Product Reviews With and Without Comparisons

9 hours ago, Jud said:

 

There have actually been experiments done where Asian subjects unfamiliar with Western music have been asked to discern musical patterns that Westerners who've been exposed to these patterns all their lives discern readily. It was found that even after a week of 8-hour days of listening, the Asian subjects did not improve in their ability to find the patterns. That's why I said training oneself to achieve pattern recognition is likely a matter of hundreds of hours at least.

I was wondering about that. It perhaps is not representative or generalizable to all/many circumstances of pattern recognition but rather a special circumstance. As with language, if you are not brought up with hearing the sounds, it is difficult to acquire certain phonemes or types of sounds later on

16 hours ago, Jud said:

So then how can comparisons be of use? This way: What you think of as your “taste” in audio equipment has been built up over years of listening, many thousands of hours. All that unintentional practice has created in your brain a concept of what sounds “good” or “right.”

On 9/20/2024 at 3:40 PM, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

There does not *have* to be a specific comparison made, like restaurant A serves better food than restaurant B, the comparison with other chefs or restaurants is implied in the absolute descriptions coming from someone experienced in tasting good cuisine

Yeh, similar to the food critic, I think a skilled subjective audio reviewer can conjure up a picture which others can relate to from their own experience. That reviewer is constantly making inherent comparisons based on years of experience.

16 hours ago, Jud said:

  without comparisons I’d need some previous familiarity with the type of stuff you like.

I absolutely agree with this but think that it is also possible to accommodate some variances of tastes. If a food critic says the spice balance was a little too hot for their liking and the meat served on the blue side (rare), it still tells me something useful.I don't have to share his/her tastes exactly but do agree, the more you know about their tastes and preferences the better.

14 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Let's take a look at products I'm currently listening to, in order to write a review, the Wilson Audio Alida CSC ($17,650 per pair) and Wilson Audio Mezzo CSC center channel ($21,250). I have eight Alidas on the wall and ceiling, and a single 200 lbs. center channel.

I don't care about jewelry (150K in speakers?), nor does 95% of the audiophile community. Maybe it provides more income to the reviewer, and if that is the case then by all means go ahead. Sorry but I have strong views about high-end anything.

And whilst Atmos still has little traction, surely building a system around Wilson speakers sounds like a bit daunting.

14 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You initially suggested that I'd need a couple similarly priced products for comparison. Your follow up seems to suggest there are "affordable benchmark products" that should be compared. I'm a bit confused about these seemingly incongruent suggestions. Are the "affordable benchmark products" in addition to "similarly priced products?"

I see how evaluating Atmos speakers can be a problem...

14 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You initially suggested that I'd need a couple similarly priced products for comparison. Your follow up seems to suggest there are "affordable benchmark products" that should be compared. I'm a bit confused about these seemingly incongruent suggestions. Are the "affordable benchmark products" in addition to "similarly priced products?"

High end products (meaning stupily expensive, like supercars) are the outliers (there may be many of them but they sell in very small numbers). Just compare them with 10k, maybe 20k benchmark products (hardly affordable by the majority but still buyable second hand).

14 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I've never seen high end audio rentals, perhaps you have? Borrowing 8 surround speakers and a center channel would require at least two saintly people because I'd need a couple different options for comparison and they'd have to accept the risk of damage along with time the products can't be used, shipping, etc...

Maybe you could start the trend, not as a consumer but as a reviewer. High end (expensive) products may not be available.

I understand your love for Atmos but maybe stick to reviewing electronics and use your own speakers.

14 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Perhaps I'm on the wrong end of the high end audio publishing business, but I don't know of any person or business in this industry who can afford two sets of 8 speakers and 2 center channels, to be used for comparison in a review. Even at accommodation pricing, we are talking about a six figure expenditure. 

Why review it then? It makes no sense...

14 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Inexpensive gear is usually available for demo or money back guarantee listening periods and is often less stressful to take a chance on when purchasing. Perhaps this suggestion is about the gear that should be borrowed or purchased to be used in comparison. I can't imagine purchasing 16 speakers and 2 center channel speakers, for the review comparison, and not getting a barrage of comments about the selections being inadequate for comparison.

It's clear now that the problem is Atmos. As suggested, maybe stick to reviewing electronic gear.

14 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Sounds like fun, once in a while. I did this at Schiit Audio. The company went through a lot of work to setup the listening session and had access to all the gear because it manufacturers everything that was used. Circling back to the previous suggestions, reviewers still need to get the gear for such a blind session. If borrowing it from a manufacturer, the introduction of a blind listening session is a variable that will make every manufacturer uncomfortable. Setting up a test is hard to do right and things out of their control can go wrong, and have nothing to do with the product or how it sounds. Plus, these products are about more than sound quality. I;m not sure I can blind test a company's ability to support its products. 

