I think the reviewers are publishing their hearing tests. It is evident whether they can hear or not, by the review that they write. If they give a good review of a product that we know is not so good, then we know what their hearing is like.
Should reviewers post their hearing test results?
great thread by joshcloud 9 the other day, about hearing...
turns out i can't hear below 40 Hz, or above 16 kHz. not that i believe the results of a web-based audiogram are accurate, but merely suggestive.
it got me wondering though, these reviewers with "golden ears", what limitations do they have? i mean, we all lose some hearing with age, and noise exposure. so it'd be interesting to know, at least on a one-time basis or web site, just how sensitive these ears are that people trust.
i understand that the only ears that count eventually, are our own.
but imagine an art critic who is color-blind. it wouldn't mean he/she couldn't be a critic, just that those reviews would be, ahem, colored, by knowing whose eyes are examining the work.
turns out i can't hear below 40 Hz, or above 16 kHz. not that i believe the results of a web-based audiogram are accurate, but merely suggestive.
it got me wondering though, these reviewers with "golden ears", what limitations do they have? i mean, we all lose some hearing with age, and noise exposure. so it'd be interesting to know, at least on a one-time basis or web site, just how sensitive these ears are that people trust.
i understand that the only ears that count eventually, are our own.
but imagine an art critic who is color-blind. it wouldn't mean he/she couldn't be a critic, just that those reviews would be, ahem, colored, by knowing whose eyes are examining the work.