It would help if the subjective commentary had some connection to audibility as opposed to daydreams and imaginations as a result of critical long term peeking, what you read in the magazine, expectations etc, the usual.
Sure, assuming people used just their ears while listening as opposed to the chronic peeking that goes on in magazine reviews with priori knowledge of the component, expectations, price, brand, etc, the usual. Of course, reviews are often casually done, without controls in place, etc - good for entertainment purposes (ie a good laugh now and then) but otherwise destined for bin and fireplace.
On that note, reviewers are subject to the same biases as the rest of us simpletons, unfortunately. Honesty would involve using just the ears, ie blind listening, absent any knowledge of the component, swapping, non-audio cues etc etc. However sometimes it's just more fun to read colourful prose instead ...
Yes, you heard what you heard. However what you heard may have been a result of :
*Expectation bias
*Placebo
*Change in auditory focusing
*Change in mood
*Non-audio cues
*Visual cues
*Priori knowledge, expectations etc
Hearing something as a result of sound waves impinging on the pinna, ie something physical in the soundfield and hearing things in your mind are two very different things.
As I said, enjoy your perceptions for what they are. It's as far as it goes. Just don't make any claims of objectivity.
