Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #441   Report Post  
Bromo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?

On 6/12/04 12:56 PM, in article jBGyc.32786$HG.21420@attbi_s53, "Nousaine"
wrote:

No. I mentioned another year's figure in passing to demonstrate that
the year you chose was not representative. I made no claim that this
other year was typical or representative.


OK why not just post all the years from 1999 to now?


As you are the accuser - and he has handily refuted you - it seems the
burden of proof is in your court, actually.
  #442   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?

In message jBGyc.32786$HG.21420@attbi_s53
Tom Nousaine ) wrote
(John Atkinson) wrote:
Tom Nousaine ) wrote in message
...
(John Atkinson) wrote:
(Nousaine) wrote in message
news:rU9xc.14227$HG.12445@attbi_s53...
(John Atkinson) wrote:
Now you are asking that I limit my analysis to just the issues for
which I have been responsible, though it is fair to point out that
you made no such qualification when you claimed that "12%" of the
products reviewed in Stereophile were cables, nor did you clarify
until pressed that you were basing your "12%" figure on just one
year's worth of Stereophile issues (2001).

I specifically said that I examined one January list of prior years
products and found that 12% of them were cables.

Yes. I pointed out that you happened to choose a year where more
cables had been written about than usual to derive your typical
figure.


No response from Tom Nousaine. This is a serious point: that if Mr.
Nousaine is presenting statistical information to support his point,
his picking and choosing among the data is both misleading and bad
science.


No "science" is needed to examine a consumer magazine. Please.


An extraordinary non sequitur, Mr. Nousaine. You appear to be saying
that because a magazine is aimed at consumers instead of, I assume,
intended as a scientific journal, that someone critical of its content
is somehow justified in faking a statistical analysis of that content,
as you did in the case of your statement about the incidence of cable
reviews in Stereophile. As I said, extraordinary.

The reviews [in] Stereophile seem to disregard any of the available
data on the sound of wires/amplifiers/digital reproduction, even those
conducted by yourself.


A perfectly legitimate opinion for you to hold and express, Mr.
Nousaine. I see no need to argue with your opinions. I disagree, is all.

Indeed, you personally made a claim in a newsgroup ('subjects were able
to hear a single electrolytic capacitor in the signal path') based on
evidence available for review that did not show that to be the case.


Regarding my 1985 tests of capacitors, you have raised this subject many
times on the newsgroups, as well as in your column in The Audio Critic,
and I have argued with you before about your interpretation of the
results. I see no need to do so again. I also fail to understand what
relevance it has to the subject of Stereophile's reviews of cables.

You then cherry-picked another year...

No. I mentioned another year's figure in passing to demonstrate
that the year you chose was not representative. I made no claim
that this other year was typical or representative.


OK why not just post all the years from 1999 to now?


Why do I have to do that, Mr. Nousaine? I have now repeatedly posted
the incidence of cable reviews when all reviews are considered (5%)
and the incidence of cable reviews since I became editor of Stereophile
(6%). I respecfully suggest that as _you_ are one who is making the
claims, you are the one obliged to do the work to support those claims.
I have repeatedly posted the Web address where you can find the raw data.

I am [interested] in answers. How many of of those cables wound up on
your RCL the following year? How many of the amplifiers reviewed in
that year wound up on your RCL? You have steadfastly refused to answer
those questions; instead "answering" with vague statements.


Again, Mr. Nousaine, these are all questions for which you can work out
the answers yourself. I don't see why, in a thread where I am trying to
address a specific misstatement you made about Stereophile's content,
that I am therefore obliged to answer _all_ the questions you throw up
in an apparent smokescreen of confusion and obfuscation.

I assume you wish to downplay the "significance of cabling," Mr.
Nousaine because you believe that cables, provided they are of the
appropriate length, gauge, and construction, don't affect sound
quality.


I don't "believe" that cables are cable...all the extant evidence
shows that this is true.


In your opinion, Mr. Nousaine. Others hold different opinions, even
regarding the "extant evidence," it should be noted.

As I said, all I am doing is addressing your specific point
concerning the proportion of _reviews_ of cables published in
Stereophile. As I have shown, to derive your "12%" of reviews that
you decribed as referring to a "few years," you chose a specific
single year (2001) that was untypical. However you wish to describe
this -- "cherry picking," "data dredging" -- it is bad science on
your part.


There is no science involved.


Considering that the subject being discussed was your statistical
analysis of the incidence of cable reviews in Stereophile, this is a
surprising admission on your part, Mr. Nousaine.

The significance of cabling is reflected in [Stereophile's Recommended
Components list], mentions in reviews and perhaps most loudly in the
allied component lists.


Of course. No-one has said otherwise. All I have been doing is addressing
your incorrect analysis of the incidence of cable reviews in Stereophile.
You should note that I have not expressed any opinion _at all_ about the
significance of Stereophile's overall coverage of cables. It is what it
is. If you feel that that coverage is out of proportion to the importance
of cables in absolute terms, that is an opinion you are welcome to hold.
I don't see any need to argue with it, nor do I see any need to change
either my own opinion or how I edit Stereophile as a result of you
expressing your opinion.

You keep trying to pretend you were talking about Stereophile's
Recommended Components listing when Dr. Richman's original statement
and your original response concerned _reviews_.

No pretense. I think that restricting the data discussion to items
"reviewed" understates the relative importance of cabling in your
publication.


So why then did _you_ make that restriction, Mr. Nousaine? Here again
are your exact words:

A study of one of the last few years Reviewed Components for the
previous years showed 12% were cabling, more than any other
single product category except digital components and loudspeakers.


Please note that all I have been attempting to do in this thread is
to correct your statement that "12%" of the reviews published in
Stereophile were of cables. Yes, you have brought into the discussion
Stereophile's "Recommended Components" listings, amplifiers, the
ancillary components listed in our reviews, even the late Julian
Hirsch and Stereo Review's editing policy [and now my 1985 capacitor
listening tests], when all you really needed to do was acknowledge that
your 12% figure was incorrect, that the actual figure is 5% when all
the reviews published by Stereophile are taken into account, or 6% when
the reviews are restricted to those published since I became the
magazine's editor in May 1986.


Please I made no restrictions on any given point.


Really? I quoted your exact words above, Mr. Nousaine. Both Dr. Richman
and you were clearly first referenced the incidence of _reviews_
published in Stereophile and _that_ was what I was addressing. That you
subsequently expanded your initial statement to explain that you had all
along been talking about the incidence of cables in Stereophile's
"Recommended Components" still doesn't make your "12%" figure correct.

My point was that Richman was wrong when he made the statement...


Really? Here are Dr. Richman's exact words:

Even the content of such magazines as Stereophile and The
Absolute Sound, contain relatively few cable reviews...


and, of course if you restrict yourself to "reviews" he was right. I
have said so.


If you had, I must have missed it, Mr. Nousaine. My apologies for
prolonging the argument unduly, therefore.

But if you look at the overall imprint of Stereophile it looks like
you are more than happy to Recommend that enthusiasts devote at least
10% to cabling.


10% of what, Mr. Nousaine? The number of components in enthusiasts'
systems? Their total enthusiam for audio? What they're prepared to spend
on components?

I'm just interested in who is caring for readers (like me) and who is
not. And as far as I can see Stereophile is not in a general sense.
And that's primarily because you are carrying and occasionally promoting
the High-End Myths and [Urban] Legends instead of emphasizing acoustical
performance.


In your opinion, Mr. Nousaine. I am content to let readers make up their
own minds on the value of the information Stereophile offers them.

publishing a Recommended Components List that includes products
that might not even exist or have not been evaluated (NR)

I don't know which magazine you are referring to here, Mr. Nousaine.
Every product recommended in Stereophile's listing exists and has
been evaluated. The "NR" to which you refer means that while the
product has indeed been evaluated, a review has not been published.

You acknowledged in this newgroup that your RCL listed a product
(Grado cartridge) that never existed and had never been reviewed did
you not?


Excuse me? This was an mid-1990s parenthetical mention of a product
that was not specifically being recommended. Here is the exact wording
that bothered Norman Schwartz. It appeared in the middle of an entry
for a Grado cartridge that was being recommended, that had been
reviewed: "Will hum if used with older AR decks (an "AR" version is
available)."


OK, fair enough.


Good. Perhaps you will consider the matter closed. But...

Why did it remain on the list for more than a single issue?


Apparently the matter is not closed. As best as I can recall -- this all
happened in the mid 1990s and the correspondence is long discarded -- we
included this mention in the list until we were informed by the
manufacturer that this special version never made it into production. At
which point, in 1996, we eliminated the mention. Even so, I still fail
to understand why this subject is such a "gotcha," either for Mr.
Schwartz or now for you.

Look, Mr. Nousaine, if you are serious about making it your mission
to criticize magazines that compete with your own, why don't you
investigate the fact that some reviewers (not Stereophile's) act as
paid consultants for manufacturers whose products they review?


Asked before. Who are you talking about?


If you note the number of quotation brevets (), Mr. Nousaine, you
will note that you are inserting an answer into text quoted from prior
messages. That is why it looks to you as if it was "asked before." It
was.

Time and resources permitting I will conduct independent evaluations
for manufacturers on contract and and DIY enthusiasts but I do not
now nor have I ever consulted in design with a manufacturer.


No-one has said that you do "consult in design," Mr. Nousaine. But if
you do consultancy work of _any_ kind for manufacturers whose products
you review, shouldn't that fact be made public in your published
evaluations? And why isn't it a conflict of interest?


It has been publicly acknowledged.


Not in the magazines to which you contribute, Mr. Nousaine, that I could
find. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, of course. Could you give me an
issue and page-number reference?

And I've never reviewed a product (or measured one for another evaluator
that I've measured independently in the course of a review)...


Forgive me, but it is unclear what you are saying here. By "measured
independently," are you referring to your consultancy work for
manufacturers? If so, does that mean that your consultancy work is
restricted to the same kind of measurements that you publish in Sound &
Vision and Mobile Entertainment? And if so, am I correct in inferring
that you've never reviewed a product or published measurements of a
product that you have consulted on?

Here, by the way, is what you wrote in an earlier posting on this
subject, in message :

I have occasionally been hired by home audio loudspeaker companies to
evaluate products on a for-hire basis providing data like that contained
in my magazine reports or on some occasions exceeding same.


And in message :

In my case the magazine doesn't pay me nearly enough to preclude
opportunity for other work in the field. My contract only specifically
requires story ideas to them first and to obtain prior agreement for
any editorial work for a competing publication.


...but even if that had happened, so what?


Personally, I feel that for a reviewer to be paid by a manufacturer for
work he does for them when the same reviewer may then be called on to
evaluate that company's products by a magazine by whom he is also paid is
by _definition_ a conflict of interest. My opinion.

There is also the fact that no matter how honest the reviewer is and
how disinterested he can remain, the manufacturers are not bound by any
conflict of interest and can start offering the reviewer consultancy
work _because_ he also writes reviews.

This is why Stereophile's reviewers cannot do consultancy work, period.
Other magazines practise other policies, which is fine by me as long as
the policy is made public so readers can judge accordingly.

Measurements are measurements. Why would that be a conflict of interest?


See above.

As far as other instances I know of none offhand. [The late] Peter
Mitchell consulted and evaluated products but as far as I know he
didn't review his own work.


Yes, Peter's primary career was as a consultant. As he wrote a news
column for Stereophile when he was alive, not reviews, I don't see
that this was a conflict of interest.


As above; why not?


Because a) Peter did not evaluate products for Stereophile, b) his
consultancy work was declared up front in Stereophile, and c) even in
his news columns, Peter never wrote one word in Stereophile about the
companies to which he was a consultant.

When Peter approached me in 1987 about him writing a news column for
Stereophile, these are the conditions we arrived at, in order to allow
him to do so.

Why don't you investigate a magazine (not Stereophile) whose current
policy is to sell its cover to an advertiser?

I'm guessing that you are bringing up The Audio [Critic] and Fourier
loudspeaker issue again.


Why would you guess that, Mr. Nousaine? I used the word "current."
And The Audio Critic didn't "sell its cover to an advertiser," it
published a highly complimentary review of a product made by a
company in which the magazine's editor, by his subsequent admission,
had a 50% equity holding.


OK who is currently consulting on products that they are reviewing?
And who is selling the cover?


A Google Web search combined with a groups.google.com search will give
you some answers to these questions, Mr. Nousaine. I instanced them
because you are the one who endlessly questions the ethics and motives
of Stereophile on the newsgroups, you are the one who publishes a column
in The Audio Critic where you criticize the content of audio magazines
including that of Stereophile. You pretend to be a disinterested observer,
Mr. Nousaine, yet you don't seem at all interested in what I personally
regard as major ethical breeches committed by writers for and editors of
magazines other than Stereophile (including some of those to which you
contribute).

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

  #443   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?

(John Atkinson)

....snips of items considered by me closed...In message
jBGyc.32786$HG.21420@attbi_s53
Tom Nousaine ) wrote
(John Atkinson) wrote:



Again, Mr. Nousaine, these are all questions for which you can work out
the answers yourself. I don't see why, in a thread where I am trying to
address a specific misstatement you made about Stereophile's content,
that I am therefore obliged to answer _all_ the questions you throw up
in an apparent smokescreen of confusion and obfuscation.


Actually I think the smokescreen lay on your side of the fence. IMO your
publication encourages Audio Urban Legends (seemingly occasionally invents some
.....like Armor All) yet you claim higher ethics.

I see no reason that people shouldn't be exposed to things that seem evident
from a careful read of the magazine. Like nearly every product that gets
reviewed gets a place on the Recommended Components List or that the list
claimed more components than were actually there for some time. Or that
wires/cabling seem to carry a significance that exceeds their sonic
contribution.

I assume you wish to downplay the "significance of cabling," Mr.
Nousaine because you believe that cables, provided they are of the
appropriate length, gauge, and construction, don't affect sound
quality.


I don't "believe" that cables are cable...all the extant evidence
shows that this is true.


In your opinion, Mr. Nousaine. Others hold different opinions, even
regarding the "extant evidence," it should be noted.


Sure. That's fine but it seems to me that those who hold 'opinions' held that
are contrary available controlled listening test evidence ought to be noted.


As I said, all I am doing is addressing your specific point
concerning the proportion of _reviews_ of cables published in
Stereophile. As I have shown, to derive your "12%" of reviews that
you decribed as referring to a "few years," you chose a specific
single year (2001) that was untypical. However you wish to describe
this -- "cherry picking," "data dredging" -- it is bad science on
your part.


There is no science involved.


Considering that the subject being discussed was your statistical
analysis of the incidence of cable reviews in Stereophile, this is a
surprising admission on your part, Mr. Nousaine.

The significance of cabling is reflected in [Stereophile's Recommended
Components list], mentions in reviews and perhaps most loudly in the
allied component lists.


Of course. No-one has said otherwise. All I have been doing is addressing
your incorrect analysis of the incidence of cable reviews in Stereophile.
You should note that I have not expressed any opinion _at all_ about the
significance of Stereophile's overall coverage of cables.


So what is your opinion? And what is your opinion on the "sound" of
interconnects and speaker cables?

It is what it
is. If you feel that that coverage is out of proportion to the importance
of cables in absolute terms, that is an opinion you are welcome to hold.
I don't see any need to argue with it, nor do I see any need to change
either my own opinion or how I edit Stereophile as a result of you
expressing your opinion.


I have never expected anything to change :-)


You keep trying to pretend you were talking about Stereophile's
Recommended Components listing when Dr. Richman's original statement
and your original response concerned _reviews_.

No pretense. I think that restricting the data discussion to items
"reviewed" understates the relative importance of cabling in your
publication.

So why then did _you_ make that restriction, Mr. Nousaine? Here again
are your exact words:

A study of one of the last few years Reviewed Components for the
previous years showed 12% were cabling, more than any other
single product category except digital components and loudspeakers.

Please note that all I have been attempting to do in this thread is
to correct your statement that "12%" of the reviews published in
Stereophile were of cables. Yes, you have brought into the discussion
Stereophile's "Recommended Components" listings, amplifiers, the
ancillary components listed in our reviews, even the late Julian
Hirsch and Stereo Review's editing policy [and now my 1985 capacitor
listening tests], when all you really needed to do was acknowledge that
your 12% figure was incorrect, that the actual figure is 5% when all
the reviews published by Stereophile are taken into account, or 6% when
the reviews are restricted to those published since I became the
magazine's editor in May 1986.


Please I made no restrictions on any given point.


Really? I quoted your exact words above, Mr. Nousaine. Both Dr. Richman
and you were clearly first referenced the incidence of _reviews_
published in Stereophile and _that_ was what I was addressing. That you
subsequently expanded your initial statement to explain that you had all
along been talking about the incidence of cables in Stereophile's
"Recommended Components" still doesn't make your "12%" figure correct.


I see nothing wrong with expanding discussion. But in the same vein the 12% was
a real figure and verifyable.

My point was that Richman was wrong when he made the statement...


Really? Here are Dr. Richman's exact words:

Even the content of such magazines as Stereophile and The
Absolute Sound, contain relatively few cable reviews...


and, of course if you restrict yourself to "reviews" he was right. I
have said so.


If you had, I must have missed it, Mr. Nousaine. My apologies for
prolonging the argument unduly, therefore.

But if you look at the overall imprint of Stereophile it looks like
you are more than happy to Recommend that enthusiasts devote at least
10% to cabling.


10% of what, Mr. Nousaine? The number of components in enthusiasts'
systems? Their total enthusiam for audio? What they're prepared to spend
on components?


That's a good question. If I took a quick survey of the listed accessories of a
couple reviews in the June issue I might get a higher number. If we use your
review criteria we'd come to 6%. I haven't figured out the 'price' ratio.

But because there has been so much discussion in this thread over cabling and
the idea that you have placed so much effort in addressing (defending) coverage
of items that have never been shown by any interested party to actually have a
positive (in the sense of improving acoustically reproduced sound) I'm
wondering why the real figure matters. That there IS a real figure for
Stereophile (and other high-end parties I might add) toargue about is of
interest all by itself.



I'm just interested in who is caring for readers (like me) and who is
not. And as far as I can see Stereophile is not in a general sense.
And that's primarily because you are carrying and occasionally promoting
the High-End Myths and [Urban] Legends instead of emphasizing acoustical
performance.


In your opinion, Mr. Nousaine. I am content to let readers make up their
own minds on the value of the information Stereophile offers them.


Agreed. As a subscriber I have given you mine.

...snip discussion about Grado....

Look, Mr. Nousaine, if you are serious about making it your mission
to criticize magazines that compete with your own, why don't you
investigate the fact that some reviewers (not Stereophile's) act as
paid consultants for manufacturers whose products they review?


Asked before. Who are you talking about?


If you note the number of quotation brevets (), Mr. Nousaine, you
will note that you are inserting an answer into text quoted from prior
messages. That is why it looks to you as if it was "asked before." It
was.

Time and resources permitting I will conduct independent evaluations
for manufacturers on contract and and DIY enthusiasts but I do not
now nor have I ever consulted in design with a manufacturer.

No-one has said that you do "consult in design," Mr. Nousaine. But if
you do consultancy work of _any_ kind for manufacturers whose products
you review, shouldn't that fact be made public in your published
evaluations? And why isn't it a conflict of interest?


It has been publicly acknowledged.


Not in the magazines to which you contribute, Mr. Nousaine, that I could
find. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, of course. Could you give me an
issue and page-number reference?


None of this has ever been a secret. I've publicly acknowledged such on line.
As far as I know no publication, even yours, has ever listed the resume of a
reviewer.


And I've never reviewed a product (or measured one for another evaluator
that I've measured independently in the course of a review)...


Forgive me, but it is unclear what you are saying here. By "measured
independently," are you referring to your consultancy work for
manufacturers? If so, does that mean that your consultancy work is
restricted to the same kind of measurements that you publish in Sound &
Vision and Mobile Entertainment? And if so, am I correct in inferring
that you've never reviewed a product or published measurements of a
product that you have consulted on?


That is true. The companies that submit products for review in Sound & Vision
(and even The Audio Critic and The $ensible Sound) are large enough to have
their own measurement facilities.

But, again I have not "consulted" on any products other than making
measurements similar to those published in the mentioned publications.


Here, by the way, is what you wrote in an earlier posting on this
subject, in message :

I have occasionally been hired by home audio loudspeaker companies to
evaluate products on a for-hire basis providing data like that contained
in my magazine reports or on some occasions exceeding same.


And in message :

In my case the magazine doesn't pay me nearly enough to preclude
opportunity for other work in the field. My contract only specifically
requires story ideas to them first and to obtain prior agreement for
any editorial work for a competing publication.


...but even if that had happened, so what?


Personally, I feel that for a reviewer to be paid by a manufacturer for
work he does for them when the same reviewer may then be called on to
evaluate that company's products by a magazine by whom he is also paid is
by _definition_ a conflict of interest. My opinion.


Well by that logic I'd say that any manufacturer who buys advertising in a
publication and also submits products for review should be covered under the
same restraints.

There is also the fact that no matter how honest the reviewer is and
how disinterested he can remain, the manufacturers are not bound by any
conflict of interest and can start offering the reviewer consultancy
work _because_ he also writes reviews.


So far that hasn't been an issue. The companies that are interested in this
have been small start-ups. Of course, what you said could be true....but the
same temptations reside in the publishing side.

This is why Stereophile's reviewers cannot do consultancy work, period.
Other magazines practise other policies, which is fine by me as long as
the policy is made public so readers can judge accordingly.

Measurements are measurements. Why would that be a conflict of interest?


See above.

As far as other instances I know of none offhand. [The late] Peter
Mitchell consulted and evaluated products but as far as I know he
didn't review his own work.

Yes, Peter's primary career was as a consultant. As he wrote a news
column for Stereophile when he was alive, not reviews, I don't see
that this was a conflict of interest.


As above; why not?


Because a) Peter did not evaluate products for Stereophile, b) his
consultancy work was declared up front in Stereophile, and c) even in
his news columns, Peter never wrote one word in Stereophile about the
companies to which he was a consultant.


How do you know? How were readers supposed to know that? These are rhetorical
questions because I've never seen any publication publish a client list of
contributors or staff. And although I haven't read every issue of Stereophile
this is the first time that I've heard this policy made public.


When Peter approached me in 1987 about him writing a news column for
Stereophile, these are the conditions we arrived at, in order to allow
him to do so.

Why don't you investigate a magazine (not Stereophile) whose current
policy is to sell its cover to an advertiser?

I'm guessing that you are bringing up The Audio [Critic] and Fourier
loudspeaker issue again.

Why would you guess that, Mr. Nousaine? I used the word "current."
And The Audio Critic didn't "sell its cover to an advertiser," it
published a highly complimentary review of a product made by a
company in which the magazine's editor, by his subsequent admission,
had a 50% equity holding.


OK who is currently consulting on products that they are reviewing?
And who is selling the cover?


A Google Web search combined with a groups.google.com search will give
you some answers to these questions, Mr. Nousaine. I instanced them
because you are the one who endlessly questions the ethics and motives
of Stereophile on the newsgroups, you are the one who publishes a column
in The Audio Critic where you criticize the content of audio magazines
including that of Stereophile. You pretend to be a disinterested observer,
Mr. Nousaine, yet you don't seem at all interested in what I personally
regard as major ethical breeches committed by writers for and editors of
magazines other than Stereophile (including some of those to which you
contribute).


John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


OK so you're content to make obscure accusations and not back them? That's fine
with me.
  #444   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?

test, or has it already been done?
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 6/11/2004 9:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 3Rvyc.13294$eu.4395@attbi_s02

(S888Wheel) wrote:
.
From:
(Nousaine)
Date: 6/10/2004 6:49 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: GFZxc.467$zz.441@attbi_s04

(S888Wheel) wrote:

....snips......

But what does listing these accessories in a speaker review ( Richard
Gray's
Power Company Substation isolation transformer, 1200s, 600s, & Pole Pig
power
conditioners; Sounds of Silence Vibraplane active isolation platform;
Symposium
Ultrashelf, Finite Elemente equipment stands' Audioharma Cable Cooker;
Walker
Precision Isolated Motor Drive, ACS Tube Traps, Shakti Stones & On-Lines;
PRG,
BAD, Abbfusor panels as accessories; in addition to 7 assorted cables) do
for
anyone's credibility?

Plenty for some, nothing for some others, including you. However it seems

to
me
that the listing of room treatment for a speaker review is quite

important.
by
the looks of your post it seems you might not agree. I will keep this in
mind
should I read a speaker rview by you.

I have nothing against room treatments but the above says nothing about
how/when/why thet were used.


The above, is what you wrote. The reviewers have described their set ups in
detail in previous issues if memory serves me. The details included

placement
of room treatments. If you are concerned about how room treatements are

being
used you might consider an e mail asking how they are used. The fact they

are
used seems pretty relevant to me.


First I'm not worried about anything.



Then why express concern about not knowing how the reviewer is using them?


My point is that when fancy cables,
audio
equipment racks. shakti stones etc. are "listed" it makes me question the
credibility of the reviewer rather than reinforce it



Sorry but in the case of Stereophile, it seems you give them no credibility
regardless of whether or not the reviewers list the associated equipment or
not. It looks to me that your conclusion was already gone determined.

AND it appears to me
that
listing of those audio-candy items as evaluation "accessories" when there is
no
acoustical mechanism for sonic improvement why would a rational person think
that the iterms that could improve the situation would be effectively
employed?


It appears this really more about your philisophical differences with other
audiophiles and reviewers. Not all the readers of Stereophile agree with your
beliefs on what makes a difference and what doesn't. make a difference. You are
free to denegrade everyone who does not see the world as you see it by calling
them irrational but Stereophile does not cater to your personal sensibilities.



My point has nothing at all to do with the effectiveness of room treatments
(although some of them rate as snake-oil) as such. This post was assessing
whether listing such along with audio-jewelry enhances the credibility of the
review. IMO, it does not.



What does it matter? The reviews in Stereophile already have no credability
with you anyways do they? Would the reviews in any publication *loose*
credibity with you if the reviewers listed all associated equipment?



To me it 'appears' that because the reviewer also
lists audio candy that he may not have effectively employed such devices.


Room treatments are audio candy? Why speculate on the use? Why not ask? If

it
weren't listed however, you wouldn't know to ask would you? The use of room
treatments certainly can affect the performance of a speaker. It makes
complete
sense to me that room treatments be listed in reviews. The *more* we know
about
the system used for evaluation the better. You seem to be arguing the *less*
we
know the better for the sake of space.


You're askew here. I'm saying that listing snake-oil as 'accessories'
obscures
the relevance of the real accessories and as used here tends to reduce the
credibility of the evaluator and appears to have other reasons behind the
screen.


Not everyone agrees on what is and is not snake oil. Again, Stereophile does
not and really cannot cater to you personally. You included room treatments in
your list. That is your mistake. Clearly they can make a difference and warrent
inclusion if a better informed reader is one of the goals of the review.



If you'll accept that (and I'm sure you don't) then it stands to reason that
this space might be better suited to other purposes.


I don't accept you as the arbitrator on what does and does not matter in a
system. I can filter the information for myself. I would rather have reviewers
ering on the side of too much information than not enough.

Even devoting it
straight
advertisments (instead of subliminal) might enable price reductions for
readers.


Do you find Stereophile subsciption rates unaffordable or unreasonable? I
don't.



IOW
the listing indicates that mythology may be more important than performance
to
this individual and that the accessory list is just a merchanding tool and

a
method of emphasizing self-importance.


How on earth is listing room treatments perpetuating any mythology?


Listing them along side "Ultrashelf, Finite Elemente equipment stands'
Audioharma Cable Cooker; Walker Precision Isolated Motor Drive, ...., Shakti
Stones & On-Lines;" just tends to put them into the high-end audio-candy
realm.
Indeed it diminishes their importance.


I think Stereophile is smart to let the readers sort those things out for
themselves.



How can
you
expect me to take your speaker reviews seriously if you hold such a belief?
Room treatments can make a huge difference. Listing them for speaker reviews
makes complete sense.


Well if I listed my draperies and carpets by brand (which have a large
acoustical impact) should that make anybody else feel "better" about my
reviews?


Should it make them feel worse? No. At least we would feel you are being quite
thourough. That does matter to me.


Who should think that there's something special about using Ultimate
brand tri-pod speaker stands for my surround speakers to the proper position
and height?



What is *wrong* with knowing exactly what was used?

Would listing the brand of mdf, drywall screws, glue or the brand
name of the blade used to cut the panels of my custom subwoofer make any
difference in its performance or the performance of a satellite speaker?


Why burn this strawman?



IMO the answer is No. And, "listing" such diverts attention from true
evaluation of sound quality performance.








  #445   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?

John Atkinson wrote:

In message jBGyc.32786$HG.21420@attbi_s53
Tom Nousaine ) wrote:


I'm just interested in who is caring for readers (like me) and who is
not. And as far as I can see Stereophile is not in a general sense.
And that's primarily because you are carrying and occasionally promoting
the High-End Myths and [Urban] Legends instead of emphasizing acoustical
performance.


In your opinion, Mr. Nousaine. I am content to let readers make up their
own minds on the value of the information Stereophile offers them.


This thread is getting huge, and so I am only going to
interject a couple of comments related to these particular
statements.

It seems to me as if the editor of a magazine should be
interested in the "value of the information" that magazine
offers. If his reviewers are offering up data that is
hyperbolic in nature he is by definition (as an editor)
obligated to sort out the more extreme facts and make sure
that impressionable and naive readers are not given
(intentionally given, or otherwise) bogus or misleading
information.

If an editor disagrees with some of the extreme points of
view his writers are putting forth (extreme in the sense
that some knowledgeable audio and/or electrical engineers
would strongly disagree) then he should rope them in and see
to it that they settle down a bit.

If he agrees with them, then perhaps he should not be
editing an audio magazine that supposedly is in the business
of helping consumers.

Howard Ferstler


  #446   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?

From: Howard Ferstler
Date: 6/14/2004 4:41 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

John Atkinson wrote:

In message jBGyc.32786$HG.21420@attbi_s53
Tom Nousaine ) wrote:


I'm just interested in who is caring for readers (like me) and who is
not. And as far as I can see Stereophile is not in a general sense.
And that's primarily because you are carrying and occasionally promoting
the High-End Myths and [Urban] Legends instead of emphasizing acoustical
performance.


In your opinion, Mr. Nousaine. I am content to let readers make up their
own minds on the value of the information Stereophile offers them.


This thread is getting huge, and so I am only going to
interject a couple of comments related to these particular
statements.

It seems to me as if the editor of a magazine should be
interested in the "value of the information" that magazine
offers.


"Value of information" in this case is not agreed upon. No editor of any
magazine is obligated to evaluate information based on your perspective or
Tom's. I am sure JA is already making such evaluations on a daily basis. The
success of the magazine depends on his choices in this matter to a large
degree. Looks like JA is doing OK in his evaluations.


If his reviewers are offering up data that is
hyperbolic in nature he is by definition (as an editor)
obligated to sort out the more extreme facts and make sure
that impressionable and naive readers are not given
(intentionally given, or otherwise) bogus or misleading
information.


Hyperbolic data? Could you cite an example of hyperbolic data? I don't think
subjective impressions are what one would typically call data.



If an editor disagrees with some of the extreme points of
view his writers are putting forth (extreme in the sense
that some knowledgeable audio and/or electrical engineers
would strongly disagree) then he should rope them in and see
to it that they settle down a bit.


Well. that is really the editor's call isn't it? You are free to start an audio
publication and set that rule.



If he agrees with them, then perhaps he should not be
editing an audio magazine that supposedly is in the business
of helping consumers.


An opinion you get to have but one that clearly isn't held universally. It
seems you wish to eliminate the publication of ideas in audio with which you
don't agree.





  #447   Report Post  
GRL
 
Posts: n/a
Default Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?

I work in science and do GLP and cGMP studies regulated by the EPA and FDA.
Equipment is listed in our reports and raw data, but only equipment whose
performance characteristics may have a direct impact on the outcome of the
study. We don't record power cords. We don't record manufacturer and model
of deuterium lamps in detectors (lamps are lamps), we don't record
manufacturer and model of stainless steel tubing, we don't record
manufacturer and model of volumetric glassware, we don't record manufacturer
and model of weighing boats etc. etc.