As mentioned in a reply to Jud, the panel testing is not meant to be a bake off over a few beers but different listeners evaluating the same piece of gear in their own systems against their references. It's also not about level matched quick A/B comparisons but week long sessions without direct A/B comparisons.

Maybe teem up with a couple of other reviewers?

14 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Certainly a laudable goal if you derive value from measurements. I do not.

Do you write reviews for yourself or for the reader?

14 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

As someone who writes and enjoys creativity, I would lose all interest in writing if I used such a formula. I know other writers who'd love a formula that enables them to fill-in an outline created for them. Nothing wrong or right about either approach. 

 

I'm unsure what an "(observation-driven) objective listening report" could possibly be, but I respect that you know and others must as well. I'm out of the loop.

 

I'm also unsure about "Compare objective listening with..." Again, I'm out of the loop.

Objective listening is not listening for enjoyment but to identify issues. Often reviewers will describe these issues (let's call them deviations from transparency) as character and downplay their importance.

I understand that many people read reviews as entertaining pieces. I would rather read informative pieces.

13 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I have a $40,000 DAC coming in for review. Please help me obtain at least two other DACs in the price range (per the suggestion), help me research the companies, pay for shipping, use your relationships to talk companies into sending a very expensive guinea pig for comparison purposes only, etc.... Then, do it for several other products, over 17 years, and see which manufacturers get tired of sending guinea pigs. 

 

Sound quality is but one piece of a product as well. 

You've reviewed a few DAC. Which ones up to for example 10k are your references? Compare it to a couple of those.

The following review is a good example of a balanced and informative piece:

S100-HiFi+News.pdf

Here's a recent DAC review, where the reviewer compares - with quite a decent effort - the device under review with Chord DAVE and  ROCKNA Wavedream Signature.

https://soundnews.net/reviews/sources/dacs/gustard-x30-dac-review-the-quintessential-delta-sigma-dac/

Just an illusion?

Is his attempt to anticipate differences, boundaries and common denominator just doomed to fail?

3 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

If a food critic says the spice balance was a little too hot for their liking and the meat served on the blue side (rare), it still tells me something useful.I don't have to share his/her tastes exactly but do agree, the more you know about their tastes and preferences the better.

In my view tasting is only one aspect of sound quality assessment, the other being objective performance. And whilst the former is a personal, I believe intransmissible/unsharable view or opinion, the latter is universal.

I don't agree that one can use a reviewer's preference to inform one's purchases. But for many audiophiles box swapping is part of the fun so hey ho.

7 minutes ago, semente said:

 

In my view tasting is only one aspect of sound quality assessment, the other being objective performance. And whilst the former is a personal, I believe intransmissible/unsharable view or opinion, the latter is universal.

I don't agree that one can use a reviewer's preference to inform one's purchases. But for many audiophiles box swapping is part of the fun so hey ho.

Hi Ricardo, yep we disagree as we have discussed previously. Even objective measurements of performance will at times involve subjective choices and often involve subjective interpretations and conclusions. I don't understand "intransmissible/unsharable view or opinion, the latter is universal".

16 hours ago, Jud said:

Relating pattern recognition to the current topic:

 

It takes an absurdly long time to build up pattern recognition, at least hundreds of hours. (This from peer reviewed scientific papers I found in my research.) No one is going to compare two items of equipment for that length of time for the purpose of a single review. If you attempted it, by the time you were done you’d likely be ready to take up a less aggravating hobby.

 

So then how can comparisons be of use? This way: What you think of as your “taste” in audio equipment has been built up over years of listening, many thousands of hours. All that unintentional practice has created in your brain a concept of what sounds “good” or “right.” Now maybe your taste is similar to mine (we’ve trained our brains on similar sounding equipment through the years), or maybe it differs. I can get a sense of your taste from reading what you have said about equipment we’ve both heard, so I know whether or not we like similar sound characteristics.

 

If you review a new piece of equipment I’ve never heard, then maybe I’ve read things you’ve written before and have a sense of your taste from that. Or maybe in your review you happen to compare the new piece of equipment to something I have heard before, and that gives me a point of reference. So it’s possible to get information both with and without comparisons, though without comparisons I’d need some previous familiarity with the type of stuff you like.

Reading about new piece of equipment you've never heard is extremelly likely to generate some form of expectation. Same with looking at the measured performance prior to listening (i.e. A S R).

I do agree that habituation may prevent the listener from improving the sound of his or her system. My first year architecture teacher told us that the quality of our designs will be governed by the spaces we've inhabited and visited as children. Whilst I don't totally agree, I see her point. Some architects did go beyond the comfortable, explored unfamiliar languages and possibilities, and they're the ones who pushed the boundaries.

