In article , RJH
wrote:

A problem on this topic is that many feel that music as reproduced is a
simple (not always single, though) objective truth, and inherently
measurable (dB, KHz, whatever) as an unassailable 'truth'. I'd agree
that measurements can get them towards what matters, but further
qualitative methods are needed.

The problem is to distinguish the container from the contained.

e.g. A 'reviewer' may actually be commenting on the sound of the music
whilst using a wording that assigns what they claim to some specific part
of the apparatus used to play it.

Yet in practice when we listen to music on a HiFi we get result of a series
of factors along the way. From the acoustic of the venue to the changes in
the ears of the listener caused by what they did shortly before they
listened to that bit of music. All then convolved with their (possibly
unawares) personal tasts, expectations, etc.

Too many unknowns, many of whicn will vary from case to case. Chances are
your or my circumstances, etc, will never all match that of the reviewer
who wrote a specific review we just read. 'Controlled' tests can mitigate
this, but aren't easy to do well except for fairly basic effects.

As a result, I tend to feel that 'subjective' comments in reviews are about
as reliable as tossing a coin. And tossing a coin is cheaper and quicker.
:-)

I don't doubt there are exceptions, though. But unless some *checkable*
statements are made that shed light, the above tends to render comments
unreliable. No matter how confident the reviewer, the above seems likely to
be so for all be trivial or clear cut cases.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html