directly compare two gear that has been reviewed by the same auteur if the verdict of some of the parameters are quantified somehow. The points is of course always subjective, but with them we would at least know how the reviewer quantify different SQ aspects and don't need to interpret how someone use the words like better, good, great and so on. I think that the value aspect of audio gear is very important and something I would like all reviews to reflect about more.

 

DekoniBlue-UGH_SUM18_HR1-750x1024.jpg

 

https://www.stereolifemagazine.com/reviews/item/1333-klipsch-heresy-iii-70th-anniversary-edition

 

https://dekoniaudio.com/dekoni-blue-featured-in-the-hifi-ultimate-headphone-guide-2018/

 

Thanks for the links and graphic. 

 

I'm glad you found some information that you like and that suits your needs. 

 

For the most part I dislike these score based assessments. They often lead consumers to a score race like a specs race. If one headphone gets a 7/10 for Resolution and another gets an 8/10, consumers with nothing else to go on will select the 8/10 thinking it's better. With so many variables involved there needs to be a plus/minus 3 for every score.

 

Anyway, thanks again for the graphic. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Solstice380 said:

 

Who actually believes that they can decide the perfect component to purchase form reviews??? OK, if a lot of negatives then you may have something to "not" go for.  There is no way that another person's impression, whose tastes you really don't know, should influence you.  I'm not that easily lead.  Problem is that there is no way short of a long car / plane trip to audition equipment.  Not to mention if it is only sold on the web.  That's a conundrum. 

This is interesting. You can use a group of negative reviews but not positive reviews? Care to square that?

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

When Tidal was brimming with UMG audibly watermarked files (seems some/many have been replaced with MQA), people listening with headphones seemed much more likely to notice than those listening with speakers.  To me, that's a ringing endorsement of headphone listening.

That’s an interesting take but one I’m not sure I agree with. Yes, headphones can reveal this kind of stuff, but I don’t believe this equates to a real performance as the artist intended. Being able to pick out abnormalities like this certainly means they are more audible via headphones, but I’m just not sold that it also means headphones provide a more realistic representation of the recorded event. 
 

As always I’m willing to be persuaded and love to listen. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Just now, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Since almost all my listening is with headphones/IEMs, I'm not missing what you would miss with headphones.  And no, I don't use DSP crossfeed as I prefer my playback to be pristine. 😎

I use IEMs every night and must say I enjoy the music through them immensely. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

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...