Popular Post The Computer Audiophile Posted September 21 Author Popular Post Share Posted September 21 13 minutes ago, DuckToller said: Other reviews may offer rewards to manufacturers. Like frequent flyer miles? Jud and DuckToller 2 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted September 21 Author Share Posted September 21 6 hours ago, semente said: And whilst Atmos still has little traction There are more people listening to Atmos every day than all of high end audio combined. 25,000 albums and counting every week. Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Popular Post audiobomber Posted September 21 Popular Post Share Posted September 21 A common ABX test, consisting of a random panel in an unfamiliar room, with only one person in the sweet spot, listening to an unfamiliar system and someone else's music is useless for judging audio, as evidenced by decades of tries where they can't distinguish basically anything. I have faith in extended listening in a well known room, through a familiar system, for an extended period. Measurements are great, and I like to see them, but they are mostly unreliable for determining sound quality. I like them because I don't want a flawed piece of gear. A DAC for example should have great measurements. If it deviates from the norm, I would like to know about it. I do value head-to-head comparisons with competitors' gear, but I understand they are not always feasible. For decades, Ultra High Fidelity, a Canadian audio magazine was my favourite read. (They have been left far behind since the advent of network audio, and no longer publish). The gear under test was installed in a reference system and listened to privately and with a three person panel who were very familiar with the setup. The reference system provided a baseline for comparison with previously tested gear. There was no attempt at level-matching. Levels were set based on the monkey-bone factor. Based on my own listening experiences, I was able to develop a great deal of confidence in their evaluations, and bought several pieces they recommended. Some reviews include a long list observations based on random tunes. I almost always skip these and go directly to the conclusion because I find them boring reading. UHF Magazine used a few standard pieces of music for every review. This may have been boring for them, but again provided a standard for comparisons with previously reviewed gear on transient performance, detail, soundstage, tonality, etc. The Computer Audiophile and Audiophile Neuroscience 2 Main System: QNAP TS-451+ > Silent Angel Bonn N8 > Sonore opticalModule Deluxe v2 > Corning SMF with Finisar FTLF1318P3BTL SFPs > Uptone EtherREGEN > exaSound PlayPoint and e32 Mk-II DAC > Meitner MTR-101 Plus monoblocks > Bamberg S5-MTM sealed standmount speakers. Crown XLi 1500 powering AV123 Rocket UFW10 stereo subwoofers. Upgraded power on all switches, renderer and DAC. Furutech and Audio Sensibility ethernet cables, Cardas Neutral Ref analogue cables. iFi Audio AC iPurifer, iFi Supanova, Furman PF-15i & PST-8, power conditioners. Link to comment
semente Posted September 21 Share Posted September 21 6 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said: 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. Fair enough. But then it shouldn’t matter if people value comparative reviews or not. "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQ Player Desktop/ Mac mini → HQ Player NAA/ CuBox-i → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted September 21 Author Share Posted September 21 8 minutes ago, semente said: Fair enough. But then it shouldn’t matter if people value comparative reviews or not. It doesn’t matter to me what people value. I like to express my opinion about comparative reviews as much as you guys. Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
semente Posted September 21 Share Posted September 21 Just now, The Computer Audiophile said: It doesn’t matter to me what people value. I like to express my opinion about comparative reviews as much as you guys. I thought that the point of this topic was to learn about readers preferences and potentially inform the format of future reviews but it seems I was wrong. In any case my view is that you should be proud of the space that you have created here. Cheers! Audiophile Neuroscience 1 "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQ Player Desktop/ Mac mini → HQ Player NAA/ CuBox-i → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS Link to comment
Popular Post The Computer Audiophile Posted September 21 Author Popular Post Share Posted September 21 7 minutes ago, semente said: I thought that the point of this topic was to learn about readers preferences and potentially inform the format of future reviews but it seems I was wrong. In any case my view is that you should be proud of the space that you have created here. Cheers! This thread is more for a conversation about reviews and what people like or don’t like and the reasons for those opinions. It’s very interesting to me to read why people like comparisons and to read what they are gleaning from such reviews. Plus, there are many different styles of comparisons that people like or dislike. Some want hardcore A/B/C while others want a general sense based on memory. No rights or wrongs, but things to learn about everyone along the continuum. I love learning about people, especially those who have different views from me. Audiophile Neuroscience, Jivatma and semente 2 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Audiophile Neuroscience Posted September 21 Share Posted September 21 12 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said: 12 hours 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 B* = subjective Ricardo you seem to have very subjective views 😇🙄 (*Typo corrected) 10 hours ago, semente said: Yes. And person A is taller than person B. What's your point? person A is 6' tall = objective person B is 5' tall = objective person A is taller than B = objective person A is better than B = subjective Taller is better = subjective One parameter objectively measures more or less in that parameter = objective One parameter is objectively better in that parameter = subjective The last statement is an exercise in circular reasoning unless you have already established that the measure is always "better" or desirable (as determined by who?) in one direction or scale, eg like higher cure rates for cancer. Even then, qualifications may be in order, like the potential cure may kill you for other reasons. Thuaveta 1 Sound Minds Mind Sound Link to comment
