| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
"Are you offering a million dollars for proof that an isolation device
can make an audible difference in a play back system? I'll take that challenge. If Randi wishes to challenge the audibility of isolation devices that I use in my system I'll happily take the challenge." Outside of a tt? What do you use/where? |
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
(S888Wheel) wrote:
....snip to content .... From: "Michael McKelvy" .......Surel tweeks would be something anyone interested in good audio would want to investigate if for nothing more than pure selfish pleasure. All of them? From a personal standpoint I have evaluated every possible aspect of sound reproduction in the home (and car for that matter) that seemed likely to make a difference with bias controlled listening tests. These include serious multiple listener tests of outboard DACs, capacitor dialectric, green pens, interconnects, loudspeaker cables, vibration devices, wire dress and speaker stands. I've also conducted other controlled research on break-in and absolute and odd items that have occured. Have I tested everything? Of course,not but I've learned that its just a waste of time to devote resources to anything that hasn't been verified by the proponents with bias controlled listening tests prior to them asking for my consideration. IMO if you cannot or have not shown an ability to "hear" what you claim is audible with the lights figuratively turned off than I'm not entertaining your claim or opinion. |
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
(S888Wheel) wrote:
Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused" From: (Nousaine) Date: 12/2/2004 4:49 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote: Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused" From: (Nousaine) Date: 11/30/2004 3:56 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Kalman Rubinson wrote: On 28 Nov 2004 23:47:47 GMT, wrote: Yes, and it is this very narrow rhetorical device by which Mr. Atkinson speaks as though being above the question. He did not claim ability to hear the "stones", but others in the mag did which puts Randi directly on the money to include Stereophile in the same box as other marketing/publishing folk. Then Randi should challenge with more care and point. Of course, his demonstrated inability to discern who said exactly what makes that unlikely. Kal I agree with the original poster. If Mr Atkinson did not specifically distance himself from questionable statements made in the publication he edits at the time of publication it is then unfair to distance himself from them later. So should we expect ever editor of every audio magazine to agree with every review in their magazines if they don't express a "timely" disagreement in print? That once again puts the unreasonable onus on an editor to run around and review every product that is reviewed in their publication for themselves. If people cannot understand the nature of subjective review magazines that is their problem IMO. If I were to purchase a pair of speakers based on one of your reviews and found I didn't like them should I hold your editor responsible? Sure. Really? Will they give my mony back? How does one hold them responsible for your opinions? To get your money back you employ the return policy of your dealer. Then you write a letter to ther Editor and/or fail to re-subscribe. But you can also bet your bippy that my Editorial staff questions anythingI write that appears on its face value to be inconsistent with what is known about acoustical sound reproduction in the listening room. "what is known" is highly debated. The editorial policies of your publications are hardly a model that must be followed by all other publications. Actually this is not true. But to be more specific; there are many "concepts" that are held by the high-end community that have never been shown to be audible either by research OR the manufacurers, distributors or enthusiast. These include amps/wire/cable/bit/break-in/absolute polarity and odd-tweak sound. These issues are only "debated" by people who can't provide any replicable evidence to show they are even audible let alone improvements in sound quality performance. If they fill a niche fine. Do they actually rpeat your auditions and reject any reviews with which they disagree? No. That's because there's nothing to 'disgaree' with based on content. However, they do supply lots of syntax and expression editing which always clarifies, expands and often shortens the copy. Space is a big issue with the managing editor. And the opinion of anybody with a device such as a loudspeaker which has noticeable response errors in rooms is automatically qualified as a opinion. Any opinion is automatically qualified as opinion. But the "sound" of a stone placed in your listening room or an interconnecting cable changing the timing of signals passed through it is more than opinion No. it is mere oipion until claimed to be more than an opinion. But isn't Stereophile just a collection of mostly unverifed opinions in the first place? However "opinions" that defy or ignore some 30 years of extant evidence qualify as extraordinary to me. Sure that's my opinion. So what? Who said otherwise. .... its a revision of physics and deserves scutiny EVEN if that's simply a verification of possible affects with even moderate bias controls implemented. It is not any claim about physics until stated as such. Really; so if I make a statement that this new carburetor makes me "feel"like my mileage is close to 60 mpg wouldn't qualify as a claim that hasn't been verified by physical evidence? Or even for a subjectivist it would seem likely that the CEO would investigate the sound quality improvements that might be gained with such an extraordinary claim. Should you ever become a CEO you are free to act accordingly. I'm sure Mr. Atkinson is a busy person. He may not agree with you on this point. That is his choice not yours. Further I think this discussion is useful for potential readers in that it is clear that the magazine is simply a set of often unsubstantiated opinions when challenged the editors will use the "I didn't personally say that" defense. What other defense will any editor use when the subjective opinions of one of his or her reviewers is challenged? How about that other one 'I remain agnostic even though the product was highly recommended'? At Sound & Vision the question and the cause is investigated. Two words, Bedini clarifier. Meaning? But then, when was the last time you heard "my cables made my bass faster" or another fanciful opinion in that publication? I don't recall reading that claim. I tend to not pay much attention to cable reviews though. Like Stereophile S&V doesn't usually review cables so we don't "highly recommend them" So you don't read that kind of drivel in S&V but you do in Stereophile. Is it because there is technical and editorial oversight? The reasons have been explained to you. The reviewers are free to express their opinions of their impressions of equipment they review. Sure, but when someone says that a cable made his 'bass faster' it certainly implies a lack of understanding and maybe even misdirection and deserves investigation. In the October issue the pull quote for the As We See It definitively says "We Highly recommend All components listed in "Recommended Components."" which must mean even those components such as cones and isolation devices which are said to produce "greater perceived detail and "faster" Bass." Or that produce sound that "just tightens up, cleans up, clears up. I hear more low level information. Imaging improves. Timing too. Transients are crisper. I hear improvements in just about every respect." Well if you want to challenge the audibility of isolation devices I'll happily take your money or the million Randi is offering. Just make it worth my while. Make Randi an offer. I've offered to allow you to verify your claim of amplifier sound before but that wasn't worth the time for you then. What is your price for proving the "sound" of any particular item? Lets see how many "skeptics" you can get to give up their money on this one. I'll offer a thousand dollar bet right now that you won't take this challenge. The challenge being the audible effects of isolation devices in audio playback. I use them, I am confident they have an effect. I'll take any bet you want to offer over a thousand dollars. anything less is a waste. So you price is $1000? I'll bet you $1001. Simply drop by at a mutallu convenient time and I'll arrange the experiment. But, you'll have to agree for public disclosure of the results following. For me the cost lay in NOT proving I really hear what my perceptions or other enthusiasts tell me. That's exactly why I began controlled testing the 'sound' of capacitors, amplifiers, cabling, isolation etc a quarter century ago; to maximize the effectiveness of resource deployment in the quest of sound quality optimization. And interconnects that "Gave me the color, air, transparency and liveliness I so enjoy while banishing any and all mechanical/electronic effects," None of these few quotes sounds anything like there is any doubt at all about any of these dubious claims which have never been publically documented in any replicable experiment. Nor would any number of quotes from subjective reviews of movies music or even food. It's the nature of the beast. Again, for those that don't understand the nature of subjective review the burden is on them to educate themselves. Please. If that is so why haven't you already conducted and shared the experimental results of amp amd isolation sound? Who said I have done any such experiments? What I meant was that if you already 'know' the sound of those things (surely you didn't rely on uncontrolled listening conditions to gather that evidence did you? why haven't YOU or some other interested party publicly shared them other than with just declarations? The high-end industry and magazines are awaiting results like this so they can shut-up skeptics like me. We are not assessing the "art" of sound reproduction, that's certainly subject to debate (I once had a lively argument in 1966 in Vietnam about whether "Summer in the City" was better than "Satisfaction" but that's not the same as assessing which amplifier does a better job of delivering the electrical signal to the loudspeaker terminals .... the latter is perfectly testable either electrically OR acoustically. All irrelevant to the nature of subjective review. Many things that are not art related are subject to such review. Cars, boats, fishing equipment, golf clubs etc. All are subject to subjective review and all opinions stated in such reviews are just that, opinions. There are plenty of objective results on cars for instance. And guns. There's nothing wrong with giving subjective opinions on a vehicle but I'd look with interest when a evaluator claimed that Car X was faster than Car Y when the latter had better laptimes or top speed or had identical performance. But there is no mention in As We See It that there's the slightest doubt that these effects WERE NOT verifiable or HAD NOT been personally accepted by the Editor of the RCL and the magazine. No disclaimers. Was there any mention that the were verifibale or had been personally accpeted by the editor? You think a subjective review magazine needs a disclaimer on every page? Nope. All that would be required is a statement in the preface to the RCL that the Editor does not personally recommend any product he hasn't heard. No. But it should be included for extraordinary claims when the Editor may want to walk away from them at a later date claiming "agnosticism." You are not the arbitrator of what is and is not "extraordinary." If you wish to start your own publication and exercise this policy you are free to do so. Personally I am quite satisfied with the disclaimers in Stereophile as they stand and have no sympathy for anyone who buys a product based on a review without first auditioning it for themselves. I'd never buy a component based on a Stereophile Review of RCL listing simply because I know in advance that the publication "highly recommends" products based on 'accuracy of reproduction' which bear no relationship to sound reproduction. Stereophile does often offer the disclaimer that their reviews are subjective and potential buyers should audition any component for themsleves before buying. That's a different argument. No. But regarding the "listening for yourself' idea the publication is un-useful because they "highly recommend" products for audition which have never been shown to affect sound. There are some 5 dozen wires that readers may waste considerable time with audition that simply don't deserve consideration of that resource deployment. The magazine review offered an extraordinary claim, IYO one that would most likely be questioned later, yet some 8 years later the Editor says he has never auditioned them. The reason has been explained. It seems to me that he is either not interested in possible sound quality improvements or, perhaps, that he never trusted his reviewer or that he was just too lazy. Well it seems you are claiming to know what Atkinson is thinking despite what he says he is thinking. Now that is an extraordinary claim. Would your editor question this opinion were you to express it in an article? So you tell me "why" he let a decade slide by without auditioning this improvement for himself. Choosing instead to remain "agnostic." Why haven't you? In any case why would anybody want to accept anything published in the book as having any value (except for the measurements.....which can be verified...) because even when they are extrordinary claims they are accepted without qualification with no technical review and never with verification as to acoustical cause. I don't understand why you cannot see beyond your own biases. That may be your comfort zone but it is hardly a universal comfort zone. Some of us have been quite happy trusting our auditions without the bias of measurements telling us what we should and should not prefer. Who said anything about measurements? What I want is a replicable experiment that show wires/cables/break-in/bits and any other assorted tweak has an audible effect that is audible when known listening bias is compensated. So IMO it seems entirely likely that the Editor can be considered to have personal responsibility for any of the the outrageous claims that he published unless he makes a specific disclaimer at the time of original publication. You are entitlted to your opinion. Do your editors feel responsible for all the opinions you express in print? Damn right they do. But then I publish few "opinions." Then they are not really much of a subjective review magazine. Nothing wrong with that but it's hardly a fair comparison anymore. Why not? Actually you are right. Sound & Vision is not comparable to Stereophile. The latter is a technology tag-along clinging to often antique and out-dated equipment. Sort of like antique car racing, lots of fun for a certain class of enthusiast but certainly not high performance by modern standards. |
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused"
From: Date: 12/5/2004 4:20 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "Are you offering a million dollars for proof that an isolation device can make an audible difference in a play back system? I'll take that challenge. If Randi wishes to challenge the audibility of isolation devices that I use in my system I'll happily take the challenge." Outside of a tt? What do you use/where? TT is the main focus of my efforts and the only area that I spent any substantial amount of money. I have some VPI bricks on my subwoofer as well. They do make a difference but for very specific reasons. I also keep a few trophies on the sub as well. |
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Atkinson wrote:
Yes, I do believe that some cables can sound different from others, though my experience has been that the differences are always small in absolute terms (which does not mean they are unimportant). Should we assume, then, that you believe every cable listed in Stereophile's Recommended Components List sounds different than those (10-cents/ft) Home Depot 12-ga zip-cords or the Radio Shack equivalents? Should we also assume that you believe those cables that do not make it to the RCL will sound different? Should we also assume that you believe those cables on that list sound different from each other? And finally, do you have any measurement data that supports your stated belief? Why is it that Stereophile cable reviews, if I am not mistaken, are not accompanied by measurements? |
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Nousaine" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote: On censorship. I agree with the original poster. If Mr Atkinson did not specifically distance himself from questionable statements made in the publication he edits at the time of publication it is then unfair to distance himself from them later. So should we expect ever editor of every audio magazine to agree with every review in their magazines if they don't express a "timely" disagreement in print? That once again puts the unreasonable onus on an editor to run around and review every product that is reviewed in their publication for themselves. If people cannot understand the nature of subjective review magazines that is their problem IMO. If I were to purchase a pair of speakers based on one of your reviews and found I didn't like them should I hold your editor responsible? Sure. But you can also bet your bippy that my Editorial staff questions anythingI write that appears on its face value to be inconsistent with what is known about acoustical sound reproduction in the listening room. That could also be interpreted as editorial intimidation, to make sure you followed the "party line". No it simply is required of editorial integrity. If you'll read my comment carefully anything "I write that appears on its face value to be inconsistent with what is known about acoustical sound reproduction in the listening room." Nobody said they censor anything. Only that they carefully read everything and question things that appear to be inconsistent. That's their JOB. To edit the magazine as to acoustical worth. Not to accept everything their staff writes without careful review. Besides, unlike review staffon some other publications I actually even know what wire sound actually is. IOW nothing. So what happens to the reviewer who has decided that a new set of cables does sound slightly different? Is he fired? Forced to get a hearing test? Forced to do a blind test before his review is published? If the philosophy of the magazine accepts that all is know in the area of acoustic phenomenon and that cables can't possibly sound different (in any "better" sense), than any deviation from orthodoxy will be seen as heresy. And in a subjective review magazine, that level of intimidation is anathema to any self-respecting journalist. And the opinion of anybody with a device such as a loudspeaker which has noticeable response errors in rooms is automatically qualified as a opinion. But the "sound" of a stone placed in your listening room or an interconnecting cable changing the timing of signals passed through it is more than opinion .... its a revision of physics and deserves scutiny EVEN if that's simply a verification of possible affects with even moderate bias controls implemented. Or even for a subjectivist it would seem likely that the CEO would investigate the sound quality improvements that might be gained with such an extraordinary claim. Your opinion, since nothing but mainstream items are reviewed in Sound & Vision. Really. You think a $15000 subwoofer is main stream? Many others do not. Those expensive projectors and display devices don't seem all that mainstream to me. They certainly are to those wealthy enough to afford them, and there are many people in that category today. Further I think this discussion is useful for potential readers in that it is clear that the magazine is simply a set of often unsubstantiated opinions when challenged the editors will use the "I didn't personally say that" defense. What other defense will any editor use when the subjective opinions of one of his or her reviewers is challenged? Oh