On 6/19/04 11:50 PM, in article KP7Bc.82803$Sw.62274@attbi_s51, "Howard
Ferstler" wrote:
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.?
This particular debate has been couched with the hidden assumption that
anything beyond the "yup I plugged my equipment in to the power strip and it
powered on" is erroneous. The measure of this error has been the %-age of
reviews (in a gross sense) dedicated to wires and interconnects.
Unless the people declaring a mainstream magazine are willing to back up
their claims when the editor of that magazine comes back and refutes them
(showing how the accuser isn't even right about the %-age he said) - but
doggedly sticks by the unproven assumption that despite the assumed
observations noted in the reviews (which were never analyzed for content -
their mere presence was thought to be enough) that it was somehow wrong.
Well - it all has the taste of an attack rather than a careful criticism.
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.
Except that someone can borrow the equipment from a reputable high end
dealer and try it out for him or herself and see if the observations are
correct, if there is any care to.
If the person in question thinks it is all hogwash - and believes that he or
she has achieved audio nirvana with a c. 1985 Magnavox CD player hooked up
to a Emerson Boombox, connected to their Bose speakers with 200' of 20 ga.
Zip cord -- there is no need to attempt to improve upon said perfection...
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.?
Except the manufacturer is not doing the review. I suspect that in the high
end, or any other review in any other magazine - will agree with a favorable
review and disagree with a unfavorable review.
I went to an issue of TAS where one cable (supra ply 3.5 I think) was said
to be bad for the person's system - the reviewer very politely disagreed in
the area dedicated to a manufacturer's response.
IN another one - where the balanced integrated amplifier by Ayre went
UNSTABE when the unbalanced interconnects were used - and the manufacturer
responded disagreeing - but it was clear they were afraid of contradicting
the reviewer.
So, point: If it is a good review I am sure only a stupid reviewer would
contradict.
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.
Dunno - Try comparing the stereo image of a NAD C541i and a NAD DVD 532
playing a CD. Tonal balance and detail is different in my system - and so
is the apparent stereo image. As all stereo imaging is created in your head
by an auditory illusion - I can see how sometimes one person's observation
will differ.
Should reviewers make up stories about non-existent
characteristics, in order to entertain their readers?
I do not believe they do this - nor in all honesty should you.
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.
Do you? This is the ABX testing that is fashionable? Rather then get into
a long discussion about the validity of that test - and what it does and
does not prove (it can and has been used to show that there is no difference
between a live band and a cheap audio cassette, and has also been used as
early as 1927 to show live vs. equipment of that era) - suffice it to say
the validity of that test is in question when it contradicts personal
observation.
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.
You are entitled to that opinion. But what if you find the cheaper cable to
be better sounding than the more expensive one?
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.
I am sure they honestly believe that, regardless of all the ABX tests and
other ways you can measure sameness.
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.
Except that there may really be differences regardless of the ABX tests you
read about (but have not personally done). If there is a difference,
perhaps the ABX tests are not accurate or are measuring the wrong things.
Steophile is not a technically oriented magazine.
We agree on that issue.
It is not - though they do attempt to measure equipment.
It is a hobbyist review
magazine that is not technical friendly.
Agreed. I wonder if John Atkinson would agree.
Does it matter? They valiantly attempt to present technical measurements
(which given the typical setups is, IMHO, a mistake).
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 agree - a subjective review if carefully done will relay the various
sounds and experiences in an accurate and somewhat repeatable manner. If
there is interest in verifying the review - the reader can usually locate
and borrow the equipment from a dealer and try to see the differences him or
herself!
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.
Stereophile and TAS has been very successful in rooting out a lot of
equipment that cost a lot but simply did not measure up (this was in the
early 1970's) - and I believe they have fallen from their mission a bit, but
by and large are honest magazines.
The last year with the reviews of the iPod, they are showing the High End
that the new music formats can be high end (which we already knew, but this
magazine is bringing it to the attention to its public).
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.
That would be a good question. But there are technical journals already in
the IEEE.
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?
It always has had a tendency to dive down the silly dead end that it has.
You are leaving out the polarized camps - "subjectivists" and "objectivists"
and assuming "subjectivists" are wrong.
It is also a mistake to assume that the magazine *is* the hobby (though I am
sure the editor would like it that way). Case in point a few years ago when
Carver wqs making claims about his product that "sounded like tubes" without
being tubes - and got a magazine to sign up to it (I think is was The Audio
Critic before the current incarnation) - and it was clear that it was not
like tubes in the slightest and the magazine almost folded over that and a
few other similar reviews.
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?
I would welcome that - though if they spent all their time refuting
competing magazines I doubt I would read many issues.
I believe a truly critical subjectivist journal stating the good and bad
points without hyperbole (as Stereophile and TAS tend to do) would be good.
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.
Which fringe journals - I am curious.
I think casting the subscribers to TS and Stereophile as "suckers" is
incorrect and needlessly insulting. It is also a cop-out as you then do not
display the rigor you claim to represent.
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."
That means you have a pre-conceived notion about what you expect a wire to
be capable of assisting with - and if you see an observation in
contradiction to what you think the reviewer should say is incorrect.
I would agree that there are some things each component, when well executed,
will be capable of doing, and some things it will not. I disagree that the
reviewers are lying.
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.
Again - I do not think the reviewers are lying as you seem to do.
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.
You are usually welcome to borrow said cables from a high end source or a on
line cable rental place and find out for yourself.
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.
I do not think they are lying.