Don’t even get me started on double-blind testing…
The purpose of this piece isn’t to suggest the superiority of one approach over the other. Instead, it’s to point out that just as the results of any review depend on the process that produced it, assessing the value of those results means understanding the perspective of the reviewer. So, for example, when I review a product, I discuss it in a system context and in terms of what impact its performance has on my musical understanding and enjoyment. A few years ago I wrote both an introductory piece and then a full review of CH Precision’s 10 Series amplification. One reader complained that the ‘full review’ contained no more information than the introductory piece, simply describing “how different bits of music sounded.” Well, to me, that’s the whole point: What does this amplifier do to the musical reproduction as a whole? That’s why I illustrate reviews the way that I do.
“Know your true measurements and dress your mind accordingly.” J. D. Salinger
But that might not be – and in this case clearly wasn’t – what the reader is looking for. That doesn’t make the review bad, wrong or useless. It just means that the reader and the reviewer have different perspectives. “Find a reviewer or magazine to which you can relate” is a classic piece of audio advice. This question of perspective is what it really refers to. That 10 Series review was of no real interest to that particular reader, because it didn’t answer his question. I don’t know but I suspect that what he really wanted was a specific, comparative review, one that used one system, probably one musical example and directly compared the 10 Series to the DartZeel, the D’Agostino, the Soulution and whatever other preferred products he might list. It’s not what I do, so complaining about that is a little like bemoaning that a review of the latest Ferrari sports coupé doesn’t assess its ability when it comes to towing a caravan, or like going to a steak house for vegetarian food. The disappointment is entirely predictable, complaining about it a waste of breath. Just don’t go there in the first place – or if you do, understand where the piece is coming from and that it isn’t going to answer your questions. It’s a bit like a gourmet looking for restaurant recomendations on Tripadvisor: the object of the exercise might share common ground but the criteria for judgement are entirely different.
Many years ago, when LP was still the dominant source, I had to deliver a pair of speakers to a reviewer. That reviewer didn’t want the speakers set up, didn’t want any additional information or advice on their use. They treated the product entirely as a ‘black box’ DUT, to be assessed using an entirely predetermined approach involving a bunch of test equipment and a single, ‘reference’ system. That reviewer also owned 10 records, of which two were test discs. Today, that reviewer is the self-styled “most important man in audio”. Be careful what you wish for – it might just come true.
The moral is to the physical…
The bottom line here is pretty simple. We should stop pretending that audio is all about musical performance. For some listeners it is. For some listeners it’s really all about the gear. For most listeners it’s a bit of both. And that’s entirely fine. If people want to debate the intricacies of one approach to amplification compared to another, that’s fine too. But what we should all appreciate is that the goal defines the path and there’s more than one goal. A gear-focussed perspective will forever be trying to separate and define the parts of a system: an approach that focuses on musical performance will of necessity mandate a system-based perspective.