you mean the "I don't know because I haven't checked it out myself?" That was not my statement you are responding to, but an earlier statement by somebody else, whose attribution you've cut out of the opening to this post. At Sound & Vision the question and the cause is investigated. But then, when was the last time you heard "my cables made my bass faster" or another fanciful opinion in that publication? Is it because there is technical and editorial oversight? Frankly, I subscribe to Sound & Vision only to find out what is new, and for their feature lists. I find the magazine slightly useful from a video standpoint, and virtually useless from a sound standpoint. The reviewer always reviews one cd, one dvd-a, one sacd which they have just received/purchased, with no particular listening background, and then comment on the music, which of course 'always sounds great'. Laughable. Talk about a magazine cottening to the advertisers! Sure it does seem that way. I know because every year I have to dig up a new dvd or cd with superlative bass for my subwoofer comparison. If you'll read the programs that are listed you'll see that much of the list remains the same from year to year and I always use a core of reference programs for every evaluation even if they are always mentioned. I'm not sure what "list" you are referring to here. But I don't see where that is any different with any other publication. I insist on using the same core material for every careful evaluation which keeps my current with new material but I can't see anything in other magazine reviews tht suggests program consistency. If you follow individual reviewers you will generally be able to ascertain the music they use as references as well as their individual musical / sound atrribute preferences. Can't do that at all with Sound & Vision reviews. In the October issue the pull quote for the As We See It definitively says "We Highly recommend All components listed in "Recommended Components."" which must mean even those components such as cones and isolation devices which are said to produce "greater perceived detail and "faster" Bass." Or that produce sound that "just tightens up, cleans up, clears up. I hear more low level information. Imaging improves. Timing too. Transients are crisper. I hear improvements in just about every respect." Well if you want to challenge the audibility of isolation devices I'll happily take your money or the million Randi is offering. Just make it worth my while. I've offered to allow you to verify your claim of amplifier sound before but that wasn't worth the time for you then. What is your price for proving the "sound" of any particular item? For me the cost lay in NOT proving I really hear what my perceptions or other enthusiasts tell me. That's exactly why I began controlled testing the 'sound' of capacitors, amplifiers, cabling, isolation etc a quarter century ago; to maximize the effectiveness of resource deployment in the quest of sound quality optimization. And isn't it convenient to rid your mind of all clutter of uncertainty and doubt, having again to listen, for all those 25 years! I don't undestand your point. My point, as I understood your point, was that you decided 25 years ago what did / did not sound different (should / should not be able to sound different?) and therefore had avoided listening to anything new in those areas for the last 25 years in order to "maximize the effectiveness of resource deplyment in the quest for sound quality optimzation". I quess that means you "know" passive components can't contribute to a different sound, so better off to review car audio systems? And interconnects that "Gave me the color, air, transparency and liveliness I so enjoy while banishing any and all mechanical/electronic effects," None of these few quotes sounds anything like there is any doubt at all about any of these dubious claims which have never been publically documented in any replicable experiment. Nor would any number of quotes from subjective reviews of movies music or even food. It's the nature of the beast. Again, for those that don't understand the nature of subjective review the burden is on them to educate themselves. Please. If that is so why haven't you already conducted and shared the experimental results of amp amd isolation sound? We are not assessing the "art" of sound reproduction, that's certainly subject to debate (I once had a lively argument in 1966 in Vietnam about whether "Summer in the City" was better than "Satisfaction" but that's not the same as assessing which amplifier does a better job of delivering the electrical signal to the loudspeaker terminals .... the latter is perfectly testable either electrically OR acoustically. Sorry Charley, but I defy you to "hear" an electrical signal. I didn't say you could hear an electrical signal without a transducer I said that the signal being delivered to the loudspeaker terminals could examined electrically (with test equipment) or acoustcially with a microphone or your ears You also said you could tell which was "better" by measurement (as well as by) listening acoustically. At least that appears to be the implication...."assessing which amplifier does a better job of delivering the electrical signal to the loudspeaker terminals". Since the goal is the highest possible realization of simulated reality (experienced subjectively, which is the only way music happens) it appears that you do believe it all comes down to measurement. But there is no mention in As We See It that there's the slightest doubt that these effects WERE NOT verifiable or HAD NOT been personally accepted by the Editor of the RCL and the magazine. No disclaimers. Was there any mention that the were verifibale or had been personally accpeted by the editor? You think a subjective review magazine needs a disclaimer on every page? Only for extraordinary claims. No. But it should be included for extraordinary claims when the Editor may want to walk away from them at a later date claiming "agnosticism." Only if the editor professes the magazine to be a scientic journal, as opposed to a subjectivist, hobbiest review magazine. The RCL professes that every recommended component is "highly" recommended and "based entirely on performance---ie accuracy of reproduction---" and when performance is questioned in that regard it seems to me that the editor is disabusing integrity when he later claims that a product wasn't his 'personal' recommendation and that he actually has no idea of what it sounds like. You do not think it is possible for the editor to put enough trust in his reviewers to include an item based on their conclusion, rather than having to double-check for himself every item to see if he agrees? Stereophile does often offer the disclaimer that their reviews are subjective and potential buyers should audition any component for themsleves before buying. That's a different argument. The magazine review offered an extraordinary claim, one that would most likely be questioned later, yet some 8 years later the Editor says he has never auditioned them. It seems to me that he is either not interested in possible sound quality improvements or, perhaps, that he never trusted his reviewer or that he was just too lazy. In any case why would anybody want to accept anything published in the book as having any value (except for the measurements.....which can be verified...) because even when they are extrordinary claims they are accepted without qualification with no technical review and never with verification as to acoustical cause. And that same magazine is happy to post letters from readers who feel as you do. That certainly should scare off the culpable. So IMO it seems entirely likely that the Editor can be considered to have personal responsibility for any of the the outrageous claims that he published unless he makes a specific disclaimer at the time of original publication. You are entitlted to your opinion. Do your editors feel responsible for all the opinions you express in print? Damn right they do. But then I publish few "opinions." Censorship and intimidation are then obviously alive and well at Sound & Vision and Sensible Sound. Everything sounds the same unless proven with a double blind...well..you know what. If you think that telling the truth is censorship then I'm all for it :-) By the way I'm actually quite uncertain as to how you think T$S censors anything. There are plenty of statements and opinions made there from other contributors that I think are questionable. But its refreshing that they WON'T censor my contributions even when I say unpopular things. Why should they when your weltanschauung jibes so closely with the magazine's editorial philosophy as evolved over the years. Certainly some of their writers express opinions, but they generally are in the area of features and "bang for the buck" rather than in attributing any great difference in sound to an item. At least that has been my impression as I have dipped into and out of the magazine over many years (I frankly find most issues boring and only occasionally buy a newsstand copy if it covers an item I have a potential interest in). |
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
|
If I were the editor of a magazine--even a magazine of subjective
opinion like Stereophile--and one of my writers stated that putting a rock on his speaker improved the sound, I'm sure the pointer of my BS meter would at least wiggle. I certainly wouldn't let that article appear in my magazine without personally checking the sonic effects of said rock. There has to be some point where the editor says "Hey, wait a minute here." I think the editor of Stereophile failed this basic requirement. Norm Strong |
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nousaine wrote:
Frankly, I subscribe to Sound & Vision only to find out what is new, and for their feature lists. I find the magazine slightly useful from a video standpoint, and virtually useless from a sound standpoint. The reviewer always reviews one cd, one dvd-a, one sacd which they have just received/purchased, with no particular listening background, and then comment on the music, which of course 'always sounds great'. Laughable. Talk about a magazine cottening to the advertisers! Sure it does seem that way. I know because every year I have to dig up a new dvd or cd with superlative bass for my subwoofer comparison. If you'll read the programs that are listed you'll see that much of the list remains the same from year to year and I always use a core of reference programs for every evaluation even if they are always mentioned. But I don't see where that is any different with any other publication. I insist on using the same core material for every careful evaluation which keeps my current with new material but I can't see anything in other magazine reviews tht suggests program consistency. And of course, if audible differences between digital playback devices are rare and/or tiny , then one *would* expect most reviews to say much the same thing about the 'sound' of the devices, especially when the same source CDs are used. |
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
... From: "Michael McKelvy" So should we expect ever editor of every audio magazine to agree with every review in their magazines if they don't express a "timely" disagreement in print? On the controversial ones like magic rocks, YES. And who is the in house arbitrator on what is and is not contraversial at Stereophile? Apparently nobody. If a claim that any sort of device like A Shakti Stone or Mpingo Disk can improve the sound of an audio system is not a controversial claim, then what on earth is? That once again puts the unreasonable onus on an editor to run around and review every product that is reviewed in their publication for themselves. I don't see anybody asking for that, just a bit of oversight to keep the reviewers from looking stupid and giving the publication a bad name. What exactly constitutes a "bit of oversight?" When a device that seems to have no basis in science for the results any reviewer claims to hear, it should be examined by competent technical personell. Checking for a change in FR would be a minimum. Surel tweeks would be something anyone interested in good audio would want to investigate if for nothing more than pure selfish pleasure. All of them? The ones that get reviewed. If people cannot understand the nature of subjective review magazines that is their problem IMO. The problem is that people do understand the nature of subjective review magazines. You are speaking for "people?" Who do you know that does not understand the nature of subjective reviews? I couldn't put a precise number on it, but I have met several people who believe things about audio they read in SP that are true. Do they still list the Green Ink tweak as effective for CD's? If I were to purchase a pair of speakers based on one of your reviews and found I didn't like them should I hold your editor responsible? Not if you are reasonably aquainted with the differences that speakers make. Not if you are reasonably aware of how much difference there are between different speakers. That doesn't make sense. Of course it does. I don't know anybody who doesn't understand that speakers make the biggest single difference to an audio system and the differences between them are often very easy to hear. Nobody is asking for consensus of opinion, just that there be some legitmate basis for that opinion when it comes to really controversial products like magic rocks and wooden disks. If people are so upset with Stereophile they should simply not purchase it. If they gave more substantive information on the controversial things, they might very well increase their subscriber base. At the very least they could be assured thy weren't responible for promoting snake oil. Further I think this discussion is useful for potential readers in that it is clear that the magazine is simply a set of often unsubstantiated opinions when challenged the editors will use the "I didn't personally say that" defense. What other defense will any editor use when the subjective opinions of one of his or her reviewers is challenged? That other people could hear the same changes or that frequency response measurements confirmed something real was going on. You know, evidence. Well that is not going to happen. Even the so called objective magazines do not do this with all or even many of their reviews. But they would never review a Shakti Stone or other device that claimis to alter the sound without technical data, including FR. And interconnects that "Gave me the color, air, transparency and liveliness I so enjoy while banishing any and all mechanical/electronic effects," None of these few quotes sounds anything like there is any doubt at all about any of these dubious claims which have never been publically documented in any replicable experiment. Nor would any number of quotes from subjective reviews of movies music or even food. Because those are ENTIRELY subjective. So are the subjective opinions of audio reviews. Audio has specific criteria and things that can be measured to see if they are true. So do cars and boats and many other things. Ultimately the opinion of performance does rely on actual use. Opinions will vary. Do automobile review magazine reviewers tell you something will improve or alter the performance of a vehcile without providing the technical specs to show how? It's the nature of the beast. Again, for those that don't understand the nature of subjective review the burden is on them to educate themselves. That appears to be the problem, they have educated themselves and are aware. That doesn't make sense either. How is *that* a problem? I beleive it costs them credibilty and subscribers. It certainly cost them my subscription. After reading about Mpingos I'd had it. But there is no mention in As We See It that there's the slightest doubt that these effects WERE NOT verifiable or HAD NOT been personally accepted by the Editor of the RCL and the magazine. No disclaimers. Was there any mention that they were verifibale or had been personally accpeted by the editor? Why wouldn't someone interested in sound quality wish to investigate something that was alleged to make an improvement? Why haven't you investigated *everything* that has been claimed to make an improvement? Or have you? Not the ones that clearly have no basis in fact. That's not entirely true, I have done a CD with Green ink comparison in order to show a freind what utter bull**** it was. You think a subjective review magazine needs a disclaimer on every page? Stereophile does often offer the disclaimer that their reviews are subjective and potential buyers should audition any component for themsleves before buying. In the case of something as outrageous as the claims made for Shakti stones, they should have some sort of verifiable evidence that something occured somewhere aside from the in the MIND of the reviewer. IYO. As a matter of intellectual honesty. The kind of improvements claimed should be easily verifiable with FR measurements. IYO In point of fact. |
|
#95
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tom Nousaine of The Sensible Sound, Sound & Vision, and The
Audio Critic wrote: [Stereophile's "Recommended Components" list] professes that every recommended component is "highly" recommended and "based entirely on performance---ie accuracy of reproduction---" and when performance is questioned in that regard it seems to me that the editor is disabusing integrity when he later claims that a product wasn't his 'personal' recommendation and that he actually has no idea of what it sounds like. Sigh...if you read Stereophile as thoroughly as you claim, Mr. Nousaine, you will note that I have written on a number of occasions, both in the magazine and on the newsgroups, that the products included in the listing are included because of the advocacy of one or more of my writing team, not because I _personally_ recommend them. And as I have pointed out to you now repeatedly, by you insisting that only products _I_ have experienced should be recommended in Stereophile, you appear to want to hold me to a higher standard than the editors of the magazines to which you contribute. I have direct experience of a greater proportion of the products reviewed in my magazine that do the editors of the magzines for which you write, yet that is not sufficient for you. If you think that telling the truth is censorship then I'm all for it :-) As has been pointed out, Mr Nousaine, your "truth" is another's opinion. This is a very revealing statement of yours, smiley emoticon or not. I'm actually quite uncertain as to how you think [The Sensible Sound] censors anything. There are plenty of statements and opinions made there from other contributors that I think are questionable. But [it's] refreshing that they WON'T censor my contributions even when I say unpopular things. That reflects well on Karl Nehring, Mr. Nousaine. I am sorry you don't wish to extend to me the same liberty for which you compliment Mr. Nehring regarding the opinions that are published in Stereophile. But as I have said, you are hardly a disinterested party in this debate. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael McKelvy wrote:
Of course it does. I don't know anybody who doesn't understand that speakers make the biggest single difference to an audio system... Then you need to get out more. Lots of audiophiles apparently believe in the garbage-in-garbage-out theory, which holds that the speakers are the LEAST important link in the chain. (This theory was first propounded by a turntable manufacturer, I believe.) bob |
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob Marcus wrote:
The reviewer [Michael Fremer] praised [the Wavac] to the hilt--new vistas of sonic realism, or some such twaddle. Whereas the bad stuff was confined to that technical box that many readers probably think of as the footnotes. With respect, Mr. Marcus, while you, of course, welcome to define a "review" in Stereophile as the subjective impressions minus the measurements, that is not correct. The review that I was referring to was the _complete_ review, subjective experience and measurements, and that is how I believe my readers define it also (according to the feedback I receive). John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ...
Michael McKelvy wrote: Of course it does. I don't know anybody who doesn't understand that speakers make the biggest single difference to an audio system... Then you need to get out more. Lots of audiophiles apparently believe in the garbage-in-garbage-out theory, which holds that the speakers are the LEAST important link in the chain. (This theory was first propounded by a turntable manufacturer, I believe.) bob Lots of audiophiles claim they believe things for which there is not a shred of proof. I tend to run with a better crowd IMO. I believe it's pretty hard to find any component these days, that qualifies as "garbage," other than SET amps. Typical audio gear has specs that render them essentially perfect in their reproduction of the signal passing through them. Now, you can argue that much of today's popular music is garbage, and I'd be willing to agree. I tend to prefer classics whether rock or symphonic works by the masters. After that, my ears seem to go for the works from smaller indie labels, many of which I was introduced to by CD review magazine and their sampler disks. Currently listening to Les Sabler's "Theme X". |
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ...
Michael McKelvy wrote: Of course it does. I don't know anybody who doesn't understand that speakers make the biggest single difference to an audio system... Then you need to get out more. Lots of audiophiles apparently believe in the garbage-in-garbage-out theory, which holds that the speakers are the LEAST important link in the chain. (This theory was first propounded by a turntable manufacturer, I believe.) bob Linn, to be exact. And that was 25 years ago. Once again, you give no credit to the average audiophile to have educated himself since then. |
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Nousaine" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote: On censorship. I agree with the original poster. If Mr Atkinson did not specifically distance himself from questionable statements made in the publication he edits at the time of publication it is then unfair to distance himself from them later. So should we expect ever editor of every audio magazine to agree with every review in their magazines if they don't express a "timely" disagreement in print? That once again puts the unreasonable onus on an editor to run around and review every product that is reviewed in their publication for themselves. If people cannot understand the nature of subjective review magazines that is their problem IMO. If I were to purchase a pair of speakers based on one of your reviews and found I didn't like them should I hold your editor responsible? Sure. But you can also bet your bippy that my Editorial staff questions anythingI write that appears on its face value to be inconsistent with what is known about acoustical sound reproduction in the listening room. That could also be interpreted as editorial intimidation, to make sure you followed the "party line". No it simply is required of editorial integrity. If you'll read my comment carefully anything "I write that appears on its face value to be inconsistent with what is known about acoustical sound reproduction in the listening room." Nobody said they censor anything. Only that they carefully read everything and question things that appear to be inconsistent. That's their JOB. To edit the magazine as to acoustical worth. Not to accept everything their staff writes without careful review. Besides, unlike review staffon some other publications I actually even know what wire sound actually is. IOW nothing. So what happens to the reviewer who has decided that a new set of cables does sound slightly different? Is he fired? Forced to get a hearing test? Forced to do a blind test before his review is published? If the philosophy of the magazine accepts that all is know in the area of acoustic phenomenon and that cables can't possibly sound different (in any "better" sense), than any deviation from orthodoxy will be seen as heresy. And in a subjective review magazine, that level of intimidation is anathema to any self-respecting journalist. Ask the Editors. My guess is that an article that contains opinion stated as fact wouldn't get published. You seem to think that if a contributor or staff of Discover were to say that he thought that dowsing was an effective way to find water or that it was certain that Alien Abductions were a real phenomen without some backing evidence that it would be intimidation if someone were to ask for some additional support. It seems to me more likely that evaluators in Subjective Audio Opinion magazines may be more subject to intimidation when they don't profess enough Faith in Audio Legends. And the opinion of anybody with a device such as a loudspeaker which has noticeable response errors in rooms is automatically qualified as a opinion. But the "sound" of a stone placed in your listening room or an interconnecting cable changing the timing of signals passed through it is more than opinion .... its a revision of physics and deserves scutiny EVEN if that's simply a verification of possible affects with even moderate bias controls implemented. Or even for a subjectivist it would seem likely that the CEO would investigate the sound quality improvements that might be gained with such an extraordinary claim. Your opinion, since nothing but mainstream items are reviewed in Sound & Vision. Really. You think a $15000 subwoofer is main stream? Many others do not. Those expensive projectors and display devices don't seem all that mainstream to me. They certainly are to those wealthy enough to afford them, and there are many people in that category today. Using that criterion I guess $1000 speaker cables and $10,000 amplifiers are mainstream too. Further I think this discussion is useful for potential readers in that it is clear that the magazine is simply a set of often unsubstantiated opinions when challenged the editors will use the "I didn't personally say that" defense. What other defense will any editor use when the subjective opinions of one of his or her reviewers is challenged? Oh you mean the "I don't know because I haven't checked it out myself?" That was not my statement you are responding to, but an earlier statement by somebody else, whose attribution you've cut out of the opening to this post. Sorry At Sound & Vision the question and the cause is investigated. But then, when was the last time you heard "my cables made my bass faster" or another fanciful opinion in that publication? Is it because there is technical and editorial oversight? Frankly, I subscribe to Sound & Vision only to find out what is new, and for their feature lists. I find the magazine slightly useful from a video standpoint, and virtually useless from a sound standpoint. The reviewer always reviews one cd, one dvd-a, one sacd which they have just received/purchased, with no particular listening background, and then comment on the music, which of course 'always sounds great'. Laughable. Talk about a magazine cottening to the advertisers! Sure it does seem that way. I know because every year I have to dig up a new dvd or cd with superlative bass for my subwoofer comparison. If you'll read the programs that are listed you'll see that much of the list remains the same from year to year and I always use a core of reference programs for every evaluation even if they are always mentioned. I'm not sure what "list" you are referring to here. In the subwoofer case its the list of programs published in the Subwoofer Comparion that were used for the evaluation (September 2004.) But I don't see where that is any different with any other publication. I insist on using the same core material for every careful evaluation which keeps my current with new material but I can't see anything in other magazine reviews tht suggests program consistency. If you follow individual reviewers you will generally be able to ascertain the music they use as references as well as their individual musical / sound atrribute preferences. Can't do that at all with Sound & Vision reviews. I'd guess that's true. In this case the Editorial staff always wants newer and exciting program material. In every listening evaluation I do, I use a selected set of 63 program segments to maintain core material for all productin addition to some newer, current programs. In the October issue the pull quote for the As We See It definitively says "We Highly recommend All components listed in "Recommended Components."" which must mean even those components such as cones and isolation devices which are said to produce "greater perceived detail and "faster" Bass." Or that produce sound that "just tightens up, cleans up, clears up. I hear more low level information. Imaging improves. Timing too. Transients are crisper. I hear improvements in just about every respect." Well if you want to challenge the audibility of isolation devices I'll happily take your money or the million Randi is offering. Just make it worth my while. I've offered to allow you to verify your claim of amplifier sound before but that wasn't worth the time for you then. What is your price for proving the "sound" of any particular item? For me the cost lay in NOT proving I really hear what my perceptions or other enthusiasts tell me. That's exactly why I began controlled testing the 'sound' of capacitors, amplifiers, cabling, isolation etc a quarter century ago; to maximize the effectiveness of resource deployment in the quest of sound quality optimization. And isn't it convenient to rid your mind of all clutter of uncertainty and doubt, having again to listen, for all those 25 years! I don't undestand your point. My point, as I understood your point, was that you decided 25 years ago what did / did not sound different (should / should not be able to sound different?) and therefore had avoided listening to anything new in those areas for the last 25 years in order to "maximize the effectiveness of resource deplyment in the quest for sound quality optimzation". I quess that means you "know" passive components can't contribute to a different sound, so better off to review car audio systems? Holy Cow .... what about the statement "That's exactly why I began controlled testing the'sound' of capacitors, amplifiers, cabling, isolation etc a quarter century ago;" says that I did all the investigation 25 years ago? And what's wrong with Car Audio systems. In many respects they are often superior to some mega-Buck high-end systems. And interconnects that "Gave me the color, air, transparency and liveliness I so enjoy while banishing any and all mechanical/electronic effects," None of these few quotes sounds anything like there is any doubt at all about any of these dubious claims which have never been publically documented in any replicable experiment. Nor would any number of quotes from subjective reviews of movies music or even food. It's the nature of the beast. Again, for those that don't understand the nature of subjective review the burden is on them to educate themselves. Please. If that is so why haven't you already conducted and shared the experimental results of amp amd isolation sound? We are not assessing the "art" of sound reproduction, that's certainly subject to debate (I once had a lively argument in 1966 in Vietnam about whether "Summer in the City" was better than "Satisfaction" but that's not the same as assessing which amplifier does a better job of delivering the electrical signal to the loudspeaker terminals .... the latter is perfectly testable either electrically OR acoustically. Sorry Charley, but I defy you to "hear" an electrical signal. I didn't say you could hear an electrical signal without a transducer I said that the signal being delivered to the loudspeaker terminals could examined electrically (with test equipment) or acoustcially with a microphone or your ears You also said you could tell which was "better" by measurement (as well as by) listening acoustically. Sure. But the point high-enders want to conveniently forget is that when an amplifier or systems delivers an electrical signal to the speaker terminals that is identical to the input signal except for gain there is no other possible way to improve or degrade it. At least that appears to be the implication...."assessing which amplifier does a better job of delivering the electrical signal to the loudspeaker terminals". Since the goal is the highest possible realization of simulated reality (experienced subjectively, which is the only way music happens) it appears that you do believe it all comes down to measurement. For the electrical part of it this is true. If the electrical input signal from from the media is delivered to the speaker terminals exactly save for gain there can be NO way that it is better or worse than any other device that can do the same thing. For the acoustical part there are so many departures from the input signal that are delivered to the eardrum and through the body from the input signal that there is very little liklihood that any transduced will sound exaclty like any other one. And even when they do; if they're not in the same location even them the acoustical signal delivered to the listener will vary. But there is no mention in As We See It that there's the slightest doubt that these effects WERE NOT verifiable or HAD NOT been personally accepted by the Editor of the RCL and the magazine. No disclaimers. Was there any mention that the were verifibale or had been personally accpeted by the editor? You think a subjective review magazine needs a disclaimer on every page? Only for extraordinary claims. No. But it should be included for extraordinary claims when the Editor may want to walk away from them at a later date claiming "agnosticism." Only if the editor professes the magazine to be a scientic journal, as opposed to a subjectivist, hobbiest review magazine. The RCL professes that every recommended component is "highly" recommended and "based entirely on performance---ie accuracy of reproduction---" and when performance is questioned in that regard it seems to me that the editor is disabusing integrity when he later claims that a product wasn't his 'personal' recommendation and that he actually has no idea of what it sounds like. You do not think it is possible for the editor to put enough trust in his reviewers to include an item based on their conclusion, rather than having to double-check for himself every item to see if he agrees? Stereophile does often offer the disclaimer that their reviews are subjective and potential buyers should audition any component for themsleves before buying. That's a different argument. The magazine review offered an extraordinary claim, one that would most likely be questioned later, yet some 8 years later the Editor says he has never auditioned them. It seems to me that he is either not interested in possible sound quality improvements or, perhaps, that he never trusted his reviewer or that he was just too lazy. In any case why would anybody want to accept anything published in the book as having any value (except for the measurements.....which can be verified...) because even when they are extrordinary claims they are accepted without qualification with no technical review and never with verification as to acoustical cause. And that same magazine is happy to post letters from readers who feel as you do. That certainly should scare off the culpable. So IMO it seems entirely likely that the Editor can be considered to have personal responsibility for any of the the outrageous claims that he published unless he makes a specific disclaimer at the time of original publication. You are entitlted to your opinion. Do your editors feel responsible for all the opinions you express in print? Damn right they do. But then I publish few "opinions." Censorship and intimidation are then obviously alive and well at Sound & Vision and Sensible Sound. Everything sounds the same unless proven with a double blind...well..you know what. If you think that telling the truth is censorship then I'm all for it :-) By the way I'm actually quite uncertain as to how you think T$S censors anything. There are plenty of statements and opinions made there from other contributors that I think are questionable. But its refreshing that they WON'T censor my contributions even when I say unpopular things. Why should they when your weltanschauung jibes so closely with the magazine's editorial philosophy as evolved over the years. Certainly some of their writers express opinions, but they generally are in the area of features and "bang for the buck" rather than in attributing any great difference in sound to an item. At least that has been my impression as I have dipped into and out of the magazine over many years (I frankly find most issues boring and only occasionally buy a newsstand copy if it covers an item I have a potential interest in). Don't read them then. |
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
Lots of audiophiles apparently believe in the garbage-in-garbage-out theory, which holds that the speakers are the LEAST important link in the chain. (This theory was first propounded by a turntable manufacturer, I believe.) bob Linn, to be exact. And that was 25 years ago. Once again, you give no credit to the average audiophile to have educated himself since then. I don't know who the average audiophile is, or how many of them there are. I do know that this argument is made with some frequency on other discussion boards. bob |
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
... Bob Marcus wrote: The reviewer [Michael Fremer] praised [the Wavac] to the hilt--new vistas of sonic realism, or some such twaddle. Whereas the bad stuff was confined to that technical box that many readers probably think of as the footnotes. With respect, Mr. Marcus, while you, of course, welcome to define a "review" in Stereophile as the subjective impressions minus the measurements, that is not correct. The review that I was referring to was the _complete_ review, subjective experience and measurements, and that is how I believe my readers define it also (according to the feedback I receive). The WAVAC review was a mish-mash of subjective impressions in flagrant contradiction of the measurements, but there were at least measurements. Things like Shakti Stones which don't have any reason whatsoever to cause any effect on audio playback, deserve to at a minimum have measurements of before and after their "installation." Being as I am not nearly alone in my finding it rather odd that such a review could make it into the pages of any magazine about audio, it's even odder that it could make it there with no measurement of any kind and with no comment on those measurements. I don't believe anyone here begrudges anyone else the enjoyment of whatever means one chooses to employ to derive pleasure from their audio experience. I also don't believe that it would cause you magazine to suffer if you at a minimum, included frequency response data on every device or tweak that gets a review. Not only is it the right thing to do integrity wise, information-wise, and other-wise, it can only help with circulation. Advertisers go where the readers are. |
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Nousaine" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Nousaine" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote: On censorship. I agree with the original poster. If Mr Atkinson did not specifically distance himself from questionable statements made in the publication he edits at the time of publication it is then unfair to distance himself from them later. So should we expect ever editor of every audio magazine to agree with every review in their magazines if they don't express a "timely" disagreement in print? That once again puts the unreasonable onus on an editor to run around and review every product that is reviewed in their publication for themselves. If people cannot understand the nature of subjective review magazines that is their problem IMO. If I were to purchase a pair of speakers based on one of your reviews and found I didn't like them should I hold your editor responsible? Sure. But you can also bet your bippy that my Editorial staff questions anythingI write that appears on its face value to be inconsistent with what is known about acoustical sound reproduction in the listening room. That could also be interpreted as editorial intimidation, to make sure you followed the "party line". No it simply is required of editorial integrity. If you'll read my comment carefully anything "I write that appears on its face value to be inconsistent with what is known about acoustical sound reproduction in the listening room." Nobody said they censor anything. Only that they carefully read everything and question things that appear to be inconsistent. That's their JOB. To edit the magazine as to acoustical worth. Not to accept everything their staff writes without careful review. Besides, unlike review staffon some other publications I actually even know what wire sound actually is. IOW nothing. So what happens to the reviewer who has decided that a new set of cables does sound slightly different? Is he fired? Forced to get a hearing test? Forced to do a blind test before his review is published? If the philosophy of the magazine accepts that all is know in the area of acoustic phenomenon and that cables can't possibly sound different (in any "better" sense), than any deviation from orthodoxy will be seen as heresy. And in a subjective review magazine, that level of intimidation is anathema to any self-respecting journalist. Ask the Editors. My guess is that an article that contains opinion stated as fact wouldn't get published. You seem to think that if a contributor or staff of Discover were to say that he thought that dowsing was an effective way to find water or that it was certain that Alien Abductions were a real phenomen without some backing evidence that it would be intimidation if someone were to ask for some additional support. As long as there is reasonable objective means of testing a hypothesis vs. opinion, I would agree with you. Dousing seems verifiable. Alien Abduction not so, but it is reasonable to assume unlikely with some circumstantial conditions verifiable. But that is quite different from subjective evaluation of audio components playing music. You seem to forget that the experiencing of music is itself a subjective phenomenon...there is no "objective" impression of music being reproduced or that can be used for verification...it is all ultimately an interpretation by the ear/brain conjunction, and a very complex one at that. It seems to me more likely that evaluators in Subjective Audio Opinion magazines may be more subject to intimidation when they don't profess enough Faith in Audio Legends. I doubt it. And the opinion of anybody with a device such as a loudspeaker which has noticeable response errors in rooms is automatically qualified as a opinion. But the "sound" of a stone placed in your listening room or an interconnecting cable changing the timing of signals passed through it is more than opinion .... its a revision of physics and deserves scutiny EVEN if that's simply a verification of possible affects with even moderate bias controls implemented. Or even for a subjectivist it would seem likely that the CEO would investigate the sound quality improvements that might be gained with such an extraordinary claim. Your opinion, since nothing but mainstream items are reviewed in Sound & Vision. Really. You think a $15000 subwoofer is main stream? Many others do not. Those expensive projectors and display devices don't seem all that mainstream to me. They certainly are to those wealthy enough to afford them, and there are many people in that category today. Using that criterion I guess $1000 speaker cables and $10,000 amplifiers are mainstream too. Yep, for many people in this hobby they are. Further I think this discussion is useful for potential readers in that it is clear that the magazine is simply a set of often unsubstantiated opinions when challenged the editors will use the "I didn't personally say that" defense. What other defense will any editor use when the subjective opinions of one of his or her reviewers is challenged? Oh you mean the "I don't know because I haven't checked it out myself?" That was not my statement you are responding to, but an earlier statement by somebody else, whose attribution you've cut out of the opening to this post. Sorry Apology accepted, thanks. At Sound & Vision the question and the cause is investigated. But then, when was the last time you heard "my cables made my bass faster" or another fanciful opinion in that publication? Is it because there is technical and editorial oversight? Frankly, I subscribe to Sound & Vision only to find out what is new, and for their feature lists. I find the magazine slightly useful from a video standpoint, and virtually useless from a sound standpoint. The reviewer always reviews one cd, one dvd-a, one sacd which they have just received/purchased, with no particular listening background, and then comment on the music, which of course 'always sounds great'. Laughable. Talk about a magazine cottening to the advertisers! Sure it does seem that way. I know because every year I have to dig up a new dvd or cd with superlative bass for my subwoofer comparison. If you'll read the programs that are listed you'll see that much of the list remains the same from year to year and I always use a core of reference programs for every evaluation even if they are always mentioned. I'm not sure what "list" you are referring to here. In the subwoofer case its the list of programs published in the Subwoofer Comparion that were used for the evaluation (September 2004.) Yes, I give you credit for that. But it is not typical of the average Sound & Vision component review, which pretty much goes as I have stated. But I don't see where that is any different with any other publication. I insist on using the same core material for every careful evaluation which keeps my current with new material but I can't see anything in other magazine reviews tht suggests program consistency. If you follow individual reviewers you will generally be able to ascertain the music they use as references as well as their individual musical / sound atrribute preferences. Can't do that at all with Sound & Vision reviews. I'd guess that's true. In this case the Editorial staff always wants newer and exciting program material. In every listening evaluation I do, I use a selected set of 63 program segments to maintain core material for all productin addition to some newer, current programs. Good for you. In the October issue the pull quote for the As We See It definitively says "We Highly recommend All components listed in "Recommended Components."" which must mean even those components such as cones and isolation devices which are said to produce "greater perceived detail and "faster" Bass." Or that produce sound that "just tightens up, cleans up, clears up. I hear more low level information. Imaging improves. Timing too. Transients are crisper. I hear improvements in just about every respect." Well if you want to challenge the audibility of isolation devices I'll happily take your money or the million Randi is offering. Just make it worth my while. I've offered to allow you to verify your claim of amplifier sound before but that wasn't worth the time for you then. What is your price for proving the "sound" of any particular item? For me the cost lay in NOT proving I really hear what my perceptions or other enthusiasts tell me. That's exactly why I began controlled testing the 'sound' of capacitors, amplifiers, cabling, isolation etc a quarter century ago; to maximize the effectiveness of resource deployment in the quest of sound quality optimization. And isn't it convenient to rid your mind of all clutter of uncertainty and doubt, having again to listen, for all those 25 years! I don't undestand your point. My point, as I understood your point, was that you decided 25 years ago what did / did not sound different (should / should not be able to sound different?) and therefore had avoided listening to anything new in those areas for the last 25 years in order to "maximize the effectiveness of resource deplyment in the quest for sound quality optimzation". I quess that means you "know" passive components can't contribute to a different sound, so better off to review car audio systems? Holy Cow .... what about the statement "That's exactly why I began controlled testing the'sound' of capacitors, amplifiers, cabling, isolation etc a quarter century ago;" says that I did all the investigation 25 years ago? And what's wrong with Car Audio systems. In many respects they are often superior to some mega-Buck high-end systems. What I meant was, having reached a conclusion way back that these things didn't affect sound, you stopped testing them. Thereby forgoing the possibility that other, different testing or better, different components might reveal differences. Do you think those designers who spend hours trying out passive components and "voicing" their systems are simply kidding themselves and wasting time? Take a listen to an HK Citation 14 sometime versus a well-designed, more modern tuner of the mid-eighties...say a Carver TX-11. They sound virtually identical (and very good)...except for the slight gray haze and thickness that the HK is saddled with in the lower midrange on down..that also reduces depth. *That* is the sound of the components used through the early '70's versus the low-noise resistors and poly- capacitors used since. IMO, of course. I've listen to other similar comparisons...vintage tube amps before and after recapping, etc. Again, high-end audio is about subtleties...these decade-apart differences were not subtle as they represented a sea-change, but between brands and types of capacitors in particular there do seem to be subtle differences, at least to the designers. Who generally listen with the highest possible quality gear. And interconnects that "Gave me the color, air, transparency and liveliness I so enjoy while banishing any and all mechanical/electronic effects," None of these few quotes sounds anything like there is any doubt at all about any of these dubious claims which have never been publically documented in any replicable experiment. Nor would any number of quotes from subjective reviews of movies music or even food. It's the nature of the beast. Again, for those that don't understand the nature of subjective review the burden is on them to educate themselves. Please. If that is so why haven't you already conducted and shared the experimental results of amp amd isolation sound? We are not assessing the "art" of sound reproduction, that's certainly subject to debate (I once had a lively argument in 1966 in Vietnam about whether "Summer in the City" was better than "Satisfaction" but that's not the same as assessing which amplifier does a better job of delivering the electrical signal to the loudspeaker terminals .... the latter is perfectly testable either electrically OR acoustically. Sorry Charley, but I defy you to "hear" an electrical signal. I didn't say you could hear an electrical signal without a transducer I said that the signal being delivered to the loudspeaker terminals could examined electrically (with test equipment) or acoustcially with a microphone or your ears You also said you could tell which was "better" by measurement (as well as by) listening acoustically. Sure. But the point high-enders want to conveniently forget is that when an amplifier or systems delivers an electrical signal to the speaker terminals that is identical to the input signal except for gain there is no other possible way to improve or degrade it. At least that appears to be the implication...."assessing which amplifier does a better job of delivering the electrical signal to the loudspeaker terminals". Since the goal is the highest possible realization of simulated reality (experienced subjectively, which is the only way music happens) it appears that you do believe it all comes down to measurement. For the electrical part of it this is true. If the electrical input signal from from the media is delivered to the speaker terminals exactly save for gain there can be NO way that it is better or worse than any other device that can do the same thing. For the acoustical part there are so many departures from the input signal that are delivered to the eardrum and through the body from the input signal that there is very little liklihood that any transduced will sound exaclty like any other one. And even when they do; if they're not in the same location even them the acoustical signal delivered to the listener will vary. But there is no mention in As We See It that there's the slightest doubt that these effects WERE NOT verifiable or HAD NOT been personally accepted by the Editor of the RCL and the magazine. No disclaimers. Was there any mention that the were verifibale or had been personally accpeted by the editor? You think a subjective review magazine needs a disclaimer on every page? Only for extraordinary claims. No. But it should be included for extraordinary claims when the Editor may want to walk away from them at a later date claiming "agnosticism." Only if the editor professes the magazine to be a scientic journal, as opposed to a subjectivist, hobbiest review magazine. The RCL professes that every recommended component is "highly" recommended and "based entirely on performance---ie accuracy of reproduction---" and when performance is questioned in that regard it seems to me that the editor is disabusing integrity when he later claims that a product wasn't his 'personal' recommendation and that he actually has no idea of what it sounds like. You do not think it is possible for the editor to put enough trust in his reviewers to include an item based on their conclusion, rather than having to double-check for himself every item to see if he agrees? No answer?? Stereophile does often offer the disclaimer that their reviews are subjective and potential buyers should audition any component for themsleves before buying. That's a different argument. The magazine review offered an extraordinary claim, one that would most likely be questioned later, yet some 8 years later the Editor says he has never auditioned them. It seems to me that he is either not interested in possible sound quality improvements or, perhaps, that he never trusted his reviewer or that he was just too lazy. In any case why would anybody want to accept anything published in the book as having any value (except for the measurements.....which can be verified...) because even when they are extrordinary claims they are accepted without qualification with no technical review and never with verification as to acoustical cause. And that same magazine is happy to post letters from readers who feel as you do. That certainly should scare off the culpable. So IMO it seems entirely likely that the Editor can be considered to have personal responsibility for any of the the outrageous claims that he published unless he makes a specific disclaimer at the time of original publication. You are entitlted to your opinion. Do your editors feel responsible for all the opinions you express in print? Damn right they do. But then I publish few "opinions." Censorship and intimidation are then obviously alive and well at Sound & Vision and Sensible Sound. Everything sounds the same unless proven with a double blind...well..you know what. If you think that telling the truth is censorship then I'm all for it :-) By the way I'm actually quite uncertain as to how you think T$S censors anything. There are plenty of statements and opinions made there from other contributors that I think are questionable. But its refreshing that they WON'T censor my contributions even when I say unpopular things. Why should they when your weltanschauung jibes so closely with the magazine's editorial philosophy as evolved over the years. Certainly some of their writers express opinions, but they generally are in the area of features and "bang for the buck" rather than in attributing any great difference in sound to an item. At least that has been my impression as I have dipped into and out of the magazine over many years (I frankly find most issues boring and only occasionally buy a newsstand copy if it covers an item I have a potential interest in). Don't read them then. I usually don't, I skim the index. |
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... "Nousaine" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Nousaine" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote: On censorship. I agree with the original poster. If Mr Atkinson did not specifically distance himself from questionable statements made in the publication he edits at the time of publication it is then unfair to distance himself from them later. So should we expect ever editor of every audio magazine to agree with every review in their magazines if they don't express a "timely" disagreement in print? That once again puts the unreasonable onus on an editor to run around and review every product that is reviewed in their publication for themselves. If people cannot understand the nature of subjective review magazines that is their problem IMO. If I were to purchase a pair of speakers based on one of your reviews and found I didn't like them should I hold your editor responsible? Sure. But you can also bet your bippy that my Editorial staff questions anythingI write that appears on its face value to be inconsistent with what is known about acoustical sound reproduction in the listening room. That could also be interpreted as editorial intimidation, to make sure you followed the "party line". No it simply is required of editorial integrity. If you'll read my comment carefully anything "I write that appears on its face value to be inconsistent with what is known about acoustical sound reproduction in the listening room." Nobody said they censor anything. Only that they carefully read everything and question things that appear to be inconsistent. That's their JOB. To edit the magazine as to acoustical worth. Not to accept everything their staff writes without careful review. Besides, unlike review staffon some other publications I actually even know what wire sound actually is. IOW nothing. So what happens to the reviewer who has decided that a new set of cables does sound slightly different? Is he fired? Forced to get a hearing test? Forced to do a blind test before his review is published? If the philosophy of the magazine accepts that all is know in the area of acoustic phenomenon and that cables can't possibly sound different (in any "better" sense), than any deviation from orthodoxy will be seen as heresy. And in a subjective review magazine, that level of intimidation is anathema to any self-respecting journalist. Ask the Editors. My guess is that an article that contains opinion stated as fact wouldn't get published. You seem to think that if a contributor or staff of Discover were to say that he thought that dowsing was an effective way to find water or that it was certain that Alien Abductions were a real phenomen without some backing evidence that it would be intimidation if someone were to ask for some additional support. As long as there is reasonable objective means of testing a hypothesis vs. opinion, I would agree with you. Dousing seems verifiable. Alien Abduction not so, but it is reasonable to assume unlikely with some circumstantial conditions verifiable. But that is quite different from subjective evaluation of audio components playing music. You seem to forget that the experiencing of music is itself a subjective phenomenon...there is no "objective" impression of music being reproduced or that can be used for verification. But there is the signal that comes from the media. You casn compare the source signal to the the signal that makes it to the speaker terminals. If they are the same, then all that's left is the speakers and the room. This really is the last frontier for audio and I beleive that will be fixed by auto EQ in the digital domain. ...it is all ultimately an interpretation by the ear/brain conjunction, and a very complex one at that. These days that clearly has more to do with the speakers and the room, as opposed to the electronics. It certainly has absolutely nothing to do with Shakti Stones, power cords, grren pens, or Clarifiers. Those things are fraud and should be treated as such, both by law enforcement and by the audio press. That they are discussed in other terms is really amazing and sad. It seems to me more likely that evaluators in Subjective Audio Opinion magazines may be more subject to intimidation when they don't profess enough Faith in Audio Legends. I doubt it. They don't worry about ****ing off advertisers? And the opinion of anybody with a device such as a loudspeaker which has noticeable response errors in rooms is automatically qualified as a opinion. But the "sound" of a stone placed in your listening room or an interconnecting cable changing the timing of signals passed through it is more than opinion .... its a revision of physics and deserves scutiny EVEN if that's simply a verification of possible affects with even moderate bias controls implemented. Or even for a subjectivist it would seem likely that the CEO would investigate the sound quality improvements that might be gained with such an extraordinary claim. Your opinion, since nothing but mainstream items are reviewed in Sound & Vision. Really. You think a $15000 subwoofer is main stream? Many others do not. Those expensive projectors and display devices don't seem all that mainstream to me. They certainly are to those wealthy enough to afford them, and there are many people in that category today. Using that criterion I guess $1000 speaker cables and $10,000 amplifiers are mainstream too. Yep, for many people in this hobby they are. will use the "I didn't personally say that" Oh you mean the "I don't know because I haven't checked it out myself?" At Sound & Vision the question and the cause is investigated. But then, when was the last time you heard "my cables made my bass faster" or another fanciful opinion in that publication? Is it because there is technical and editorial oversight? Frankly, I subscribe to Sound & Vision only to find out what is new, and for their feature lists. I find the magazine slightly useful from a video standpoint, and virtually useless from a sound standpoint. If the whole hobby is about one's subjective impression of the equipment's sound, then why bother having anybody give one in a review, since it won't be the same for the nmext person? All one really needs is a good breakdown of the technical specs and build quailty, after that it's up to each person's ears. And isn't it convenient to rid your mind of all clutter of uncertainty and doubt, having again to listen, for all those 25 years! I don't undestand your point. My point, as I understood your point, was that you decided 25 years ago what did / did not sound different (should / should not be able to sound different?) and therefore had avoided listening to anything new in those areas for the last 25 years in order to "maximize the effectiveness of resource deplyment in the quest for sound quality optimzation". I quess that means you "know" passive components can't contribute to a different sound, so better off to review car audio systems? Holy Cow .... what about the statement "That's exactly why I began controlled testing the'sound' of capacitors, amplifiers, cabling, isolation etc a quarter century ago;" says that I did all the investigation 25 years ago? And what's wrong with Car Audio systems. In many respects they are often superior to some mega-Buck high-end systems. What I meant was, having reached a conclusion way back that these things didn't affect sound, you stopped testing them. I don't think that notion holds true, at least form what I've seen Tom write. It just seems that after you get the same results every time, you get the idea that there's a pattern. Thereby forgoing the possibility that other, different testing or better, different components might reveal differences. Do you think those designers who spend hours trying out passive components and "voicing" their systems are simply kidding themselves and wasting time? Mostly they are trying to solve other problems like using less components and making something for less money that will do the same job. I have yet to talk to an EE that thought there were sound quailty issues that were still audible and needed to be solved by any other means than speakers and multi-channel setups. Take a listen to an HK Citation 14 sometime versus a well-designed, more modern tuner of the mid-eighties...say a Carver TX-11. They sound virtually identical (and very good)...except for the slight gray haze and thickness that the HK is saddled with in the lower midrange on down..that also reduces depth. *That* is the sound of the components used through the early '70's versus the low-noise resistors and poly- capacitors used since. IMO, of course. I've listen to other similar comparisons...vintage tube amps before and after recapping, etc. Again, high-end audio is about subtleties...these decade-apart differences were not subtle as they represented a sea-change, but between brands and types of capacitors in particular there do seem to be subtle differences, at least to the designers. Who generally listen with the highest possible quality gear. If you test caps in speakers, you find that if the capacitance is right and the voltage sufficent, it won't make any audible difference what kind of cap is used. And interconnects that "Gave me the color, air, transparency and liveliness I so enjoy while banishing any and all mechanical/electronic effects," None of these few quotes sounds anything like there is any doubt at all about any of these dubious claims which have never been publically documented in any replicable experiment. Nor would any number of quotes from subjective reviews of movies music or even food. It's the nature of the beast. Again, for those that don't understand the nature of subjective review the burden is on them to educate themselves. Please. If that is so why haven't you already conducted and shared the experimental results of amp amd isolation sound? We are not assessing the "art" of sound reproduction, that's certainly subject to debate (I once had a lively argument in 1966 in Vietnam about whether "Summer in the City" was better than "Satisfaction" but that's not the same as assessing which amplifier does a better job of delivering the electrical signal to the loudspeaker terminals .... the latter is perfectly testable either electrically OR acoustically. Sorry Charley, but I defy you to "hear" an electrical signal. I didn't say you could hear an electrical signal without a transducer I said that the signal being delivered to the loudspeaker terminals could examined electrically (with test equipment) or acoustcially with a microphone or your ears You also said you could tell which was "better" by measurement (as well as by) listening acoustically. Sure. But the point high-enders want to conveniently forget is that when an amplifier or systems delivers an electrical signal to the speaker terminals that is identical to the input signal except for gain there is no other possible way to improve or degrade it. As Tom states above, what can be done to improve on a straight wire with gain? Speakers and rooms, that's it. At least that appears to be the implication...."assessing which amplifier does a better job of delivering the electrical signal to the loudspeaker terminals". Since the goal is the highest possible realization of simulated reality (experienced subjectively, which is the only way music happens) it appears that you do believe it all comes down to measurement. For the electrical part of it this is true. If the electrical input signal from from the media is delivered to the speaker terminals exactly save for gain there can be NO way that it is better or worse than any other device that can do the same thing. For the acoustical part there are so many departures from the input signal that are delivered to the eardrum and through the body from the input signal that there is very little liklihood that any transduced will sound exaclty like any other one. And even when they do; if they're not in the same location even them the acoustical signal delivered to the listener will vary. Which is not something the electronics can fix. But there is no mention in As We See It that there's the slightest doubt that these effects WERE NOT verifiable or HAD NOT been personally accepted by the Editor of the RCL and the magazine. No disclaimers. Was there any mention that the were verifibale or had been personally accpeted by the editor? You think a subjective review magazine needs a disclaimer on every page? Only for extraordinary claims. No. But it should be included for extraordinary claims when the Editor may want to walk away from them at a later date claiming "agnosticism." Only if the editor professes the magazine to be a scientic journal, as opposed to a subjectivist, hobbiest review magazine. The RCL professes that every recommended component is "highly" recommended and "based entirely on performance---ie accuracy of reproduction---" and when performance is questioned in that regard it seems to me that the editor is disabusing integrity when he later claims that a product wasn't his 'personal' recommendation and that he actually has no idea of what it sounds like. You do not think it is possible for the editor to put enough trust in his reviewers to include an item based on their conclusion, rather than having to double-check for himself every item to see if he agrees? No answer?? The answer is, that when a reviewer praises something that appears to defy the laws of physics, it should be subject to appropriate measurement, something lacking from the Shakti Stone review. Stereophile does often offer the disclaimer that their reviews are subjective and potential buyers should audition any component for themsleves before buying. Then why do they include measurements at all on anything? That's a different argument. The magazine review offered an extraordinary claim, one that would most likely be questioned later, yet some 8 years later the Editor says he has never auditioned them. It seems to me that he is either not interested in possible sound quality improvements or, perhaps, that he never trusted his reviewer or that he was just too lazy. In any case why would anybody want to accept anything published in the book as having any value (except for the measurements.....which can be verified...) There is no logical reason why an editor or anybody on the staff of an audio magazine about audio would not WANT to test such a simple tweak as a Shakti Stone appears to be. I would expect the staff to be fighting for a place in line to audition such a thing. That is the idea of such magazines after all, to find things that make your listening better, and the best of all worlds would be something simple to implement. |
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused"
From: Date: 12/8/2004 5:09 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: wrote: Bob Marcus wrote: The reviewer [Michael Fremer] praised [the Wavac] to the hilt--new vistas of sonic realism, or some such twaddle. Whereas the bad stuff was confined to that technical box that many readers probably think of as the footnotes. With respect, Mr. Marcus, while you, of course, welcome to define a "review" in Stereophile as the subjective impressions minus the measurements, that is not correct. The review that I was referring to was the _complete_ review, subjective experience and measurements, and that is how I believe my readers define it also (according to the feedback I receive). John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile The comments I see on other sites suggest to me that a goodly number of audiophiles do not believe that it is possible to measure audio components meaningfully, and that given a "review" that includes subjective praise and measurement damnation, they will believe the subjective praise. That could explain the people who bought the Wavac after reading your review, don't you think? bob Gosh, who knows, maybe they actually auditioned the amps and liked what they heard. |
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Nousaine" wrote in message .. .....snips to specific content.... .. "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Nousaine" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote: On censorship. I agree with the original poster. If Mr Atkinson did not specifically distance himself from questionable statements made in the publication he edits at the time of publication it is then unfair to distance himself from them later. So should we expect ever editor of every audio magazine to agree with every review in their magazines if they don't express a "timely" disagreement in print? That once again puts the unreasonable onus on an editor to run around and review every product that is reviewed in their publication for themselves. If people cannot understand the nature of subjective review magazines that is their problem IMO. If I were to purchase a pair of speakers based on one of your reviews and found I didn't like them should I hold your editor responsible? Sure. But you can also bet your bippy that my Editorial staff questions anythingI write that appears on its face value to be inconsistent with what is known about acoustical sound reproduction in the listening room. That could also be interpreted as editorial intimidation, to make sure you followed the "party line". No it simply is required of editorial integrity. If you'll read my comment carefully anything "I write that appears on its face value to be inconsistent with what is known about acoustical sound reproduction in the listening room." Nobody said they censor anything. Only that they carefully read everything and question things that appear to be inconsistent. That's their JOB. To edit the magazine as to acoustical worth. Not to accept everything their staff writes without careful review. Besides, unlike review staffon some other publications I actually even know what wire sound actually is. IOW nothing. So what happens to the reviewer who has decided that a new set of cables does sound slightly different? Is he fired? Forced to get a hearing test? Forced to do a blind test before his review is published? If the philosophy of the magazine accepts that all is know in the area of acoustic phenomenon and that cables can't possibly sound different (in any "better" sense), than any deviation from orthodoxy will be seen as heresy. And in a subjective review magazine, that level of intimidation is anathema to any self-respecting journalist. Ask the Editors. My guess is that an article that contains opinion stated as fact wouldn't get published. You seem to think that if a contributor or staff of Discover were to say that he thought that dowsing was an effective way to find water or that it was certain that Alien Abductions were a real phenomen without some backing evidence that it would be intimidation if someone were to ask for some additional support. As long as there is reasonable objective means of testing a hypothesis vs. opinion, I would agree with you. Dousing seems verifiable. Alien Abduction not so, but it is reasonable to assume unlikely with some circumstantial conditions verifiable. But that is quite different from subjective evaluation of audio components playing music. You seem to forget that the experiencing of music is itself a subjective phenomenon...there is no "objective" impression of music being reproduced or that can be used for verification...it is all ultimately an interpretation by the ear/brain conjunction, and a very complex one at that. Who says anything about non-subjective experience. With sound quality reproduction we are not talking about musical or performance interpretation we are talking about evaluation of the quality of reproduced sound, none of which actually has to be "music". Sure its a complex process but when an acoustical signal is delivered to the human apparatus through an audio system all the interpretation occurs by the subject. So if I can deliver the same electrical signal to the loudspeaker terminals under any set of conditions there is no way that it can differ acoustically when it leaves the loudspeakers (which leaves out cable and amp sound) except by acoustical treatments of which there is no known device of small size that has been shown to have a significant acoustical effect (save for ear muffs.) It seems to me more likely that evaluators in Subjective Audio Opinion magazines may be more subject to intimidation when they don't profess enough Faith in Audio Legends. I doubt it. And the opinion of anybody with a device such as a loudspeaker which has noticeable response errors in rooms is automatically qualified as a opinion. But the "sound" of a stone placed in your listening room or an interconnecting cable changing the timing of signals passed through it is more than opinion .... its a revision of physics and