Internet audio reviews lack bias control and thus unreliable evidence
Evidence
But “reviews” are everywhere now, liberated by the internet. Anyone with an opinion and a keyboard is free to offer anything from brief, pithy comments to long “record review” type essays on what they “heard” through various audio components. It is easy to understand the motivations. For ardent hobbyists it is a way to share their enthusiasm for audio and for some products they like, maybe even to earn some money. But, in the end, their purely subjective opinions are of little value because the listening performed by most of them violates the most basic rules of good practice for eliminating bias. There may be articulate descriptions of the physical product, discussing real or imagined virtues in the transducers, cabinet construction, connectors, etc., but no proofs of performance. All probably mean well, some know their music and appear to be decent record reviewers, and a few are entertaining. But their opinions about the sound of the loudspeakers themselves are personal, not for sharing. As with most works of fiction, smile, close the book, and move on to the next one. — Toole, Floyd E, Sound reproduction- the acoustics and…, 1084
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: Audio electronics can introduce flaws that subjective reviewers misread as virtues — Toole, Floyd E, Sound reproduction- the acoustics and…, 1142; High-end audio forfeited credibility by refusing blind testing — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 161; Consumer Reports loudspeaker ratings lacked rigorous subjective validation (+7 more)
- yield-rescued: below the book’s yield-target cutoff, included anyway for connecting to: Audio electronics can introduce flaws that subjective reviewers misread as virtues — Toole, Floyd E, Sound reproduction- the acoustics and…, 1142; High-end audio forfeited credibility by refusing blind testing — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 161; Consumer Reports loudspeaker ratings lacked rigorous subjective validation (+7 more)