S888Wheel wrote:
From: Howard Ferstler
Date: 6/14/2004 4:41 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
John Atkinson wrote:
In message jBGyc.32786$HG.21420@attbi_s53
Tom Nousaine ) wrote:
I'm just interested in who is caring for readers (like me) and who is
not. And as far as I can see Stereophile is not in a general sense.
And that's primarily because you are carrying and occasionally promoting
the High-End Myths and [Urban] Legends instead of emphasizing acoustical
performance.
In your opinion, Mr. Nousaine. I am content to let readers make up their
own minds on the value of the information Stereophile offers them.
This thread is getting huge, and so I am only going to
interject a couple of comments related to these particular
statements.
It seems to me as if the editor of a magazine should be
interested in the "value of the information" that magazine
offers.
"Value of information" in this case is not agreed upon.
Well, in my humble opinion information that is erroneous is
not particularly valuable, unless you are talking about
advertisers and manufacturers who depend upon error to sell
products. And it does not matter if the reviewer putting
forth that information is just confused or doing his work to
keep impressionable readers on the edges of their collective
seats. It still misinforms the readers.
Because most audio or electrical engineers agree with
Nousaine that wire (within reason, of course) is pretty much
wire (especially if we are talking about speaker cables), it
would be proper for the editor of a magazine that supposedly
has its readers best interests at heart to make sure that
reviewers treat wire as it should be treated - and not put
forth mythologically related opinions about the performance
of upscale (and expensive) wires.
No editor of any
magazine is obligated to evaluate information based on your perspective or
Tom's.
Well, of course not. However, in the case of a supposedly
accurate and technically oriented magazine they should
"evaluate information" based upon known scientific
principles and the considered opinions of scads of
electrical and audio engineers.
I am sure JA is already making such evaluations on a daily basis. The
success of the magazine depends on his choices in this matter to a large
degree.
It also depends upon a group of readers, who, as I have
noted in other commentaries, are sitting on the edges of
their collective seats, waiting for the latest hyperbolic
news from audio headquarters.
Looks like JA is doing OK in his evaluations.
It depends upon what the magazine is supposed to do. If its
job is to entertain a bunch of naive enthusiasts
(irrespective of any accuracy issues), who have a
mythological attachment to audio hyperbole then by your
standings he is "doing OK." However, if the magazine is
doing what it claims it is doing, namely giving useful and
accurate information to the readers (at least about wire in
this case), then maybe it is not quite so successful.
If his reviewers are offering up data that is
hyperbolic in nature he is by definition (as an editor)
obligated to sort out the more extreme facts and make sure
that impressionable and naive readers are not given
(intentionally given, or otherwise) bogus or misleading
information.
Hyperbolic data? Could you cite an example of hyperbolic data? I don't think
subjective impressions are what one would typically call data.
Well, they listen to the wires and make comments about
soundstaging, depth, clarity, etc. Seems is that is pretty
hyperbolic data. At least bona fide audio and electrical
engineers would call it hyperbolic. Now, all it would take
is a quick series of DBT comparisons to determine if upscale
wire is all that special. This is an issue that could be
solved pretty fast, if what we are talking about is the
audible advantages of super-duper wire.
Yep, they could DBT compare some really, really upscale
stuff to lamp cord. Given that they do hair-splitting
comparisons between different upscale wire brands and write
borderline poetry about how one brand does one thing well
and the other brand does something else well, it seems
likely that they could hear differences between, say, 16-AWG
lamp cord and some megabuck speaker wires with relative
ease, and do so consistently in any kind of DBT situation.
However, as best I can tell (admittedly, I rarely read the
magazine these days), all the reviewers really do is
recommend the wire based upon some very sloppy work. Is this
what an upscale audio magazine is supposed to do? Well, it
might be just that, if what the readers want is fairy tails
and not hard and fast data.
If an editor disagrees with some of the extreme points of
view his writers are putting forth (extreme in the sense
that some knowledgeable audio and/or electrical engineers
would strongly disagree) then he should rope them in and see
to it that they settle down a bit.
Well. that is really the editor's call isn't it? You are free to start an audio
publication and set that rule.
Sure. However, what we are talking about right here is what
Mr. Atkinson does with his magazine. Has he ever personally
come out and said that super-duper wires can make an audible
difference, compared to more mundane versions? What is his
take on the subject of wire? If he agrees with all those
audio and electrical engineers that super-duper wire is
overkill, then why on earth does he let his reviewers go on
and on about special wire? And why is said special wire
listed in any kind of recommended products list the magazine
publishes?
If he agrees with them, then perhaps he should not be
editing an audio magazine that supposedly is in the business
of helping consumers.
An opinion you get to have but one that clearly isn't held universally. It
seems you wish to eliminate the publication of ideas in audio with which you
don't agree.
Nope. For example, some people prefer narrow-dispersion
speakers to wider-dispersion designs. I tend to favor the
latter, but I certainly can see the reasoning behind the
narrow-dispersion concept, particularly when we consider
that they can be installed in surround-sound systems that
generate off-axis ambiance that may be superior to what we
get with simple wall reflections from wide-dispersion
speakers. Indeed, one of my three systems makes use of
speakers of that kind (with surround sound, of course), and
I can see why they are so attractive to other enthusiasts,
including some very knowledgeable ones. I would imagine that
there are also audio and electrical engineers out there who
prefer the narrow-dispersion concept. Taste plays a part
here, I am sure.
But in the case of some products (wire, for sure, but also
amps and CD players), this is not the case. Taste is not
involved when there are no audible differences at all. At
least if we are talking about sound quality and not other
things like heft, durability, bragging rights, etc.
In other words, my problem is not that I object to certain
people's tastes. My problem is that certain reviewers are
generating information that is clearly misleading. I do not
know if they are themselves deluded or if they are
intentionally trying to dupe people in order to pump up
circulation.
The BIG problem is that the people who have a psychological
dependence upon audio hype have to a great extent been
created by fringe-element journalism. That is, over the
years certain magazines have created a Frankenstein monster.
No doubt (in my mind, at least) this was initially done,
because certain audio journalists had strong beliefs about
audibility issues. They really thought they could hear
differences, and they never really did settle down and do
rigorous comparisons to see if their impressions were
correct.
When science finally rears its head and says enough, certain
magazine editors are put into a terrible bind. If they
ignore what the engineers and scientists say they risk being
put into a tweako pigeon hole by some very intelligent
people. On the other hand, if they decide to become rational
themselves and adopt the scientific approach (and, for
example, say that lamp cord sounds as good as any upscale
speaker wire) they will alienate all those naive true
believers created by their overzealous writers over the
years.
Believe me, John has my deepest sympathies, because on the
one hand he would like to be taken seriously by serious
engineers and scientists, while on the other hand he would
like to keep the magazine's circulation increase or at least
hold steady. Hard to do that if he alienates a bunch of
readers by telling them that they have been played as
suckers for years by his magazine's reviewers.
Tough call. Glad I do not have to make it.
Howard Ferstler