deserves scutiny EVEN if that's simply a verification of possible affects with even moderate bias controls implemented. Or even for a subjectivist it would seem likely that the CEO would investigate the sound quality improvements that might be gained with such an extraordinary claim. Your opinion, since nothing but mainstream items are reviewed in Sound & Vision. Really. You think a $15000 subwoofer is main stream? Many others do not. Those expensive projectors and display devices don't seem all that mainstream to me. They certainly are to those wealthy enough to afford them, and there are many people in that category today. Using that criterion I guess $1000 speaker cables and $10,000 amplifiers are mainstream too. Yep, for many people in this hobby they are. So what is your point? That S&V is of no value because it includes main stream products? I don't think the book is fault free but your definition of mainstream seems to move with the argument. Further I think this discussion is useful for potential readers in that it is clear that the magazine is simply a set of often unsubstantiated opinions when challenged the editors will use the "I didn't personally say that" defense. What other defense will any editor use when the subjective opinions of one of his or her reviewers is challenged? Oh you mean the "I don't know because I haven't checked it out myself?" That was not my statement you are responding to, but an earlier statement by somebody else, whose attribution you've cut out of the opening to this post. Sorry Apology accepted, thanks. At Sound & Vision the question and the cause is investigated. But then, when was the last time you heard "my cables made my bass faster" or another fanciful opinion in that publication? Is it because there is technical and editorial oversight? Frankly, I subscribe to Sound & Vision only to find out what is new, and for their feature lists. I find the magazine slightly useful from a video standpoint, and virtually useless from a sound standpoint. The reviewer always reviews one cd, one dvd-a, one sacd which they have just received/purchased, with no particular listening background, and then comment on the music, which of course 'always sounds great'. Laughable. Talk about a magazine cottening to the advertisers! Sure it does seem that way. I know because every year I have to dig up a new dvd or cd with superlative bass for my subwoofer comparison. If you'll read the programs that are listed you'll see that much of the list remains the same from year to year and I always use a core of reference programs for every evaluation even if they are always mentioned. I'm not sure what "list" you are referring to here. In the subwoofer case its the list of programs published in the Subwoofer Comparion that were used for the evaluation (September 2004.) Yes, I give you credit for that. But it is not typical of the average Sound & Vision component review, which pretty much goes as I have stated. Sure but that doesn't differ significantly from high-end publications as far as I can see. I think that practically every publication has a problem with continuity of program material ... few reviews are conducted with the same programs, in roughly the same order. But I don't see where that is any different with any other publication. I insist on using the same core material for every careful evaluation which keeps my current with new material but I can't see anything in other magazine reviews tht suggests program consistency. If you follow individual reviewers you will generally be able to ascertain the music they use as references as well as their individual musical / sound atrribute preferences. Can't do that at all with Sound & Vision reviews. I'd guess that's true. In this case the Editorial staff always wants newer and exciting program material. In every listening evaluation I do, I use a selected set of 63 program segments to maintain core material for all productin addition to some newer, current programs. Good for you. In the October issue the pull quote for the As We See It definitively says "We Highly recommend All components listed in "Recommended Components."" which must mean even those components such as cones and isolation devices which are said to produce "greater perceived detail and "faster" Bass." Or that produce sound that "just tightens up, cleans up, clears up. I hear more low level information. Imaging improves. Timing too. Transients are crisper. I hear improvements in just about every respect." Well if you want to challenge the audibility of isolation devices I'll happily take your money or the million Randi is offering. Just make it worth my while. I've offered to allow you to verify your claim of amplifier sound before but that wasn't worth the time for you then. What is your price for proving the "sound" of any particular item? For me the cost lay in NOT proving I really hear what my perceptions or other enthusiasts tell me. That's exactly why I began controlled testing the 'sound' of capacitors, amplifiers, cabling, isolation etc a quarter century ago; to maximize the effectiveness of resource deployment in the quest of sound quality optimization. And isn't it convenient to rid your mind of all clutter of uncertainty and doubt, having again to listen, for all those 25 years! I don't undestand your point. My point, as I understood your point, was that you decided 25 years ago what did / did not sound different (should / should not be able to sound different?) and therefore had avoided listening to anything new in those areas for the last 25 years in order to "maximize the effectiveness of resource deplyment in the quest for sound quality optimzation". I quess that means you "know" passive components can't contribute to a different sound, so better off to review car audio systems? Holy Cow .... what about the statement "That's exactly why I began controlled testing the'sound' of capacitors, amplifiers, cabling, isolation etc a quarter century ago;" says that I did all the investigation 25 years ago? And what's wrong with Car Audio systems. In many respects they are often superior to some mega-Buck high-end systems. What I meant was, having reached a conclusion way back that these things didn't affect sound, you stopped testing them. Thereby forgoing the possibility that other, different testing or better, different components might reveal differences. Do you think those designers who spend hours trying out passive components and "voicing" their systems are simply kidding themselves and wasting time? My last passive component experiment was conducted in the mid-90s.And, yes IME few enthusiasts spend 'hours' voicing systems with passive components. And, yes, I've never seen a single passive component of a given value that had an audibility problem. For example at a PSACS meeting we conducted an experiment where a passive all-pass filter was made using Radio Shack carbon resisitors and blister-pak electrolytics was inaudible compared to a wire-bypass at the headphone jack of a Bryston 2B. Take a listen to an HK Citation 14 sometime versus a well-designed, more modern tuner of the mid-eighties...say a Carver TX-11. They sound virtually identical (and very good)...except for the slight gray haze and thickness that the HK is saddled with in the lower midrange on down..that also reduces depth. *That* is the sound of the components used through the early '70's versus the low-noise resistors and poly- capacitors used since. IMO, of course. I've listen to other similar comparisons...vintage tube amps before and after recapping, etc. Again, high-end audio is about subtleties...these decade-apart differences were not subtle as they represented a sea-change, but between brands and types of capacitors in particular there do seem to be subtle differences, at least to the designers. Who generally listen with the highest possible quality gear. OK so assuming thatyou've now found that passive components of the 70s (which are now 30 years old as well) have been improved? What does that have to do with modern high performance products. Loudspeakers have gotten better (even the soft and steel parts, too) too. So what? And interconnects that "Gave me the color, air, transparency and liveliness I so enjoy while banishing any and all mechanical/electronic effects," None of these few quotes sounds anything like there is any doubt at all about any of these dubious claims which have never been publically documented in any replicable experiment. Nor would any number of quotes from subjective reviews of movies music or even food. It's the nature of the beast. Again, for those that don't understand the nature of subjective review the burden is on them to educate themselves. Please. If that is so why haven't you already conducted and shared the experimental results of amp amd isolation sound? We are not assessing the "art" of sound reproduction, that's certainly subject to debate (I once had a lively argument in 1966 in Vietnam about whether "Summer in the City" was better than "Satisfaction" but that's not the same as assessing which amplifier does a better job of delivering the electrical signal to the loudspeaker terminals .... the latter is perfectly testable either electrically OR acoustically. Sorry Charley, but I defy you to "hear" an electrical signal. I didn't say you could hear an electrical signal without a transducer I said that the signal being delivered to the loudspeaker terminals could examined electrically (with test equipment) or acoustcially with a microphone or your ears You also said you could tell which was "better" by measurement (as well as by) listening acoustically. Sure. But the point high-enders want to conveniently forget is that when an amplifier or systems delivers an electrical signal to the speaker terminals that is identical to the input signal except for gain there is no other possible way to improve or degrade it. At least that appears to be the implication...."assessing which amplifier does a better job of delivering the electrical signal to the loudspeaker terminals". Since the goal is the highest possible realization of simulated reality (experienced subjectively, which is the only way music happens) it appears that you do believe it all comes down to measurement. For the electrical part of it this is true. If the electrical input signal from from the media is delivered to the speaker terminals exactly save for gain there can be NO way that it is better or worse than any other device that can do the same thing. For the acoustical part there are so many departures from the input signal that are delivered to the eardrum and through the body from the input signal that there is very little liklihood that any transduced will sound exaclty like any other one. And even when they do; if they're not in the same location even them the acoustical signal delivered to the listener will vary. But there is no mention in As We See It that there's the slightest doubt that these effects WERE NOT verifiable or HAD NOT been personally accepted by the Editor of the RCL and the magazine. No disclaimers. Was there any mention that the were verifibale or had been personally accpeted by the editor? You think a subjective review magazine needs a disclaimer on every page? Only for extraordinary claims. No. But it should be included for extraordinary claims when the Editor may want to walk away from them at a later date claiming "agnosticism." Only if the editor professes the magazine to be a scientic journal, as opposed to a subjectivist, hobbiest review magazine. The RCL professes that every recommended component is "highly" recommended and "based entirely on performance---ie accuracy of reproduction---" and when performance is questioned in that regard it seems to me that the editor is disabusing integrity when he later claims that a product wasn't his 'personal' recommendation and that he actually has no idea of what it sounds like. You do not think it is possible for the editor to put enough trust in his reviewers to include an item based on their conclusion, rather than having to double-check for himself every item to see if he agrees? No answer?? Asked and answered before. Only for items that appear to have dubious sound quality implications. But you make a good sideways point. There are apparently so MANY of these types of sonic claims that it might be impossible to even verify a small number of them .... but then practically ALL of them appear to be highly recommended because nearly 100% of the products reviewed (and many that are not reviewed) appear in the RCL. and when was the last time that any review ever said that they thought that a given item sounded the same as any other product? With the confluence of electronic design and fabrication and the 6-9s QC it seems likely that some products do sound the same it appears tonbme that signifcant sound quality difference between product in a given function class would most likely be due to poor design or poor QC. It appears that if every product tested sounds different from every other item in that functional class then there are some pretty poor performers in that crowd. Especially for accessories. Exactly how does one manage to design a shelf or interconnect that changes sound ... except one that reduces quality. Stereophile does often offer the disclaimer that their reviews are subjective and potential buyers should audition any component for themsleves before buying. That's a different argument. The magazine review offered an extraordinary claim, one that would most likely be questioned later, yet some 8 years later the Editor says he has never auditioned them. It seems to me that he is either not interested in possible sound quality improvements or, perhaps, that he never trusted his reviewer or that he was just too lazy. In any case why would anybody want to accept anything published in the book as having any value (except for the measurements.....which can be verified...) because even when they are extrordinary claims they are accepted without qualification with no technical review and never with verification as to acoustical cause. And that same magazine is happy to post letters from readers who feel as you do. That certainly should scare off the culpable. So IMO it seems entirely likely that the Editor can be considered to have personal responsibility for any of the the outrageous claims that he published unless he makes a specific disclaimer at the time of original publication. You are entitlted to your opinion. Do your editors feel responsible for all the opinions you express in print? Damn right they do. But then I publish few "opinions." Censorship and intimidation are then obviously alive and well at Sound & Vision and Sensible Sound. Everything sounds the same unless proven with a double blind...well..you know what. If you think that telling the truth is censorship then I'm all for it :-) By the way I'm actually quite uncertain as to how you think T$S censors anything. There are plenty of statements and opinions made there from other contributors that I think are questionable. But its refreshing that they WON'T censor my contributions even when I say unpopular things. Why should they when your weltanschauung jibes so closely with the magazine's editorial philosophy as evolved over the years. Certainly some of their writers express opinions, but they generally are in the area of features and "bang for the buck" rather than in attributing any great difference in sound to an item. At least that has been my impression as I have dipped into and out of the magazine over many years (I frankly find most issues boring and only occasionally buy a newsstand copy if it covers an item I have a potential interest in). Don't read them then. I usually don't, I skim the index. |
|
#111
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... "Nousaine" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Nousaine" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote: On censorship. I agree with the original poster. If Mr Atkinson did not specifically distance himself from questionable statements made in the publication he edits at the time of publication it is then unfair to distance himself from them later. So should we expect ever editor of every audio magazine to agree with every review in their magazines if they don't express a "timely" disagreement in print? That once again puts the unreasonable onus on an editor to run around and review every product that is reviewed in their publication for themselves. If people cannot understand the nature of subjective review magazines that is their problem IMO. If I were to purchase a pair of speakers based on one of your reviews and found I didn't like them should I hold your editor responsible? Sure. But you can also bet your bippy that my Editorial staff questions anythingI write that appears on its face value to be inconsistent with what is known about acoustical sound reproduction in the listening room. That could also be interpreted as editorial intimidation, to make sure you followed the "party line". No it simply is required of editorial integrity. If you'll read my comment carefully anything "I write that appears on its face value to be inconsistent with what is known about acoustical sound reproduction in the listening room." Nobody said they censor anything. Only that they carefully read everything and question things that appear to be inconsistent. That's their JOB. To edit the magazine as to acoustical worth. Not to accept everything their staff writes without careful review. Besides, unlike review staffon some other publications I actually even know what wire sound actually is. IOW nothing. So what happens to the reviewer who has decided that a new set of cables does sound slightly different? Is he fired? Forced to get a hearing test? Forced to do a blind test before his review is published? If the philosophy of the magazine accepts that all is know in the area of acoustic phenomenon and that cables can't possibly sound different (in any "better" sense), than any deviation from orthodoxy will be seen as heresy. And in a subjective review magazine, that level of intimidation is anathema to any self-respecting journalist. Ask the Editors. My guess is that an article that contains opinion stated as fact wouldn't get published. You seem to think that if a contributor or staff of Discover were to say that he thought that dowsing was an effective way to find water or that it was certain that Alien Abductions were a real phenomen without some backing evidence that it would be intimidation if someone were to ask for some additional support. As long as there is reasonable objective means of testing a hypothesis vs. opinion, I would agree with you. Dousing seems verifiable. Alien Abduction not so, but it is reasonable to assume unlikely with some circumstantial conditions verifiable. But that is quite different from subjective evaluation of audio components playing music. You seem to forget that the experiencing of music is itself a subjective phenomenon...there is no "objective" impression of music being reproduced or that can be used for verification. But there is the signal that comes from the media. You casn compare the source signal to the the signal that makes it to the speaker terminals. If they are the same, then all that's left is the speakers and the room. This really is the last frontier for audio and I beleive that will be fixed by auto EQ in the digital domain. Three points in reply: 1. If by "comparing the source signal" you mean by listening, this "buy's" the assumption that rigorous test measures exist that do not destroy the very essence of what is supposedly being tested. Some of us challenge that assumption, and have stated our reasons here before. Any component in the chain has the "potential" (whatever you think of the probability) to alter the signal in subtle ways that may affect the level of "suspense disbelief" or "perception of reality". If our measure tools mask or distort some of these sublties as perceived by the human ear/brain combine, then we can be fooling ourselves in the very act of testing. 