Audiophile Neuroscience Posted September 21 Share Posted September 21 When I read a review I look for relative strengths and weaknesses in the product. "Comparisons" are useful in looking at relative strengths and weaknesses but as already noted, comparisons have their practical limitations and come in different flavors. Nonetheless, If it is all one way, offering only strengths or weaknesses, it suggests bias of one form or another. Personally, in that one sided situation then, I am more interested in the scathing reviews. I want to hear the worst that can be said about this product before I buy it, like "If you want to travel to the Australian outback, buy a Landrover....if you want to reliably get back home again, buy a Landcruiser". Speaking relative strengths and weaknesses, the review itself should mention the limitations of the review. I realize these are not to the same standards of academic reviews but obvious limitations and potential biases should be addressed. "This manufacturer is a sponsor on this website but...",... "I don't think this review did the product full justice for x reason", ..etc Sound Minds Mind Sound Link to comment
semente Posted September 22 Share Posted September 22 8 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said: (*Typo corrected) person A is 6' tall = objective person B is 5' tall = objective person A is taller than B = objective person A is better than B = subjective Taller is better = subjective One parameter objectively measures more or less in that parameter = objective One parameter is objectively better in that parameter = subjective The last statement is an exercise in circular reasoning unless you have already established that the measure is always "better" or desirable (as determined by who?) in one direction or scale, eg like higher cure rates for cancer. Even then, qualifications may be in order, like the potential cure may kill you for other reasons. My point is that the subjective qualification bit is a personal and not-transmissible matter of opinion. Other people seem to believe that subjective views resonate or have some kind of relevance to their quest for musical enjoyment. We disagree. "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQ Player Desktop/ Mac mini → HQ Player NAA/ CuBox-i → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS Link to comment
semente Posted September 22 Share Posted September 22 8 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said: When I read a review I look for relative strengths and weaknesses in the product. "Comparisons" are useful in looking at relative strengths and weaknesses but as already noted, comparisons have their practical limitations and come in different flavors. But my view is that comparison don't have to come in different flavours if the assessment is performed from an observational perspective. Of course it will require an effective an standardised methodology and also a high level of training from the reviews. "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQ Player Desktop/ Mac mini → HQ Player NAA/ CuBox-i → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS Link to comment
Audiophile Neuroscience Posted September 22 Share Posted September 22 1 hour ago, semente said: My point is that the subjective qualification bit is a personal and not-transmissible matter of opinion. One parameter objectively measures more or less in that parameter = objective One parameter is objectively better in that parameter = subjective Your use of a measurement to define "better" is subjective unless you have already *objectively* established that the measure in question is always "better" or desirable . 1 hour ago, semente said: But my view is that comparison don't have to come in different flavours if the assessment is performed from an observational perspective. Of course it will require an effective an standardised methodology and also a high level of training from the reviews. But you are describing your preferred "flavor" and that's ok 1 hour ago, semente said: Other people seem to believe that subjective views resonate or have some kind of relevance to their quest for musical enjoyment. We disagree. Happy to agree to disagree Ricardo, all good 🙂 Sound Minds Mind Sound Link to comment
semente Posted September 22 Share Posted September 22 41 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said: One parameter objectively measures more or less in that parameter = objective One parameter is objectively better in that parameter = subjective Your use of a measurement to define "better" is subjective unless you have already *objectively* established that the measure in question is always "better" or desirabl The first parameter is universal, the second parameter is a matter of opinion, and as such non-transmissible, or useless to others. I don't see this conversation leading anywhere, I yield. "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQ Player Desktop/ Mac mini → HQ Player NAA/ CuBox-i → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now