Nobody does, because it does not matter, just as the things that Mr.
Nousaine brings up do not matter in the STEREOPHILE et al. audio reviews he
is writing about. It's just a waste of space, although I personally think
that in the case of STEREOPHILE that is not a tragedy.


- GRL

"It's good to want things."

Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist,
Visual Basic programmer)
"Bromo" wrote in message
...
On 6/7/04 6:34 PM, in article , "Nousaine"
wrote:

I've thought about this. IMO unless the ancillary equipment has a

bearing on
the performance of the product being tested (and there's no evidence

that
competent electronic devices and accessories such as cabling) then such

a
listing reduces the space available for the product actually being

reviewed
(or
others, or other content.)

So from an outsiders view such a listing can only serve three possible
purposes:

1. It's a subliminal advertisement for the listed accessories.
2. It attempts to raise the status and self-image of the reviewer.

and finally

3. It helps keep the wire/amp/tweak mythology going.

I think it's a waste of valuable space.


Thank goodness you don't edit a magazine! To show the equipment used is a
basic premise in any sort of scientific record keeping. Whether you agree
with their conclusions, test conditions, etc, I cannot believe you are
advising them to stop listing equipment used to "measure" the stuff!

I could listen to a CD through the built in speakers of my iMac - and not
liste the equipment and pass judgement. If people didn't see that I had
good sound quality reproduction equipment - where is the credibility?


  #449   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?

S888Wheel wrote:

From: Howard Ferstler
Date: 6/14/2004 4:41 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

John Atkinson wrote:

In message jBGyc.32786$HG.21420@attbi_s53
Tom Nousaine ) wrote:


I'm just interested in who is caring for readers (like me) and who is
not. And as far as I can see Stereophile is not in a general sense.
And that's primarily because you are carrying and occasionally promoting
the High-End Myths and [Urban] Legends instead of emphasizing acoustical
performance.


In your opinion, Mr. Nousaine. I am content to let readers make up their
own minds on the value of the information Stereophile offers them.


This thread is getting huge, and so I am only going to
interject a couple of comments related to these particular
statements.

It seems to me as if the editor of a magazine should be
interested in the "value of the information" that magazine
offers.


"Value of information" in this case is not agreed upon.


Well, in my humble opinion information that is erroneous is
not particularly valuable, unless you are talking about
advertisers and manufacturers who depend upon error to sell
products. And it does not matter if the reviewer putting
forth that information is just confused or doing his work to
keep impressionable readers on the edges of their collective
seats. It still misinforms the readers.

Because most audio or electrical engineers agree with
Nousaine that wire (within reason, of course) is pretty much
wire (especially if we are talking about speaker cables), it
would be proper for the editor of a magazine that supposedly
has its readers best interests at heart to make sure that
reviewers treat wire as it should be treated - and not put
forth mythologically related opinions about the performance
of upscale (and expensive) wires.

No editor of any
magazine is obligated to evaluate information based on your perspective or
Tom's.


Well, of course not. However, in the case of a supposedly
accurate and technically oriented magazine they should
"evaluate information" based upon known scientific
principles and the considered opinions of scads of
electrical and audio engineers.

I am sure JA is already making such evaluations on a daily basis. The
success of the magazine depends on his choices in this matter to a large
degree.


It also depends upon a group of readers, who, as I have
noted in other commentaries, are sitting on the edges of
their collective seats, waiting for the latest hyperbolic
news from audio headquarters.

Looks like JA is doing OK in his evaluations.


It depends upon what the magazine is supposed to do. If its
job is to entertain a bunch of naive enthusiasts
(irrespective of any accuracy issues), who have a
mythological attachment to audio hyperbole then by your
standings he is "doing OK." However, if the magazine is
doing what it claims it is doing, namely giving useful and
accurate information to the readers (at least about wire in
this case), then maybe it is not quite so successful.

If his reviewers are offering up data that is
hyperbolic in nature he is by definition (as an editor)
obligated to sort out the more extreme facts and make sure
that impressionable and naive readers are not given
(intentionally given, or otherwise) bogus or misleading
information.


Hyperbolic data? Could you cite an example of hyperbolic data? I don't think
subjective impressions are what one would typically call data.


Well, they listen to the wires and make comments about
soundstaging, depth, clarity, etc. Seems is that is pretty
hyperbolic data. At least bona fide audio and electrical
engineers would call it hyperbolic. Now, all it would take
is a quick series of DBT comparisons to determine if upscale
wire is all that special. This is an issue that could be
solved pretty fast, if what we are talking about is the
audible advantages of super-duper wire.

Yep, they could DBT compare some really, really upscale
stuff to lamp cord. Given that they do hair-splitting
comparisons between different upscale wire brands and write
borderline poetry about how one brand does one thing well
and the other brand does something else well, it seems
likely that they could hear differences between, say, 16-AWG
lamp cord and some megabuck speaker wires with relative
ease, and do so consistently in any kind of DBT situation.

However, as best I can tell (admittedly, I rarely read the
magazine these days), all the reviewers really do is
recommend the wire based upon some very sloppy work. Is this
what an upscale audio magazine is supposed to do? Well, it
might be just that, if what the readers want is fairy tails
and not hard and fast data.

If an editor disagrees with some of the extreme points of
view his writers are putting forth (extreme in the sense
that some knowledgeable audio and/or electrical engineers
would strongly disagree) then he should rope them in and see
to it that they settle down a bit.


Well. that is really the editor's call isn't it? You are free to start an audio
publication and set that rule.


Sure. However, what we are talking about right here is what
Mr. Atkinson does with his magazine. Has he ever personally
come out and said that super-duper wires can make an audible
difference, compared to more mundane versions? What is his
take on the subject of wire? If he agrees with all those
audio and electrical engineers that super-duper wire is
overkill, then why on earth does he let his reviewers go on
and on about special wire? And why is said special wire
listed in any kind of recommended products list the magazine
publishes?

If he agrees with them, then perhaps he should not be
editing an audio magazine that supposedly is in the business
of helping consumers.


An opinion you get to have but one that clearly isn't held universally. It
seems you wish to eliminate the publication of ideas in audio with which you
don't agree.


Nope. For example, some people prefer narrow-dispersion
speakers to wider-dispersion designs. I tend to favor the
latter, but I certainly can see the reasoning behind the
narrow-dispersion concept, particularly when we consider
that they can be installed in surround-sound systems that
generate off-axis ambiance that may be superior to what we
get with simple wall reflections from wide-dispersion
speakers. Indeed, one of my three systems makes use of
speakers of that kind (with surround sound, of course), and
I can see why they are so attractive to other enthusiasts,
including some very knowledgeable ones. I would imagine that
there are also audio and electrical engineers out there who
prefer the narrow-dispersion concept. Taste plays a part
here, I am sure.