Taste is important but can be enslaving.

27 minutes ago, semente said:

Sorry but I have strong views about high-end anything.

Possibly a bias thang happenin' here 😅

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Possibly a bias thang happenin' here 😅

Most definitely. Value for money bias.

A good review must highlight this difference.

3 minutes ago, semente said:

Some architects did go beyond the comfortable, explored unfamiliar languages and possibilities, and they're the ones who pushed the boundaries.

Taste is important but can be enslaving.

All dogmas can be enslaving. tastes can and do change.

High end audio pushes the boundaries just as those architects you admire explored unfamiliar possibilities

10 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Hi Ricardo, yep we disagree as we have discussed previously. Even objective measurements of performance will at times involve subjective choices and often involve subjective interpretations and conclusions. I don't understand "intransmissible/unsharable view or opinion, the latter is universal".

I would not dump measurements and their interpretation in a single bag.

The former is data, the latter an individual's use of that data.

@Jud was mentioning that subjective reviews could also be used as data, subject to interpretation.

But if you believe that there isn't a standard for measurements, what do you think of the standard for listening reports?

4 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Most definitely. Value for money bias.

A good review must highlight this difference.

 according to your subjective bias...otherwise its enslaving 😆

3 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 according to your subjective bias...otherwise its enslaving 😆

🙄

1 minute ago, semente said:

I would not dump measurements and their interpretation in a single bag.

The former is data, the latter an individual's use of that data.

 measurements may or may not tell you what you think they do - if accurate they tell you no more or less than the measure itself. The rest is interpretation, sometimes valid sometimes not

3 minutes ago, semente said:

 

How do you know if high end pushes the standards of performance if you don't make use of measurements and reviews are for the most part the report of a tasting session?

Its subjective

3 minutes ago, semente said:

The problem I have with high end is that in most cases the little increment in performance does not justify the humongously massive difference in price.

It's something that listening reports should focus on.

High end is top performance wrapped in silk and diamonds.

Its subjective

47 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Its subjective

 

 

Its subjective

No, objective measured performance is not subjective. Your own interpretation of it is subjective.

Regardless of whether or not high objective measured performance is to your liking (universality).

50 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

 measurements may or may not tell you what you think they do - if accurate they tell you no more or less than the measure itself. The rest is interpretation, sometimes valid sometimes not

No, measurements may correlate or not with what I think they do, which is a very different thing.

If two DACs measure differently in one parameter then one is objectively better in that parameter.

18 minutes ago, semente said:

 

 Your own interpretation of it is subjective.

 

 yep

17 minutes ago, semente said:

 

measurements may correlate or not with what I think they do,

yep its subjective

17 minutes ago, semente said:

If two DACs measure differently in one parameter then one is objectively better in that parameter.

"better" is subjective

person A is 6' tall = objective

person B is 5' tall = objective

person A is better than A = subjective

Ricardo you seem to have very subjective views 😇🙄

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

person A is 6' tall = objective

person B is 5' tall = objective

person A is better than A = subjective

Yes. And person A is taller than person B.

What's your point?

4 hours ago, DuckToller said:

Here's a recent DAC review, where the reviewer compares - with quite a decent effort - the device under review with Chord DAVE and  ROCKNA Wavedream Signature.

https://soundnews.net/reviews/sources/dacs/gustard-x30-dac-review-the-quintessential-delta-sigma-dac/

 

Just an illusion?

Is his attempt to anticipate differences, boundaries and common denominator just doomed to fail?

I tried to read it but got lost, as it wasn’t a style of writing I can connect with. 
 

I also had no clue what was meant by the following statement early in the review. 

”Out of all the HiFi makers coming from Asia, I respect only the ones that release new products once or (maybe) twice per year. Nobody wants to change their gear mid-year.”

4 hours ago, semente said:

Do you write reviews for yourself or for the reader?

I’ve said since day one, 17 years ago, I write for myself and hope other people enjoy it. I can’t imagine doing it any other way. 

39 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I tried to read it but got lost, as it wasn’t a style of writing I can connect with. 
 

I also had no clue what was meant by the following statement early in the review. 

 

”Out of all the HiFi makers coming from Asia, I respect only the ones that release new products once or (maybe) twice per year. Nobody wants to change their gear mid-year.”

Could be:

At mid-year some readers are still consuming this overwhelming review

Agree that this review kind of exhausting and gives a lot of micro details about his way of thinking/analyzing - obviously he has the space, spirit and time for not economizing everything. Kind of 6 moons ...

Some readers may find rewards in that. Other reviews may offer rewards to manufacturers.