2. If by "comparing the source signal" you mean by measuring it, then you require a very large set of tests to measure every conceivable effect on the perceived sound quality conveyed by the signal. And there does not yet seem to be universal acceptance even by engineers as to what the relative importance and audibilty of some of the more esoteric phenomena might be. 2. The signal doesn't "get to" the speaker...it has to be measured in conjunction with how it interacts with the speaker. And this interaction alone can color the sound...and is affected by amp, cable, and speaker design as you well know. ..it is all ultimately an interpretation by the ear/brain conjunction, and a very complex one at that. These days that clearly has more to do with the speakers and the room, as opposed to the electronics. It certainly has absolutely nothing to do with Shakti Stones, power cords, grren pens, or Clarifiers. Those things are fraud and should be treated as such, both by law enforcement and by the audio press. That they are discussed in other terms is really amazing and sad. Seems to me fraud is a very large charge, unless you have done the testing and peer-reviewed publishing of results that "disprove" the item, either it's specific claims, or the measured performance of the other component(s) directly affected by the "tweek". It seems to me more likely that evaluators in Subjective Audio Opinion magazines may be more subject to intimidation when they don't profess enough Faith in Audio Legends. I doubt it. They don't worry about ****ing off advertisers? Not if they tell the truth as they see it. TAS ran an article comparing two dozen cables and said most sounded the same and those that differed did in very small ways. Stereophile runs Atkinson's measurements, good, bad, or indifferent and its columnists judements good, bad, or indifferent about certain aspects of performance. And the opinion of anybody with a device such as a loudspeaker which has noticeable response errors in rooms is automatically qualified as a opinion. But the "sound" of a stone placed in your listening room or an interconnecting cable changing the timing of signals passed through it is more than opinion .... its a revision of physics and deserves scutiny EVEN if that's simply a verification of possible affects with even moderate bias controls implemented. Or even for a subjectivist it would seem likely that the CEO would investigate the sound quality improvements that might be gained with such an extraordinary claim. Your opinion, since nothing but mainstream items are reviewed in Sound & Vision. Really. You think a $15000 subwoofer is main stream? Many others do not. Those expensive projectors and display devices don't seem all that mainstream to me. They certainly are to those wealthy enough to afford them, and there are many people in that category today. Using that criterion I guess $1000 speaker cables and $10,000 amplifiers are mainstream too. Yep, for many people in this hobby they are. will use the "I didn't personally say that" Oh you mean the "I don't know because I haven't checked it out myself?" At Sound & Vision the question and the cause is investigated. But then, when was the last time you heard "my cables made my bass faster" or another fanciful opinion in that publication? Is it because there is technical and editorial oversight? Frankly, I subscribe to Sound & Vision only to find out what is new, and for their feature lists. I find the magazine slightly useful from a video standpoint, and virtually useless from a sound standpoint. If the whole hobby is about one's subjective impression of the equipment's sound, then why bother having anybody give one in a review, since it won't be the same for the nmext person? All one really needs is a good breakdown of the technical specs and build quailty, after that it's up to each person's ears. Been stated here before many times. If you read a mag regularly, and the reveiwer is good, you get to know his/her biases and approach to evaluating sound, as well as the accurcy and specificity of what he/she says compared to your own impressions. Over time, you learn to judge accordingly...reviewer X says this, you'd probably find it credible and agree; reviewer Y says that, don't know him very well, interesting but suspend judgement; reviewer Z says that again, he tends to like thinks that you think sound too bright, so discount that. Etc. Etc. All you use the reviews for is to develop a mental list of products and brands you might be interested in, now or in the future, and what seems over time to be happening to the state of the art. And for a "good read" or entertainment value. That's it. No big issue... except to those of the group who think every magazine should be a Consumer Reports. And isn't it convenient to rid your mind of all clutter of uncertainty and doubt, having again to listen, for all those 25 years! I don't undestand your point. My point, as I understood your point, was that you decided 25 years ago what did / did not sound different (should / should not be able to sound different?) and therefore had avoided listening to anything new in those areas for the last 25 years in order to "maximize the effectiveness of resource deplyment in the quest for sound quality optimzation". I quess that means you "know" passive components can't contribute to a different sound, so better off to review car audio systems? Holy Cow .... what about the statement "That's exactly why I began controlled testing the'sound' of capacitors, amplifiers, cabling, isolation etc a quarter century ago;" says that I did all the investigation 25 years ago? And what's wrong with Car Audio systems. In many respects they are often superior to some mega-Buck high-end systems. What I meant was, having reached a conclusion way back that these things didn't affect sound, you stopped testing them. I don't think that notion holds true, at least form what I've seen Tom write. It just seems that after you get the same results every time, you get the idea that there's a pattern. Well, that's what Tom seemed to say...he was freeing up his resources for other things. You don't free up resources unless you stop. Thereby forgoing the possibility that other, different testing or better, different components might reveal differences. Do you think those designers who spend hours trying out passive components and "voicing" their systems are simply kidding themselves and wasting time? Mostly they are trying to solve other problems like using less components and making something for less money that will do the same job. I have yet to talk to an EE that thought there were sound quailty issues that were still audible and needed to be solved by any other means than speakers and multi-channel setups. It certainly is less true today than it was 25 years ago, when passive parts issues first came to the fore. Trickle down seems alive and well, which is one reason moderately priced components today using less that top-priced internals can rival the more expensive gear and outperform or at least equal some of the best gear from the not-so-distant past. Take a listen to an HK Citation 14 sometime versus a well-designed, more modern tuner of the mid-eighties...say a Carver TX-11. They sound virtually identical (and very good)...except for the slight gray haze and thickness that the HK is saddled with in the lower midrange on down..that also reduces depth. *That* is the sound of the components used through the early '70's versus the low-noise resistors and poly- capacitors used since. IMO, of course. I've listen to other similar comparisons...vintage tube amps before and after recapping, etc. Again, high-end audio is about subtleties...these decade-apart differences were not subtle as they represented a sea-change, but between brands and types of capacitors in particular there do seem to be subtle differences, at least to the designers. Who generally listen with the highest possible quality gear. If you test caps in speakers, you find that if the capacitance is right and the voltage sufficent, it won't make any audible difference what kind of cap is used. I'm talking caps in electronics, and twenty-five years ago it most certainly did, regardless of what Tom concluded. And interconnects that "Gave me the color, air, transparency and liveliness I so enjoy while banishing any and all mechanical/electronic effects," None of these few quotes sounds anything like there is any doubt at all about any of these dubious claims which have never been publically documented in any replicable experiment. Nor would any number of quotes from subjective reviews of movies music or even food. It's the nature of the beast. Again, for those that don't understand the nature of subjective review the burden is on them to educate themselves. Please. If that is so why haven't you already conducted and shared the experimental results of amp amd isolation sound? We are not assessing the "art" of sound reproduction, that's certainly subject to debate (I once had a lively argument in 1966 in Vietnam about whether "Summer in the City" was better than "Satisfaction" but that's not the same as assessing which amplifier does a better job of delivering the electrical signal to the loudspeaker terminals .... the latter is perfectly testable either electrically OR acoustically. Sorry Charley, but I defy you to "hear" an electrical signal. I didn't say you could hear an electrical signal without a transducer I said that the signal being delivered to the loudspeaker terminals could examined electrically (with test equipment) or acoustcially with a microphone or your ears You also said you could tell which was "better" by measurement (as well as by) listening acoustically. Sure. But the point high-enders want to conveniently forget is that when an amplifier or systems delivers an electrical signal to the speaker terminals that is identical to the input signal except for gain there is no other possible way to improve or degrade it. As Tom states above, what can be done to improve on a straight wire with gain? Speakers and rooms, that's it. So long as you view the testing method as beyond reproach. I don't, so I don't buy the "straight wire with gain", especially as applied to systems. At least that appears to be the implication...."assessing which amplifier does a better job of delivering the electrical signal to the loudspeaker terminals". Since the goal is the highest possible realization of simulated reality (experienced subjectively, which is the only way music happens) it appears that you do believe it all comes down to measurement. For the electrical part of it this is true. If the electrical input signal from from the media is delivered to the speaker terminals exactly save for gain there can be NO way that it is better or worse than any other device that can do the same thing. For the acoustical part there are so many departures from the input signal that are delivered to the eardrum and through the body from the input signal that there is very little liklihood that any transduced will sound exaclty like any other one. And even when they do; if they're not in the same location even them the acoustical signal delivered to the listener will vary. Which is not something the electronics can fix. Don't know whose quote you are referring to; it's not mine. Mine started this segment but only the first few lines. But there is no mention in As We See It that there's the slightest doubt that these effects WERE NOT verifiable or HAD NOT been personally accepted by the Editor of the RCL and the magazine. No disclaimers. Was there any mention that the were verifibale or had been personally accpeted by the editor? You think a subjective review magazine needs a disclaimer on every page? Only for extraordinary claims. No. But it should be included for extraordinary claims when the Editor may want to walk away from them at a later date claiming "agnosticism." Only if the editor professes the magazine to be a scientic journal, as opposed to a subjectivist, hobbiest review magazine. The RCL professes that every recommended component is "highly" recommended and "based entirely on performance---ie accuracy of reproduction---" and when performance is questioned in that regard it seems to me that the editor is disabusing integrity when he later claims that a product wasn't his 'personal' recommendation and that he actually has no idea of what it sounds like. You do not think it is possible for the editor to put enough trust in his reviewers to include an item based on their conclusion, rather than having to double-check for himself every item to see if he agrees? No answer?? The answer is, that when a reviewer praises something that appears to defy the laws of physics, it should be subject to appropriate measurement, something lacking from the Shakti Stone review. Stereophile does often offer the disclaimer that their reviews are subjective and potential buyers should audition any component for themsleves before buying. Then why do they include measurements at all on anything? Obviously to show how well engineered they are in conventional terms, as a supplement to the auditioning. That's a different argument. The magazine review offered an extraordinary claim, one that would most likely be questioned later, yet some 8 years later the Editor says he has never auditioned them. It seems to me that he is either not interested in possible sound quality improvements or, perhaps, that he never trusted his reviewer or that he was just too lazy. In any case why would anybody want to accept anything published in the book as having any value (except for the measurements.....which can be verified...) There is no logical reason why an editor or anybody on the staff of an audio magazine about audio would not WANT to test such a simple tweak as a Shakti Stone appears to be. I would expect the staff to be fighting for a place in line to audition such a thing. That is the idea of such magazines after all, to find things that make your listening better, and the best of all worlds would be something simple to implement. Perhaps because they consider it so fringe as not to interest most people, and therefore not devoting time and energy to it. Which would be high in many cases, since no existing test protocol would exist and different kinds of tests would have to be tried / evaluated in an attempt to "get a handle". |
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 9 Dec 2004 01:09:34 GMT, wrote: Harry Lavo wrote: Lots of audiophiles apparently believe in the garbage-in-garbage-out theory, which holds that the speakers are the LEAST important link in the chain. (This theory was first propounded by a turntable manufacturer, I believe.) Linn, to be exact. And that was 25 years ago. Once again, you give no credit to the average audiophile to have educated himself since then. I don't know who the average audiophile is, or how many of them there are. I do know that this argument is made with some frequency on other discussion boards. Strictly speaking, it was coined in nthe computer industry, Linn just picked it up in order to sell expensive turntables. While the theory is of course true, and hence is a fair argument poer se, a false financial implication is often made by so-called 'high enders'. Unless you are still using vinyl, the reality is that there is no system budget implication in GIGO, since top-class input signals all the way to your speaker terminals may be obtained for less than $1,000. Certainly, it makes no sonic sense to spend more than $1,000 on the source component, when absolutely state of the art 'universal' players from Denon and Pioneer cost less than this. Except for the inconvenient fact that many high end reviewers don't consider them state-of-the-art CD players. Whether this perception is accurate or not I personally don't know. |
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 9 Dec 2004 01:09:34 GMT, wrote: Harry Lavo wrote: Lots of audiophiles apparently believe in the garbage-in-garbage-out theory, which holds that the speakers are the LEAST important link in the chain. (This theory was first propounded by a turntable manufacturer, I believe.) Linn, to be exact. And that was 25 years ago. Once again, you give no credit to the average audiophile to have educated himself since then. I don't know who the average audiophile is, or how many of them there are. I do know that this argument is made with some frequency on other discussion boards. Strictly speaking, it was coined in nthe computer industry, Linn just picked it up in order to sell expensive turntables. While the theory is of course true, and hence is a fair argument poer se, a false financial implication is often made by so-called 'high enders'. Unless you are still using vinyl, the reality is that there is no system budget implication in GIGO, since top-class input signals all the way to your speaker terminals may be obtained for less than $1,000. Certainly, it makes no sonic sense to spend more than $1,000 on the source component, when absolutely state of the art 'universal' players from Denon and Pioneer cost less than this. Except for the inconvenient fact that many high end reviewers don't consider them state-of-the-art CD players. Whether this perception is accurate or not I personally don't know. You would find that your pursuit of accurate audio reproduction is significantly hindered if you placed faith on "high-end" reviews. The endorsements we have seen on the WAVAC amp, the cables, the stones, the green pens should have pointed to you that the emperor wears no clothes, most of the time. Read those subjective reviews for entertainment, not for technical accuracy. Whether the high-end reviewer considered a piece of gear state-of-the-art is of absolutely no concen to anyone interested in the pursuit of accurate audio reproduction, i.e., hi-fi. |
