|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.240.188.60
In Reply to: Re: Characteristics of consumer-oriented audio publications posted by John Atkinson on March 21, 2007 at 04:23:25:
Count me among those who would like to see more double-blind testing, that is of those who make a living claiming to hear what many cannot. It is the editors and reveiwers who should be required to prove they actually possess the listening skills which they purport to have. The skill to make the draw the kind of distinctions which they make in their monthly reviews.It is those with the golden ears who should submit to double blind testing to determine whether they in fact hear meaningful differences, e.g. distinguish between the CD and Super CD layer. If they where able to do this consistantly, I might pay more attention.
Testing the golden ears is the best use of DBT.
Follow Ups:
...those who make a living claiming to hear what many cannot.Don't worry, in the absence of such testing you are protected! Every major audio publication is signatory to the 1989 International Hirsch-Houck Convention. In a nutshell, this states: If you cannot hear it, you cannot read about it, even when what you cannot hear sounds the same. When reviewers write about what, for you, is consigned to silence, their words actually become invisible. In fact magazine racks contain entire audio publications you can't subscribe to, much less see. This is for your own good and is the true meaning of 'double blind tested reviews'.
By the way, could you please identify a few contemporary reviewers who claim "to hear what many cannot".
"'By the way, could you please identify a few contemporary reviewers who claim "to hear what many cannot".'" HTML tag not allowed
I stand for DBT'g reviewers (and their editors).
many of which, the industry needs to 'hang on for dear life'. it isn't going to happen. a top 3,000 recommended components list is more likely.
Start your own DBT-tested publication, and you will make a fortune. You'll be rich beyond your wildest imagination. There has to be literally hundreds of people that share your views.
That is no defense. You assume the editor and his reviewers could not even tell the difference between a CD and a Super CD. But that's my point, I don't think they could either, nonetheless they routinely describe hearing differences which are much more subtle. Small wonder they run a publication constantly loosing money.
Have you ever read a review that correlated written word wth what you actually experience with your ASL Hurrcanes? Or with your Alons? They've been extensively reviewed. If so, then you have a reviewer whose "golden ears" match your own. If not, you've got a reviewer whom you shouldn't trust. While we're at it, did you do DBTs when you chose your equipment? I'm just curious. Bet you just listened...The point? Proving they can hear differences is not as important as finding the reviewer whose music taste and equipment biaases most closely resembles your own. Then, if they describe what you hear with your equipment, you'd be well-advised to listen to what they say.
nt
(nt)
is a pretty good indication of how well they hear. It's a very simple, inexpensive but effective way to do things. BTW, most reviewers have regular day jobs. They don't make a living as a reviewer.
(nt)
However I would like to see magazines publish repeatable reviews/tests, meaning that more than one independent reviewer gets his independent unedited comments published about the same component ... and those reviews end up being similar, rather than seeming like the two or more listeners were NOT listening to the same component!I'd bet you my entire savings (almost $73 and going up, up, up with my investments in Bulgarian bean futures) that no two reviewers would independently write the same or similar comments about any wire!
If a review or test is not repeatable, it is probably worth zero.
Maybe less than zero if your review.
heh hehBut even if a test IS repeatable (Consumer Reports), it still may not be useful for any specific reader, although it's likely to be at least somewhat useful for most readers.
.
.
.
that proved to be pretty interesting. I'd get some, check them out, and then send a pair to a friend (who lives several hours away) and let him try them. Two completely different systems (one tubes, one SS, one with full-range speakers, the other with monitors), two different tastes in music, two different rooms. You'd be surprised by the similarities in our conclusions.
...Mr. Ass Nut thinks, it happens all the time.Some years ago in my TAS days, Cardas sent me three different sets of his cables at a speaker manufacturer's request to be used with his speakers - Golden Reference (fat burgandy, expensive), Golden Section (fat grey, less expensive) and Neutral Reference (thin tan, inexpensive), IIRC.
I listened to them all and formed my opinion and when I was done sent them all to another reviewer, Neil Gader, who wanted to hear them.
After he listened to them, we shared our impressions and they were pretty much the same - we both preferred the smaller, least expensive ones.
We had the same conclusions. (Note: the wires I am talking about aren't "cheap" to begin with, so don't jump to conclusions.)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: