In message <Tp-dnQn95db27dXXnZ2dnUVZ8nudnZ2d@bt.com>, jasee
<jasee@btinternet.com> writes:
>DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>
>
>> Everything I write is subjectively, although I might refer to the test
>> results as well.
>>
>> If you do think that subjective hi-fi reviewing is a waste of time
>> then I totally disagree - there's a lot more difference in the sound
>> quailty - or in reception quality - between different tuners than I
>> was expecting there would be. Also spending more money does usually,
>> but not always, give you better quality, whereas I thought that the
>> law of diminishign returns would have kicked in so much that it
>> wouldn't be worth spending quite a bit extra, but it does tend to make
>> a difference.
>
>sujective hi-fi reviewing has always been wrong, because it is subjective.
>Who wants to read what some reviewer _feels_ is a good tuner etc? Double
>blind tests plus comparative technical data are, and have always been the
>right way.
>
I think you're pursuing different lines of argument. I think DwF is in
effect saying that subjective listening can pick out subtleties that
cannot be _measured_ with current measuring equipment and techniques. I
tend to agree with that (though subjective reviewers can get carried
away, with terms like "musicality", and are easily mocked, often
justifiably). What you (jasee) are saying is that double-blind tests are
among the best ways - and I'd certainly agree with that, but these are
double-blind _subjective_ tests. (And as an engineer/scientist I'd
certainly agree that the technical data should be presented too.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Boss: We must maintain a sense of urgency. Speed is the key. We must be faster
than the competition.
Dilbert: Does that mean you'll sign the stuff that's been on your desk for a
month? (Scott Adams, 1998-12-26)