Do you have anything objective/scientific to back up that statement? Or just subjective rhetoric?
Science generally makes a better argument.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clark Johnsen" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] a prime case of why subjective reviews of audio gear are USELESS
>I suppose you've already considered that the standard portfolio of
> distortion measurements hardly describes the actual sound into loudspeakers?
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>> This kind of thing lights a fire under the audiophillic community. The
>> beauty of this example is that it was all played out in Stereophile,
>> definitely prime reading for the subjective-review scene:
>> I suggest you start with John Atkinson's measurements of this clearly
>> badly-designed piece of gear:
>> Then go back and read the main, gushing review, and the follow-on by
>> another editor:
>> I'm not questioning the sincerity of any of them, nor the deep belief by
>> the two subjective reviewers that they liked what they heard. But, if they
>> could so like something that should have very audible distortions and
>> colorations, how can we trust their reviews? What is their reference point,
>> because it seems to favor colorations and distortions? It's OK not to like
>> accurate sound reproduction, but what use is a review of anything if the
>> goal isn't accurate sound reproduction?
>> One man's (subjective) opinions ...
>> -- Tom Fine