Jaxs2
Where have yous seen "objective" press reviews on anything? How could there be such a thing, a review being written by a human being is bound to be subjective simply by definition.
Not necessarily.
IF that truly is your take on info at large, Ill not try to change your mind here and only offer that you may wish to reflect upon that perspective as it is a pretty dark one to have as a rule. IMHO.
We talk here about all sorts of components, matches and gains. Many are or should be stated in what they truly are
degrees
and pertinent to the application we have experienced them in for ourselves. Some dont construct a rig via specs alone, some do. I have gone that way in the past and didt care for the end results.
Objectivly speaking of course, subjectivity can not be measured by these same degrees. Noe can get a feel for its worth however.
Subjectivity isnt a bad word. Nor does it undermine completely a persons remarks. It only says IMHO it is one truth and not necessarily the truth or that it will be YOUR truth.
Therefore I tend to discount Raves a lot. Especially from those who have bought the change or item. I feel those accounts although honestly intentiomned are perhaps prone to being tainted if only by their recent investment.. In them I look for comparative notes on likewise items from others of the same ilk or a contrasting one..
If the writer of the article has nothing to gain or lose by delivering an appraisal of a thing, then I have to feel it is more valid or dare I say it, objective, if for only that one aspect.
Idealistically speaking, and I am an idealist
objectivity is a key fundamental in professional journalism. A mainstay and a must or the whole of it should be discarded as it lacks the prerequisite catalyst of integrity ..
But it comes to this. Either we entirely dismiss reviews and/or the reviewer, or we take from them that which we deem true. As there has been much said about published articles and their ties to other than purely objective motivation. Ive seen no real proof to support such notions, yet they continue to abound in the world of high end audio disscussions.
That dark belief structure will make for a lot less time perusing magazines and online articles regarding any item, let alone audio gear. Lets simply ignore them all as they are all subjective, huh? Even though we only perceive them to be so.
Well, this might come as a shock but there is truth in reviews. Perhaps not the entire every word sort, but surely Ive found via my own comparisons to having a reviewed item in house and looking back at the article., much of what was said I found to be valid.
and just whos truth are we talking about here
or is it which truth?
Any differences Ive noted were but minor ones, and I chalked that up to the application desparities.
Some of it if not all must however be taken in context. Ive also found my ear connects more so with certain reviewers than with others. For instance, Much of Art Dudleys accounts and muy own experiences with those items coincide. Also J Johnson seems more right than wrong to me in his accounts. On the other side Im no where near John Atkinsons preffs for sound
or some others I dont recall now.
We trust what we intuitively find agreeable. We discern the truth via experience if we are honest with ourselves about it..
Accounts from others of their exp does have some bearing on the things I will pursue. There are other factors, for sure. Im not usually the trusting type at heart, though Im getting to become more so that way as of late. Therefore I believe most people are honest. Given that I lend some credence to what they claim up front.
I give still more validity to something which has been supported by others experiences which further validate these initial claims of the mechanic, modifier, solderer, painter etc..
So should we ignore reviews wholely? Take them in part? Or trust them explicitly?
Im somewhere in the middle ground there and that is why Id seek colaberative or supportive assertions regarding performance enhancements or even the sort of performance being tendered
. Depending largely on the cost of said change too.
I think it is very uncomplicated
. For $200 sure Ill take a shot
. For $2,000 I wanna know more.
I do not doubt one wit when the terms improved, increased performance, or just better are used. Not at all.
I just wanna know their percentages of
.
Its either use others info and experiences or adhere to strickly spec sheets, or remain glued to the best guess theory. During the seeking out or researching phase of advancing ones stereo muscle.
Taking into account both the subjective and objective, has aidded me far more than it has denied me.
Or Im the luckiest SOB on the planet as near 85% of my system was bought in the dark, sans audition.
Jax2
Your clarification on your hot rod metaphor still doesn't connect with me. You're talking about mods that can be measured on a dyno (which really don't tell the whole story about how they translate real-world anyway
Oil well.
BTW
I ran drags. Not road courses.
Jax2
What would an "objective" review of a modification read like?
Thats an easy one. BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH OR IN OTHER WORDS,
Merely the facts. The differences from the base unit to those of the altered one via measurements.
Measurements however dont always riddle out a puzzle.
Shadorne
.
Interesting comment based on our discussion about one of the primary drivers for purchase decisions is the desire for differentiated products. The comment says more about you than the sound quality of Benchmark DAC1.
I never railed on the Benchmark. Infact if you go back and look through my posts youll find I added some info supportive of the Bench that was given me directly from the Bench folks about their technology which was unclear in that thread. This was a good while back too. Like 05 or 06.
I never said I bought into the notion of acquiring things merely due to their status or niche appeal. I simply cant afford it. I am no longer trying to be unique in any respect.
Shadorne
.
