Subjective tests have no right answers because each listener’s perception is unique

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 (#contradicts, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Dissonance cannot be fully quantified because it is a subjective human impression; Averaged listener ratings can conceal massive contradictory individual judgments.; Blind tests collapse personal preference into shared judgments (+4 more)

Related

• Blind listening tests make subjective sound judgments objective and repeatable (similarity 0.93)
• Highly trained listeners can repeat subjective judgments with remarkable consistency (similarity 0.93)
• Subjective audio opinions can behave like facts when gathered under controlled conditions (similarity 0.92)
• Psychoacoustic knowledge rests entirely on subjective listening tests, not direct measurement (similarity 0.91)
• Blind tests collapse personal preference into shared judgments (similarity 0.89)
• Randomizing identifiers, positions, and music prevents experimenter bias in listening tests (similarity 0.88)
• Pilot tests and controlled constants eliminate confounding in listening experiments (similarity 0.87)
• Subjective experience dictates which measurements matter in audio research (similarity 0.87)
• Subjective listening tests require repetition and randomization to be statistically valid (similarity 0.87)
• Blind listener tests reliably favor the most neutral loudspeakers (similarity 0.86)
• Audible resonances drove low sound-quality ratings in early blind tests (similarity 0.86)
• Speaker cables and devices show near-zero audible differences in blind tests (similarity 0.86)
• Headphone blind tests cannot use automated shuffling, so tactile cues leak into results. (similarity 0.85)
• High-end audio forfeited credibility by refusing blind testing (similarity 0.85)
• Objective measurements routinely expose flaws that subjective listening reviews miss (similarity 0.84)

Broader Connections

• Sound quality is fundamentally subjective and requires perceptual testing to characterize #corroborates (0.90)
• Blind listening tests make subjective sound judgments objective and repeatable #contradicts (0.85) — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 87
• Highly trained listeners can repeat subjective judgments with remarkable consistency #qualifies (0.75)
• Subjective audio opinions can behave like facts when gathered under controlled conditions #contradicts (0.70)