Subjective audio opinions can behave like facts when gathered under controlled conditions

Evidence

Some audio journalists are hostile to the very notion that audio is amenable to scientific investigation—asserting that only subjective opinion, preferably theirs, matters. There is nothing wrong with subjective opinions. As will be seen, it is these that have allowed for deliberate and productive research into what matters in sound reproduction. However, the opinions must be collected under circumstances in which the ever-observant human brain is deprived of information that could bias the opinion about the sound. The tests must be blind—the listeners must not know prices, brands, sizes and so forth. Ideally they should be double-blind, so the experimenter cannot bias the results. There should also be comparison sounds from competing products readily available, because humans are notoriously forgetful when it comes to recalling the details of sound quality. When this is done the subjective data begins to resemble technical measurements, in that they become impressively repeatable and, more importantly, generalizable to a large population. — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 87 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Highly trained listeners can repeat subjective judgments with remarkable consistency; Trained and naive listeners agree on audio quality within ten percent.; Hearing loss makes listener opinions unreliable no matter how experienced (+9 more)

Broader Connections

• Controlled experimentation is how psychoacoustics gets knowledge from subjective reports #corroborates (0.95)
• Blind listening tests make subjective sound judgments objective and repeatable #corroborates (0.85) — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 87
• Experimental method determines what discrepancies listeners can perceive #expands (0.80)