If you mod your Bel Canto then you can feel even more secure that very few people have what you have!
I pray I never get that vain and I can ill afford to allow my ego to make my decisions for me. IF I gave you that perspective somehow I regret it.
Shadorne
.
By offering so much detail and information one is exposing oneself to a potential huge embarassement (if anyon eproves you are full of it) and expensive product recall due to lack of performance/conformance should your products not live up to the published specifications (one year to the next). This is very unusual in audio.
Well, whos gonna go back and remeasure the specs anyways? Have you ever done that? Has anyone here ever taken the time and done a check of specs offered from any makers products? I seriously doubt it. If they did however, what would that one investigation change? Uh, I guess Stereophile will, gbut mostly when JA does that part much of it is beyond me anyhow. Those numbers too dont always add up to the experience the product provides.
That last part gets me too
. As changes are implemented into a device by the designer (s) Im guessing here, measurements are taken during those alterations
. Why should it then be so hard to provide them with each variation? I mean they got em, they likely wrote em down somewhere at some point
so it should be an easy task.
but then the note specifications subject to change without notice will probably forgoe too much litigation.
In fact Ill trust their numbers until I determine they are otherwise, suspect. Ive found some that dont add up in the brief time Ive been back to this hobby via my own experiences
. Or at least seem not to..
Im the champagne sort on a beer barrel budget. Add to that my visual prowess have and are waning significantly, the esthetic appeal most often is now a mere aside for me. I derive no such enjoyment from it. Course I aint into owning banged up or shabby looking stuff too often either. Yet Ill take a ding or dent if the job gets done in fine form.
What a thing does is of far more import to me than either its exclusivity or appearance. Price alone usually dictates the latter. For a premium dollar figure however, it needs be of supierior looks as well.
My ideas on erecting and affecting a system are fundamental enough I suspect. The result is the combination of the sum of its parts. All of its parts. Each item affording something more or something less, yet all of the facets being necessary though not as important at times, one to the other.
I tried 3 DACs in all. Apogee, Lavry, and my current BC D3. The Apogee was the briefest encounter, the dA 10 was lengthier and now the D3 being the longest.
My decision to keep the DAC3 came by what it served up to my systems needs and my concerns
and yes
my objectively subjective preffs. The DAC 3 is not the end all be all product. In fact Im sure of that. For me to be truly satisfied some of the peripherals surrounding a device need to be in place and with the BC DAC3 I feel they werent. But Ive kept it anyhow
. Soley on the basis of what it lends to my rigs and my own needs for audio satisfaction. It has what I deem to be obvious flaws but its shorcomings are outweighed by its attributes in my system. It was a disgruntled choice on a personal level, but a good one for my rig..
I said as much in my own personal account of it in the review I posted here on the gone.
Jax2
Somewhere in the archives from years ago you might find some comments I made in listening and comparing an ARC LS2B I had modded by GNSC. My friend had the sme modest preamp in stock form and we swapped out the tube when we compared. Same cables, same system. Bottom line in that case is that we both readily heard improvements in resolution and sounstage. I do not recall specifics. Is that "objective?".
Yep.
Jax2
Someone else listening may have. Heard no difference at all. Which viewpoint would you invest in?
2 for; 1 aginst. You win.
Objectivity is a significant principle of journalistic professionalism. Journalistic objectivity can refer to fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, and nonpartisanship, but most often encompasses all of these qualities.
Subjectivity refers to a subject's perspective, particularly feelings, beliefs, and desires. It is often used casually to refer to unjustified personal opinions, in contrast to knowledge and justified belief.
Your statement of two people determining some change has been made is objective as I believe the assertian and your own self to be true and honest..
The degree of that noted change if measureable would also be objective.
It becomes subjective when a said difference is derived from a perspective or singular view point than from actual measured indicators.
The context of the subjective information is then as important as is the application. Both terms can contain integrity, honesty, and truths. The subjective portion only needs contain the truths of the relayer of such perceived truths and has no need for actual measured indexes.
Consequently I would believe you were you to tell me a certain change had occurred given a certain practice had been employed. The extent of that difference would be what I would try best to apply to my own circumstance (s) given we spoke of it at any greater length thereafter. If no such a side bar was continued it would be lessend as to its import and likely forgotten as it could not be determined as pertinent to other applications. Yet to be realized.
I feel THE truth as important an ingredient as is YOUR truth or my own.
Neither is more or less valid
for it remains in the context and application what truth is found there
. Thats the REAL truth. As at that time it is applicable purely and solely in that milieu.
Ascertaining the increment of change beforehand is the ambiguity, interest and allure for the audio devotee. I just think that with greater acclaim, publicity, and press of these provided increments it would be an easier task to make a decision whether or not to ante up for them. In our own ways we make calls on the next step (s) we will take to improve or change our compliment of devices & accessories. This is how I do it thats all.