But in the case of some products (wire, for sure, but also
amps and CD players), this is not the case. Taste is not
involved when there are no audible differences at all. At
least if we are talking about sound quality and not other
things like heft, durability, bragging rights, etc.

In other words, my problem is not that I object to certain
people's tastes. My problem is that certain reviewers are
generating information that is clearly misleading. I do not
know if they are themselves deluded or if they are
intentionally trying to dupe people in order to pump up
circulation.

The BIG problem is that the people who have a psychological
dependence upon audio hype have to a great extent been
created by fringe-element journalism. That is, over the
years certain magazines have created a Frankenstein monster.
No doubt (in my mind, at least) this was initially done,
because certain audio journalists had strong beliefs about
audibility issues. They really thought they could hear
differences, and they never really did settle down and do
rigorous comparisons to see if their impressions were
correct.

When science finally rears its head and says enough, certain
magazine editors are put into a terrible bind. If they
ignore what the engineers and scientists say they risk being
put into a tweako pigeon hole by some very intelligent
people. On the other hand, if they decide to become rational
themselves and adopt the scientific approach (and, for
example, say that lamp cord sounds as good as any upscale
speaker wire) they will alienate all those naive true
believers created by their overzealous writers over the
years.

Believe me, John has my deepest sympathies, because on the
one hand he would like to be taken seriously by serious
engineers and scientists, while on the other hand he would
like to keep the magazine's circulation increase or at least
hold steady. Hard to do that if he alienates a bunch of
readers by telling them that they have been played as
suckers for years by his magazine's reviewers.

Tough call. Glad I do not have to make it.

Howard Ferstler
  #450   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?

From: Howard Ferstler
Date: 6/17/2004 3:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

From: Howard Ferstler

Date: 6/14/2004 4:41 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

John Atkinson wrote:

In message jBGyc.32786$HG.21420@attbi_s53
Tom Nousaine ) wrote:

I'm just interested in who is caring for readers (like me) and who is
not. And as far as I can see Stereophile is not in a general sense.
And that's primarily because you are carrying and occasionally

promoting
the High-End Myths and [Urban] Legends instead of emphasizing

acoustical
performance.

In your opinion, Mr. Nousaine. I am content to let readers make up their
own minds on the value of the information Stereophile offers them.

This thread is getting huge, and so I am only going to
interject a couple of comments related to these particular
statements.

It seems to me as if the editor of a magazine should be
interested in the "value of the information" that magazine
offers.


"Value of information" in this case is not agreed upon.


Well, in my humble opinion information that is erroneous is
not particularly valuable,


I would tend to agree. But I think Stereophile has a pretty good track record
on giving accurate information in their reviews. Now if you are talking about
subjective impressions this is again something that is not agreed upon as to
what is and is not eroneous.

unless you are talking about
advertisers and manufacturers who depend upon error to sell
products.


Error? I suspect they want reviewers to accurately describe the equipment in
question. Again, if we are talking about subjective impressions the idea of
what is and is not an error is not agreed upon.

And it does not matter if the reviewer putting
forth that information is just confused or doing his work to
keep impressionable readers on the edges of their collective
seats. It still misinforms the readers.


Again, if you are talking about subjective impressions you are simply assuming
you are right and others who don't agree with you are wrong. That is an axiom
that will win any agument if accepted. I don't accept it. If the reviewer is
misrepresenting factual information about the equipment then there is a
problem.


Because most audio or electrical engineers agree with
Nousaine that wire (within reason, of course) is pretty much
wire (especially if we are talking about speaker cables), it
would be proper for the editor of a magazine that supposedly
has its readers best interests at heart to make sure that
reviewers treat wire as it should be treated - and not put
forth mythologically related opinions about the performance
of upscale (and expensive) wires.


I don't think any audio review journal is required to base editorial policy on
some informal poll of electrical engineers.


No editor of any
magazine is obligated to evaluate information based on your perspective or
Tom's.


Well, of course not. However, in the case of a supposedly
accurate and technically oriented magazine they should
"evaluate information" based upon known scientific
principles and the considered opinions of scads of
electrical and audio engineers.


Steophile is not a technically oriented magazine. It is a hobbyist review
magazine that is not technical friendly. Accuracy of a subjective review
journal is an inherently paradoxal concept.


I am sure JA is already making such evaluations on a daily basis. The
success of the magazine depends on his choices in this matter to a large
degree.


It also depends upon a group of readers, who, as I have
noted in other commentaries, are sitting on the edges of
their collective seats, waiting for the latest hyperbolic
news from audio headquarters.


We know that there is a group of people buying the magazine. What else they are
doing is purely conjecture on your part. The fact that the magazine is selling
speaks to it's success.


Looks like JA is doing OK in his evaluations.


It depends upon what the magazine is supposed to do. If its
job is to entertain a bunch of naive enthusiasts
(irrespective of any accuracy issues), who have a
mythological attachment to audio hyperbole then by your
standings he is "doing OK."


Now you are just bashing unnamed readers because you don't agree with much of
the magazine's editorial content. from a purely business point of view the
magazine is "supposed" to generate sales. It appears that Stereophile is doing
so. From a philisophical point of view it is suppose to aid audiophiles in
their hobby. If audiophiles are buying it then we can conclude that at least
some of Stereophile's readers believe it is helping them persue their hobby.

However, if the magazine is
doing what it claims it is doing, namely giving useful and
accurate information to the readers (at least about wire in
this case), then maybe it is not quite so successful.


The information does seem to be mostly accurate. I rarely hear of manufacturers
claiming their products were misrepresented by Stereophile. Again, in so far as
subjective impressions are concerned accurate information is debatable. Unless
the reviewers are lying about thier impressions it is hard to say their reports
of their impressions are not accurate representations of their impressions.


If his reviewers are offering up data that is
hyperbolic in nature he is by definition (as an editor)
obligated to sort out the more extreme facts and make sure
that impressionable and naive readers are not given
(intentionally given, or otherwise) bogus or misleading
information.


Hyperbolic data? Could you cite an example of hyperbolic data? I don't

think
subjective impressions are what one would typically call data.


Well, they listen to the wires and make comments about
soundstaging, depth, clarity, etc. Seems is that is pretty
hyperbolic data.


