J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> 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.

It can be, but you have to devise some interesting tests. Viz, As I saif
before the difference between a good phase shift in the IF strip and a
poor one with truncation of signal at 125Khz or more from the band
centre makes an audible difference: You can measure that, but very few
reviewers would know how. Or have the equipment.
> 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.)

As an engineer, all I can say is that double blind tests merely ensure
that what gets picked is the equipment most like what the audience 'has
at home' and has got used to.

It took me over a year listening to various parts of what I was working
on to finally understand what all the various imperfections did, and
learn to like real quality. At first it simply sounded as it it was
lacking in character. I eventually realised that that was indeed the
whole point. I couldn't hear the electronics, I had instead to listen to
the material ;-)

Oh, and the things that are easy to measure, like frequency response,
step response stereo separation and harmonic distortion, are the things
that make the least difference. Its intermodulation distortion that
muddies up complex sounds, but without a spectrum analyser that's a hard
thing to measure.