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Chung" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 9 Dec 2004 01:09:34 GMT, wrote: Harry Lavo wrote: Lots of audiophiles apparently believe in the garbage-in-garbage-out theory, which holds that the speakers are the LEAST important link in the chain. (This theory was first propounded by a turntable manufacturer, I believe.) Linn, to be exact. And that was 25 years ago. Once again, you give no credit to the average audiophile to have educated himself since then. I don't know who the average audiophile is, or how many of them there are. I do know that this argument is made with some frequency on other discussion boards. Strictly speaking, it was coined in nthe computer industry, Linn just picked it up in order to sell expensive turntables. While the theory is of course true, and hence is a fair argument poer se, a false financial implication is often made by so-called 'high enders'. Unless you are still using vinyl, the reality is that there is no system budget implication in GIGO, since top-class input signals all the way to your speaker terminals may be obtained for less than $1,000. Certainly, it makes no sonic sense to spend more than $1,000 on the source component, when absolutely state of the art 'universal' players from Denon and Pioneer cost less than this. Except for the inconvenient fact that many high end reviewers don't consider them state-of-the-art CD players. Whether this perception is accurate or not I personally don't know. You would find that your pursuit of accurate audio reproduction is significantly hindered if you placed faith on "high-end" reviews. The endorsements we have seen on the WAVAC amp, the cables, the stones, the green pens should have pointed to you that the emperor wears no clothes, most of the time. Read those subjective reviews for entertainment, not for technical accuracy. Whether the high-end reviewer considered a piece of gear state-of-the-art is of absolutely no concen to anyone interested in the pursuit of accurate audio reproduction, i.e., hi-fi. It is reason enough to pause and listen for yourself. That's all. Rather than blindly accept Stewart's judgment (let's face it, when you call something "state-of-the-art" you are making a judgment, even if basing it on measurements. And frankly, high-end equipment has to be evaluated on sound as well as measurement. So unless Stewart is prepared to publish a peer-reviewed dbt of these two units versus say the Levinson combo, or the Linn player, or the new UA universal, then it is simply his opinion..one among many, many of whom do not agree. |
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 9 Dec 2004 01:09:34 GMT, wrote: Harry Lavo wrote: Lots of audiophiles apparently believe in the garbage-in-garbage-out theory, which holds that the speakers are the LEAST important link in the chain. (This theory was first propounded by a turntable manufacturer, I believe.) Linn, to be exact. And that was 25 years ago. Once again, you give no credit to the average audiophile to have educated himself since then. I don't know who the average audiophile is, or how many of them there are. I do know that this argument is made with some frequency on other discussion boards. Strictly speaking, it was coined in nthe computer industry, Linn just picked it up in order to sell expensive turntables. While the theory is of course true, and hence is a fair argument poer se, a false financial implication is often made by so-called 'high enders'. Unless you are still using vinyl, the reality is that there is no system budget implication in GIGO, since top-class input signals all the way to your speaker terminals may be obtained for less than $1,000. Certainly, it makes no sonic sense to spend more than $1,000 on the source component, when absolutely state of the art 'universal' players from Denon and Pioneer cost less than this. Except for the inconvenient fact that many high end reviewers don't consider them state-of-the-art CD players. Whether this perception is accurate or not I personally don't know. You would find that your pursuit of accurate audio reproduction is significantly hindered if you placed faith on "high-end" reviews. The endorsements we have seen on the WAVAC amp, the cables, the stones, the green pens should have pointed to you that the emperor wears no clothes, most of the time. Read those subjective reviews for entertainment, not for technical accuracy. Whether the high-end reviewer considered a piece of gear state-of-the-art is of absolutely no concen to anyone interested in the pursuit of accurate audio reproduction, i.e., hi-fi. It is reason enough to pause and listen for yourself. That's all. Rather than blindly accept Stewart's judgment (let's face it, when you call something "state-of-the-art" you are making a judgment, even if basing it on measurements. And frankly, high-end equipment has to be evaluated on sound as well as measurement. So unless Stewart is prepared to publish a peer-reviewed dbt of these two units versus say the Levinson combo, or the Linn player, or the new UA universal, then it is simply his opinion..one among many, many of whom do not agree. Well, you seem to think that the high-end reviews carry a lot more weight. As you put it, you felt it was "inconvenient" to rate a piece of gear highly if the high-end reviewers don't consider it state-of-the-art. My point is that as far as opinions go, the high-end reviewers are often not to be trusted at all, and you're better off discarding the subjective reviews from Stereophile altogether. In fact, given what we have read, I would not buy anything Stereophile reviewers consider state-of-the-art, simply because it is likely to be way over-priced with questionable or simply average performance. |
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 11 Dec 2004 16:11:05 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... Unless you are still using vinyl, the reality is that there is no system budget implication in GIGO, since top-class input signals all the way to your speaker terminals may be obtained for less than $1,000. Certainly, it makes no sonic sense to spend more than $1,000 on the source component, when absolutely state of the art 'universal' players from Denon and Pioneer cost less than this. Except for the inconvenient fact that many high end reviewers don't consider them state-of-the-art CD players. Whether this perception is accurate or not I personally don't know. It's accurate, based on the facts that they don't cost enough and don't carry the correct 'high end' badges................. They do however contain the very latest high-performance audio and video components, and certainly do represent the state of the art in digital sources. You would find that your pursuit of accurate audio reproduction is significantly hindered if you placed faith on "high-end" reviews. The endorsements we have seen on the WAVAC amp, the cables, the stones, the green pens should have pointed to you that the emperor wears no clothes, most of the time. Read those subjective reviews for entertainment, not for technical accuracy. Whether the high-end reviewer considered a piece of gear state-of-the-art is of absolutely no concen to anyone interested in the pursuit of accurate audio reproduction, i.e., hi-fi. It is reason enough to pause and listen for yourself. That's all. Rather than blindly accept Stewart's judgment (let's face it, when you call something "state-of-the-art" you are making a judgment, even if basing it on measurements. And frankly, high-end equipment has to be evaluated on sound as well as measurement. So unless Stewart is prepared to publish a peer-reviewed dbt of these two units versus say the Levinson combo, or the Linn player, or the new UA universal, then it is simply his opinion..one among many, many of whom do not agree. 'State of the art' is a technical observation, and readily verifiable by the device's use of the latest available technology. Frankly, it's not likely to sound any different from any other good CD player, regardless of the wild imaginings of ragazine reviewers! When *you* can publish a peer-reviewed DBT which shows that any but the most basic CD players *do* sound different, then you may develop some credibility. Until then, perhaps we should go with common sense, and follow the numbers....................... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tom Nousaine ) wrote in message
wrote: Tom Nousaine of The Sensible Sound, Sound & Vision, and The Audio Critic wrote: [Stereophile's "Recommended Components" list] professes that every recommended component is "highly" recommended and "based entirely on performance---ie accuracy of reproduction---" and when performance is questioned in that regard it seems to me that the editor is disabusing integrity when he later claims that a product wasn't his 'personal' recommendation and that he actually has no idea of what it sounds like. Sigh...if you read Stereophile as thoroughly as you claim, Mr. Nousaine, you will note that I have written on a number of occasions, both in the magazine and on the newsgroups, that the products included in the listing are included because of the advocacy of one or more of my writing team, not because I _personally_ recommend them. So then they are "highly recommended" but you will not stand behind them when they are questioned. Of course I stand behind those recommendations, both legally and intellectually. I have said so both in the magazine and on the newsgroups. But I see no reason to take part in tests of my abilities to hear differences imparted by such products when I personally have no opinion on or experiene of them. Particularly when the challenge to do so is issued by someone like the Amazing Randi whom, it has been documented, has admitted faking the test data for other tests. Particularly when the challenge has been issued by someone who has misrepresented what I have said and done, misattributed me with things I never wrote, refused to publish corrections, then gone back on his word that he was not going to publish anything more on a subject that he felt his readers were "weary" of. Given a game involving such a loaded dice, Mr. Nousaine, you appear to want to discount that inconvenient fact. And as I have pointed out to you now repeatedly, by you insisting that only products _I_ have experienced should be recommended in Stereophile, you appear to want to hold me to a higher standard than the editors of the magazines to which you contribute. I have direct experience of a greater proportion of the products reviewed in my magazine that do the editors of the magazines for which you write, yet that is not sufficient for you. I'm not holding you to any special standard. Excuse me? You are indeed asking me to to adhere to a more rigorous standard than any of the editors for whom _you_ work, Mr. Nousaine. Please don't insult my intelligence by denying the obvious. I've merely asked why you hadn't bothered to chase down more of the recommended accessory products because they are all highly [recommended] and so many of them offer specific sound quality improvements. Because it is as impractical for me to do so with _every_ product as it is for the editors of the magazines for which you work, Mr. Nousaine. If you make that request of me, you are obliged to make that request of them also, surely? That you haven't personally tried them all isn't an issue. Again, Mr. Nousaine, a literal wording of your comments gives people the opposite impression. If I haven't "personally tried them" is not the issue, as you now state, why have you been insisting that I do so in the case of the Shakti Stones? What is an issue is that you'll publish a positive assessment of what appears to be an extraordinary or even an unusual one and then walk away from it by claiming agnosticism. As I have explained to you repeatedly, Mr. Nousaine, this is only an issue if you regard the Shakti Stones, if they have an effect on sound quality, as having one that is "extraordinary" or "unusual." You appear to think that's the case, I don't. Shouldn't that be the end of story? Unless you wish the editorial decisions of magazines other than your own to be submitted to you for your approval? If you think that telling the truth is censorship then I'm all for it :-) As has been pointed out, Mr Nousaine, your "truth" is another's opinion. This is a very revealing statement of yours, smiley emoticon or not. Actually none of this is "my" truth. No, Mr. Nousaine, none of this is your "truth," which is why I put the word in quotes. Instead they are your _opinions_. It seems to me that you are claiming a special status for your opinions, ie, that they be unquestioned truth, as in your next comment: I refer to sound quality aspects that have been verified as to having a known effect on acoustical performance and those which have been merely speculated as having sonic impact but never verified as having such. What specific sound quality aspect of the Shakti Stone are you referring to as being "verified," Mr. Nousaine, and which have not been "verified"? When did _you_ try the Shakti devices, in order to be so sure of their effect? You seem to assume that every opinion must be accepted as audio truth just you and your staff says so. Again I ask you not to put words in my mouth, Mr. Nousaine, as hard as it may be for you not to do so. I have repeatedly stated that the opinions published in Stereophile are just that, _opinions_, to be considered on their own merits or lack thereof. This is why, for example, you find _opposing_ opinions in the pages of Stereophile. I try to publish both sides of the story. In the case of the Shakti Stones, I published reviews by both one of my more extreme subjectivists and by one of my contributors who is an extreme skeptic. THey agreed on the product's merits. What more needed to be done? I'm actually quite uncertain as to how you think [The Sensible Sound] censors anything. There are plenty of statements and opinions made there from other contributors that I think are questionable. But [it's] refreshing that they WON'T censor my contributions even when I say unpopular things. That reflects well on Karl Nehring, Mr. Nousaine. I am sorry you don't wish to extend to me the same liberty for which you compliment Mr. Nehring regarding the opinions that are published in Stereophile. I have no power to extend you any liberty. You have no need for my approval. And I don't require yours when expressing my opinion and describing what I see in print. Please don't play with semantics, Mr. Nousaine. You stated that the editor of The Sensible Sound does not censor either what you write or what contributors who disagree with you write. Thus Karl Nehring does, in my opinion, a good job at allowing his contributors the freedom to express their opinions regardless of his _own_ beliefs. Yet this whole debate has centered around your objections to me practicing an identical editorial policy. All I am saying is that if your criticisms of me are correct, then you must also criticize your own editors on the same grounds. That you will not do so gives the lie to your argument, Mr. Nousaine. You are merely just another partisan player. But as I have said, you are hardly a disinterested party in this debate. So what? My subscription was paid for with the same color money as any other subsciber and there wasn't a "no opinion" clause written on the credit card slip. I am suggesting that your refusal to criticize your own editors for the same policies that you find objectionable in Stereophile stems from your inability to be disinterested when you write about magazines for which you _don't_ work, Mr. Nousaine. Couldn't be much clearer than that. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
"It is reason enough to pause and listen for yourself. That's all.
Rather than blindly accept Stewart's judgment (let's face it, when you call something "state-of-the-art" you are making a judgment, even if basing it on measurements. And frankly, high-end equipment has to be evaluated on sound as well as measurement. So unless Stewart is prepared to publish a peer-reviewed dbt of these two units versus say the Levinson combo, or the Linn player, or the new UA universal, then it is simply his opinion..one among many, many of whom do not agree." One need not do a dbt if measurement is being used to evaluate "state of the art", the numbers are self evaluating. Given the now established benchmark made using listening alone that shows differences in "sound" are hard to come by, then your evaluation is to establish an exception to the benchmark, one assumes? This kind of "you have an opinion and I have an opinion and we all have an opinion" is ok for many things, if there is not a benchmark such as audio now has. This kind of post modern deconstruction is the source of the nihilism in some audio circles. |
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ...
"It is reason enough to pause and listen for yourself. That's all. Rather than blindly accept Stewart's judgment (let's face it, when you call something "state-of-the-art" you are making a judgment, even if basing it on measurements. And frankly, high-end equipment has to be evaluated on sound as well as measurement. So unless Stewart is prepared to publish a peer-reviewed dbt of these two units versus say the Levinson combo, or the Linn player, or the new UA universal, then it is simply his opinion..one among many, many of whom do not agree." One need not do a dbt if measurement is being used to evaluate "state of the art", the numbers are self evaluating. Given the now established benchmark made using listening alone that shows differences in "sound" are hard to come by, then your evaluation is to establish an exception to the benchmark, one assumes? This kind of "you have an opinion and I have an opinion and we all have an opinion" is ok for many things, if there is not a benchmark such as audio now has. This kind of post modern deconstruction is the source of the nihilism in some audio circles. State-of-the-art via measurement alone suggests a) we know what to measure and what is irrelevant; I don't believe there is a consense on this even among audio engineers; b) that we know how all the interactions do/do not affect perceived sound quality; there appears to be no consensus on this. So all you can say with measurements that on measurement "A", this particular piece of equipment appears to be state-of-the-art. On something as complex as a universal disk player, there is no way you can say that its sound is state-of-the-art based on measurements alone. As to "nihilism", straw man alert. I did not say all opinions count equally, or that only opinions count. Read the above again. I said specifically, the disagreement among many observers who follow developments in this industry closely suggests one listen for themselves, since there is a wide divergence (as opposed to convergence) of opinion. I further said Stewart needed a better standard than his say so if he was to establish the "state of the art" via his opinion. The same goes for any given reviewer. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Power conditioner or power cord or something else | Audio Opinions | |||
| Audiophilia updated | Audio Opinions | |||
| Crazy market saturation! | Car Audio | |||
| Note to the Idiot | Audio Opinions | |||
| System balance for LP? | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
