I wouldn't say reviewing headphones with a scientific approach and objective methods is an easy thing to do: It is not.
It doesn't mean it's impossible, by any means.
Today's article from +Engadget illustrates how it looks to me most audiophile equipment (or audio equipment altogether) is evaluated.
Heck, for ultra expensive audiophile stuff, broken is good enough!
At the point where function itself is optional, you can guess the importance given the the actual product performance…
"But the more I think about it, the more it doesn't matter."
#supercurioBlog #audio #critic
I didn’t listen to a pair of $55,000 headphones
4 thoughts on “How most audio equipment reviews seem to happen”
Reminds me of when Engadget "reviewed" the Marshall London but the author never tested the speakers or audio functionality… Which is the main selling point of the phone to begin with…
+Abdullah Tarawneh my intention is not to single out a specific website nor only smartphones why I picked this example.
By the way, reviewers are always welcome joining my free training program on display and audio evaluation.
A first result of the former will be released soon: a review with measurements of the Chromecast audio and it's just the beginning 😊
+François Simond Neither is mine. I just specifically recall reading that one article, not to call out Engadget or smartphone reviews. Just that audio isn't always considered properly, whether by not performing objective test, or by performing no tests at all in some cases. If you are testing or reviewing or writing about an audio product, I expect to see that they tried the audio in question, rather than dismissing it entirely. Especially when audio is the main focus.
Headphones like these are not really about the audio anyway. They're mostly a design object.