Joe Sensor wrote:
Raul Goyo-Shields wrote:
It may not be foolproof, but it is certainly more reliable than
subjectivists analysis that refuses to explored by any form of objective
methodology.

For concluding what sounds good to the human ear? Nope.

Since self-report of 'what sounds good' varies vastly across
the spectrum of listeners, one can hardly call it a reliable
indicator of much at all.

Meanwhile, it's incredibly easy for people to convince themselves
that a tweak makes something 'sound better' -- even when the
tweak does NOTHING AT ALL to the sound. I think Mixerman
told one of those stories in his diaries...twiddling gear that
wasn't even in the signal path, to assuage a record company
exec who wanted to hear more 'air' or 'body' or somesuch.


--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee