Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Cessna172
wrote:

"Serge Auckland" wrote in
:


he goes on about how "Stage depth was slightly foreshortened" Give
me a break, it's a resistor! how can it "foreshorten" anything?


Maybe you need to make the next electronic scientific breakthrough, and
find out why this effect is happening.


Indeed. And the first step would be to see if we could determine if the
assertion by the reviewer was produced by any actual change in the sounds
coming from the audio system - or was either produced by some other cause,
or was simply a delusion.

To do that, the reviewer would need to engage in a suitable test. Yet they
never do....


Either that or stop concentrating on the electronics and take another
look at the human mind.


The "human mind" may well be a factor. What is less clear is if the actual
sounds produced by the audio system are... :-)

The above is yet another example of the "faith based" approach which often
appears in magazines. They try something, decide they hear a 'difference'
then *assume* (indeed *know*) that the item is changing the sound.

Then they do no test with would check to determine if they are either:

A) making a mistake and thinking the sound altered, when it might be their
imagination *or a change in their hearing*.

B) that the sounds changed, but for a reason that had nothing to do with
the actual item or mechanism they think is the 'cause'.

Given this, why accept what they say?

The failure to test their assumption/idea makes it a 'belief' and the
insistance that no test or check of the above possibilities should be done
or is needed makes it a 'faith'. They then expect readers to accept what
they say on the basis of "It is so because I say so. I am a reviewer. I
have golden years. Believe!". This is the basis of 'faith' as used in
religions, etc.

Yet the scientific method exists, and can be applied to test their belief
to see if it actually is supportable, or is wrong. i.e. we could check to
see if they are mistaken. We could also check to see if any change they
think was due to the resistor was actually due to something else.

But these tests/checks can't be applied because they refuse to put their
'faith' to a test... As true belevers, they know they are right. Thus the
rest of us have no real idea if they are correct, or if they are talking
drivel.

You may be prepared to accept whatever you read in magazines simply 'on
faith' that the reviwer/writer must be correct.

I do not share this view. Indeed, I have often found that a statement in a
magazine is either factually incorrect, or mis-states the relevant physics
or engineering. I have also often found that my opinions about things
differ from those printed. I would be suprised if this has never happened
to you.

Given this, why would you accept what they say?

Slainte,

Jim


'Accept' is obviously too strong, although this is a body of evidence -
empirical field data that is often mirrored in similar 'tests',
conducted with a degree of comparison (the reviewer's own system
usually), and accompanied by certain measured data. They put their ideas
to the test in the sense that their reputation depends upon user
experience of what they write. IOW there *is* a case, which varies
between 'instantly dismissible' to 'highly persuasive'.

My view is that manufacturers (or more precisely their marketing people)
make what they predict people will want, and this all becomes
manufactured consent. Sadly, with the possible exceptions of improved
materials, convenience, ergonomics and engineering, very few benefits
arise - it's the audio experience that has changed.

And on the OP's point - anything by HiFi World ('the expert's audio
magazine', ahem). I subscribed for a year and from memory failed to draw
anything useful from it. And vaguely related, most reviews of LCD TVs.

Rob