Kal does offer subjective reviews, but his reviews are informed by principles rooted in measurements. I trust his reviews as long as measurements back them up.
But Kal is exceptional among his colleagues, many of whom claim to hear the effects of an assortment of snake-oil products.
So how is that beginner supposed to know that Kal’s reviews are sensitive to measured performance and controlled preference models, while that of some of his colleagues are subject to the audio equivalent of occult beliefs? Data!
@steve59, I think you need to read more of Amir’s reviews if you don’t think he validates his measurements with listening.
As I said before, it’s about instincts. What’s the instinctive response when the subjective impression differs from the measured performance? Is it to happily declare that measurements are inadequate and therefore those ASR loonies must have tin ears? Or is it to understand the cause (biases, mistakes of measurement or testing, improper measurement interpretation, a preference corrupted by years of experience with distortion and coloration—whatever) well enough to figure out why? The latter response builds trust, the former builds mistrust, at least with me.
I think any manufacture will validate with listening. But they’ll put that effort into unsolved problems. Nobody needs a listening test of a DAC with vanishingly low distortion—data has shown over and over that whatever differences people claim don’t survive blind testing—except to confirm it is not defective.
I find it odd that those who insist (as I do) that it’s all about hearing are too often the least willing to subject their impressions to hearing-only rigor. In fact, by eschewing and disparaging controlled (blind) testing, they are insisting that they can hear accurately with their eyes rather than their ears. If their experience with what they hear is so good, why the reluctance to validate it with testing that only uses hearing?
Rick “trust but verify” Denney
But Kal is exceptional among his colleagues, many of whom claim to hear the effects of an assortment of snake-oil products.
So how is that beginner supposed to know that Kal’s reviews are sensitive to measured performance and controlled preference models, while that of some of his colleagues are subject to the audio equivalent of occult beliefs? Data!
@steve59, I think you need to read more of Amir’s reviews if you don’t think he validates his measurements with listening.
As I said before, it’s about instincts. What’s the instinctive response when the subjective impression differs from the measured performance? Is it to happily declare that measurements are inadequate and therefore those ASR loonies must have tin ears? Or is it to understand the cause (biases, mistakes of measurement or testing, improper measurement interpretation, a preference corrupted by years of experience with distortion and coloration—whatever) well enough to figure out why? The latter response builds trust, the former builds mistrust, at least with me.
I think any manufacture will validate with listening. But they’ll put that effort into unsolved problems. Nobody needs a listening test of a DAC with vanishingly low distortion—data has shown over and over that whatever differences people claim don’t survive blind testing—except to confirm it is not defective.
I find it odd that those who insist (as I do) that it’s all about hearing are too often the least willing to subject their impressions to hearing-only rigor. In fact, by eschewing and disparaging controlled (blind) testing, they are insisting that they can hear accurately with their eyes rather than their ears. If their experience with what they hear is so good, why the reluctance to validate it with testing that only uses hearing?
Rick “trust but verify” Denney
Last edited:
