S888Wheel wrote:
From: Howard Ferstler
Date: 6/17/2004 3:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
Well, in my humble opinion information that is erroneous is
not particularly valuable,
I would tend to agree. But I think Stereophile has a pretty good track record
on giving accurate information in their reviews.
Concerning the performance of speaker wires, interconnects,
line conditioners, etc.?
Incidentally, this will be my last bit of input with this
series of debates. I leave it to you to get in the very last
word in your response.
Now if you are talking about
subjective impressions this is again something that is not agreed upon as to
what is and is not eroneous.
Well, if a wire is not having any negative impact on the
sound and the reviewer goes off on a tangent and discusses
how it soundstages, images, delineates, etc., then I would
say that an error of some kind has been committed. A
subjective impression of something that does not exist at
all is going beyond the ethical or rational call of duty, I
think.
unless you are talking about
advertisers and manufacturers who depend upon error to sell
products.
Error? I suspect they want reviewers to accurately describe the equipment in
question.
So, I suppose this means that wire manufacturers agree when
reviewers start discussing soundstaging, imaging, etc.?
Again, if we are talking about subjective impressions the idea of
what is and is not an error is not agreed upon.
Again, if we are talking about soundstaging or spaciousness
with something like speaker systems then obviously there are
going to be disagreements regarding the abilities of
different speakers. However, with stuff like wire (and line
conditioners, and, forgive me, amps and CD players that are
decently made) we are talking about subjective impressions
of non-existent characteristics.
Should reviewers make up stories about non-existent
characteristics, in order to entertain their readers?
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.
Again, if you are talking about subjective impressions you are simply assuming
you are right and others who don't agree with you are wrong.
Well, I have the weight of science on my side when it comes
to the so-called "sound" of wires. Those who disagree with
me and those scientists and engineers are, in my opinion,
screwing over their readers. They talk them into spending
big money on items that do not do the job any better than
lower-cost versions.
That is an axiom
that will win any agument if accepted. I don't accept it. If the reviewer is
misrepresenting factual information about the equipment then there is a
problem.
I agree.
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.
I don't think any audio review journal is required to base editorial policy on
some informal poll of electrical engineers.
Well, they can have any policy they wish. However, I think
that Stereophile (and a few other magazines) editorially
imply that the information they put forth is both accurate
and helpful to consumers. However, I do not think that
giving a fluff review to a set of megabuck wires is helping
consumers. Well, maybe a consumer likes to live in a fairy
tale, but I do not think that most people are that way.
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.
Steophile is not a technically oriented magazine.
We agree on that issue.
It is a hobbyist review
magazine that is not technical friendly.
Agreed. I wonder if John Atkinson would agree.
Accuracy of a subjective review
journal is an inherently paradoxal concept.
Actually, here I disagree. There is no reason why a good
subjective review cannot be accurate, or at least useful to
consumers. Now, if fluff reviews are psychologically useful
then perhaps some subjectivist magazines are indeed worth
the trouble for consumers.
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.
We know that there is a group of people buying the magazine. What else they are
doing is purely conjecture on your part. The fact that the magazine is selling
speaks to it's success.
More than one erroneous magazine out there in the world is
selling well.
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."
Now you are just bashing unnamed readers because you don't agree with much of
the magazine's editorial content. from a purely business point of view the
magazine is "supposed" to generate sales. It appears that Stereophile is doing
so.
OK, now we have hit the nail on the head. Yep, there are
certain kinds of impressionable audio buffs out there
(perhaps they are born that way or perhaps over the years
the fringe magazines have created them) who will line up to
read hyperbole. OK, so from that perspective Stereophile and
some of the others are certainly successful.
And if the people involved with such magazines are happy
being the way they are, then I suppose we cannot fault them
for their points of view. I wonder if John Atkinson is happy
with the way his magazine is, or if he would prefer that it
become a considerably more technically oriented journal.
From a philisophical point of view it is suppose to aid audiophiles in
their hobby. If audiophiles are buying it then we can conclude that at least
some of Stereophile's readers believe it is helping them persue their hobby.
I agree. The question is: is it good for the hobby to be as
disconnected from technical reality as it sometimes appears
to be? Of course, not everyone can be a technophiles, but
one wonders how the hobby would be if a more brass-tacks
approach were taken by all the magazines. Would that change
the audio world and all those impressionable consumers? Most
likely, new magazines would appear and they would mimic what
the fringe journals are now doing and the cycle would
continue. As Barnum once said, there is a sucker born every
minute.
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.
The information does seem to be mostly accurate. I rarely hear of manufacturers
claiming their products were misrepresented by Stereophile.
I think that both Dunlavy and Waveform had problems. In any
case, I am sure that even if a really techno-oriented
manufacturer got a positive product review based upon
hyperbolic opinions from a reviewer they would not contact
the magazine to complain.
Again, in so far as
subjective impressions are concerned accurate information is debatable.
Subjective impressions of non-existent characteristics
really do give me problems. I am not sure that hearing
non-existent artifacts (with wires: soundstaging, imaging,
etc.) is something I would call "debatable."
Unless
the reviewers are lying about thier impressions it is hard to say their reports
of their impressions are not accurate representations of their impressions.
But the reader should at least be given an impression that
is based to some extent upon reality. If a guy hears
soundstaging artifacts with a set of megabuck speaker wires,
I would want something more than just an impression. I would
want some kind of proof. Of course, many readers do not need
proof, and those are the ones who are prone to being
suckered by the reviewers.
Are the reviewers themselves deluded, or are they merely
playing a game and giving readers a good time? Hard to say,
and I suppose that there are both kinds doing reviews, and
probably most reviewers actually split the difference.
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.
No it is an impression. Here is an online defenition of data...
(snipped data on data, which admittedly seemed to be
accurate)
Unfortunately, I think that many readers are not looking at
those subjective impressions as subjective impressions. They
see the review as hard data, delivered from the mouth and
soul of a true audio golden ear. For them, a review like
that is harder data than any amount of real "hard data."
At least bona fide audio and electrical
engineers would call it hyperbolic.
A bona fide engineer would not likely call subjective impressions data.
Right. However, he would also say that a review of speaker
wires that praises their soundstaging, imaging, etc. is not
a very useful piece of information. If it causes readers to
go out and purchase the wire he would probably not call it a
subjective impression, either. He would call it a misleading
review.
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.
I do not expect audio reviewers, most of whom are not making a living at
reviewing, to have to do scientifically valid DBTs for the sake of a few people
who would like that. If the demand fore this were substantial enough, I suspect
JA would consider doing mandatory DBTs or risk loosing readership.
Over the years, the magazine, and others like it, have made
a point of downplaying the usefulness of DBT work.
Obviously, guys like Harley (who did a lengthy piece on
audio reviewing when he was with the magazine) and a few
others have gone out of their respective ways to show that
subjective reviews are actually superior to brass-tacks
reviews, particularly when it comes to products that many
engineers would consider to be sonically benign if built
decently. The latter would include wires, for sure, but also
amps and CD players. And those engineers would not be
particularly in tune with stuff like special power cords or
line conditioners, either.
If the magazine started doing valid DBT work a very large
percentage of the products the reviewers have lauded over
the years would be shown to be useless junk. Obviously,
making the big switch to a brass-tacks approach would not be
good for business.
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.
Sloppy work abounds in hobbyist magazines. I have seen it in a magazine that
you write for.
So have I. I hope you are not referring to my stuff,
however. Well, maybe you are. Actually, I am quite the
subjectivist when it comes to stuff like speakers. I am not
in the brass-tacks camp with those items as much as guys
like Nousaine, Toole, Davis, and even Roy Allison are. I cut
speaker builders a lot of slack, although I do require
reasonably smooth room/power response to get a speaker into
the good-performance ball park.
(snips)
What is his [Atkinson's]
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?
That has been answered. He allows independent opinions to be reported by his
reviewers. He does his "editing" in the selection of his reviewers. This is not
so unusual in the world of review journals. Especially those that seem to favor
independent POVs.
Fine. But I am interested on knowing his take. I am not
talking about freedom to let his writers write hyperbole. I
am talking about whether or not he thinks big-buck wires are
worth the money. If so, then I think his credibility with a
lot of the engineers he wants to be buddies with will go
down the tube. If not, then he is willingly letting his
reviewers mislead consumers.
And why is said special wire
listed in any kind of recommended products list the magazine
publishes?
Based on the reviews and opinions of the editorial staff. The rules and methods
of inclusion in the recomended components list is included in every recomended
components list. If you are reading the list you should know the answer to your
question.
There should not even be a recommended components list for
wires, in my opinion. Ditto with stuff like line
conditioners.
(snips)
There are audio engineers and electrical engineers that think amps and wires
don't all sound the same.
Well, some amps are junk, and ironically some of those cost
quite a bit. Let's just say that all decently designed amps
sound pretty much the same up to their clipping points,
provided they are not called upon to drive weird loads. In
any case, most of the good engineers would not agree with
reviews of really good amps that involve descriptions of
soundstaging, depth, focus, imaging, etc.
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.
A point that is not agreed upon.
OK, the reviewer may like the looks of an amp or player, or
they might want one with special features. However, in this
case I am talking about audible differences.
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.
Clearly based on your axiom that your opinions on audio are irrefutable facts.
You loose me there.
Well, it is a fact that wire is wire. Anyone who gives a
smash-bang review to a set of expensive wires, knowing that
some readers will mortgage the homestead and go right out
and purchase a set, is not doing that reader any real good.
Yeah, I know the reader might feel good, but he would also
feel good if some guy sold him some dope. There has to be
more to high-end-audio journalism than pandering to
psychological needs.
I do not
know if they are themselves deluded or if they are
intentionally trying to dupe people in order to pump up
circulation.
An either/or proposition predicated on your axiom that your opinions are
irrefutable facts. Sorry, I'm not buying the premise so the argument goes
nowhere with me.
So, you can hear differences between wires? I mean, while I
cut everybody some slack when it comes to speakers, rooms,
surround processors, equalizers, and a few other items, I do
not cut them any slack at all when it comes to wires, and I
do not cut them much slack when it comes to amps and CD
players. A little, but not much. Not all of my opinions are
irrefutable facts, but I think that those concerning wire,
and the bogus selling of same, are just that.
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.
Please feel free to prove this assertion and it's prevelence in audiophilia.
Well, I could be wrong. As Barnum said, a lot of suckers are
just born that way. Of course, the sad thing is that said
journals make a point of roping in such individuals.
That is, over the
years certain magazines have created a Frankenstein monster.
The analogy makes no sense to me.
They have created a group of individuals (those who have a
kind of will to believe) who depend upon the magazine for
baloney information. If the magazine changed course and took
a brass-tacks approach it would go down the tubes. The
created reader base depends upon the magazine to keep
feeding it hyperbole. Kill the monster and you kill the
magazine.
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.
I look forward to the day that legitimate science rears it's head in
audiophilia. It looks like scientists have better things to do with their time
and resources.
There is nothing wasteful about those involved in audio
journalism taking a scientific approach. I am not saying
that scientists who are working on DNA or cancer research,
or space exploration, have to temporarily switch to audio
for a while. All that is required is for those who are
already involved in the hobby to adopt a more honest
approach with what they are doing.
If they
ignore what the engineers and scientists say they risk being
put into a tweako pigeon hole by some very intelligent
people.
What are scientists saying? Do you really think there are no scientists that
believe in amp sound or cable sound? You think there are no engineers that do
so either?
Well, none that I have heard of have any opinions about
cable or wire sound. Sure, amps can sound different.
However, I'll bet that the ones that do sound different from
the mainstream are junk jobs (even if expensive), designed
to sound different - but not accurate.
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.
I would say the your assertion that one is being irrational if they don't agree
with your beliefs in audio is highly prejudicial and is somewhat
selfrighteous (snipped definition).
Hey, they do not have to agree with me. All they have to do
is be honest in their evaluation work.
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.
I don't believe you.
Well, I certainly do not think he wants circulation to
shrink. And I do think he wants to be taken seriously by
engineers and scientists.
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.
A call that is based once again on your axiom that your beliefs on audio are
irrefutable facts and, in this case, that JA secretly agrees with those
beliefs.
Well, perhaps he does not. I really do not know what the guy
thinks, to tell the truth.
Howard Ferstler