No it is an impression. Here is an online defenition of data:
Main Entry: da·ta
Pronunciation: 'dA-t&, 'da- also 'dä-
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Latin, plural of datum
Date: 1646
1 : factual information (as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for
reasoning, discussion, or calculation the data is plentiful and easily
available —H. A. Gleason, Jr. comprehensive data on economic growth have
been published —N. H. Jacoby
2 : information output by a sensing device or organ that includes both useful
and irrelevant or redundant information and must be processed to be meaningful
3 : information in numerical form that can be digitally transmitted or
processed
usage Data leads a life of its own quite independent of datum, of which it was
originally the plural. It occurs in two constructions: as a plural noun (like
earnings), taking a plural verb and plural modifiers (as these, many, a few)
but not cardinal numbers, and serving as a referent for plural pronouns (as
they, them); and as an abstract mass noun (like information), taking a singular
verb and singular modifiers (as this, much, little), and being referred to by a
singular pronoun (it). Both constructions are standard. The plural construction
is more common in print, evidently because the house style of several
publishers mandates it.

At least bona fide audio and electrical
engineers would call it hyperbolic.


A bona fide engineer would not likely call subjective impressions data.

Now, all it would take
is a quick series of DBT comparisons to determine if upscale
wire is all that special. This is an issue that could be
solved pretty fast, if what we are talking about is the
audible advantages of super-duper wire.


I do not expect audio reviewers, most of whom are not making a living at
reviewing, to have to do scientifically valid DBTs for the sake of a few people
who would like that. If the demand fore this were substantial enough, I suspect
JA would consider doing mandatory DBTs or risk loosing readership.


Yep, they could DBT compare some really, really upscale
stuff to lamp cord. Given that they do hair-splitting
comparisons between different upscale wire brands and write
borderline poetry about how one brand does one thing well
and the other brand does something else well,


Hair splitting? Poetry? Nah.

it seems
likely that they could hear differences between, say, 16-AWG
lamp cord and some megabuck speaker wires with relative
ease, and do so consistently in any kind of DBT situation.

However, as best I can tell (admittedly, I rarely read the
magazine these days), all the reviewers really do is
recommend the wire based upon some very sloppy work.


Sloppy work abounds in hobbyist magazines. I have seen it in a magazine that
you write for.

Is this
what an upscale audio magazine is supposed to do? Well, it
might be just that, if what the readers want is fairy tails
and not hard and fast data.


Obviously some hobbyists want more than just data.


If an editor disagrees with some of the extreme points of
view his writers are putting forth (extreme in the sense
that some knowledgeable audio and/or electrical engineers
would strongly disagree) then he should rope them in and see
to it that they settle down a bit.


Well. that is really the editor's call isn't it? You are free to start an

audio
publication and set that rule.


Sure. However, what we are talking about right here is what
Mr. Atkinson does with his magazine. Has he ever personally
come out and said that super-duper wires can make an audible
difference, compared to more mundane versions?


I don't know. You can always ask him.

What is his
take on the subject of wire? If he agrees with all those
audio and electrical engineers that super-duper wire is
overkill, then why on earth does he let his reviewers go on
and on about special wire?


That has been answered. He allows independent opinions to be reported by his
reviewers. He does his "editing" in the selection of his reviewers. This is not
so unusual in the world of review journals. Especially those that seem to favor
independent POVs.

And why is said special wire
listed in any kind of recommended products list the magazine
publishes?


Based on the reviews and opinions of the editorial staff. The rules and methods
of inclusion in the recomended components list is included in every recomended
components list. If you are reading the list you should know the answer to your
question.


If he agrees with them, then perhaps he should not be
editing an audio magazine that supposedly is in the business
of helping consumers.


An opinion you get to have but one that clearly isn't held universally. It
seems you wish to eliminate the publication of ideas in audio with which

you
don't agree.


Nope. For example, some people prefer narrow-dispersion
speakers to wider-dispersion designs. I tend to favor the
latter, but I certainly can see the reasoning behind the
narrow-dispersion concept, particularly when we consider
that they can be installed in surround-sound systems that
generate off-axis ambiance that may be superior to what we
get with simple wall reflections from wide-dispersion
speakers.


That is not the sort of disagreement I was speaking of. I was thinking more of
the point of views that *you can't see the reasoning of*.

Indeed, one of my three systems makes use of
speakers of that kind (with surround sound, of course), and
I can see why they are so attractive to other enthusiasts,
including some very knowledgeable ones.


Well then we hardly have much of an audio idea you disagree with when all is
said and done.

I would imagine that
there are also audio and electrical engineers out there who
prefer the narrow-dispersion concept. Taste plays a part
here, I am sure.


There are audio engineers and electrical engineers that think amps and wires
don't all sound the same.


But in the case of some products (wire, for sure, but also
amps and CD players), this is not the case. Taste is not
involved when there are no audible differences at all.


A point that is not agreed upon.

At
least if we are talking about sound quality and not other
things like heft, durability, bragging rights, etc.

In other words, my problem is not that I object to certain
people's tastes. My problem is that certain reviewers are
generating information that is clearly misleading.


Clearly based on your axiom that your opinions on audio are irrefutable facts.
You loose me there.

I do not
know if they are themselves deluded or if they are
intentionally trying to dupe people in order to pump up
circulation.


An either/or proposition predicated on your axiom that your opinions are
irrefutable facts. Sorry, I'm not buying the premise so the argument goes
nowhere with me.


The BIG problem is that the people who have a psychological
dependence upon audio hype have to a great extent been
created by fringe-element journalism.


Please feel free to prove this assertion and it's prevelence in audiophilia.

That is, over the
years certain magazines have created a Frankenstein monster.


The analogy makes no sense to me.

No doubt (in my mind, at least) this was initially done,
because certain audio journalists had strong beliefs about
audibility issues. They really thought they could hear
differences, and they never really did settle down and do
rigorous comparisons to see if their impressions were
correct.

When science finally rears its head and says enough, certain
magazine editors are put into a terrible bind.


I look forward to the day that legitimate science rears it's head in
audiophilia. It looks like scientists have better things to do with their time
and resources.

If they
ignore what the engineers and scientists say they risk being
put into a tweako pigeon hole by some very intelligent
people.


What are scientists saying? Do you really think there are no scientists that
believe in amp sound or cable sound? You think there are no engineers that do
so either?

On the other hand, if they decide to become rational
themselves and adopt the scientific approach (and, for
example, say that lamp cord sounds as good as any upscale
speaker wire) they will alienate all those naive true
believers created by their overzealous writers over the
years.


I would say the your assertion that one is being irrational if they don't agree
with your beliefs in audio is highly prejudicial and is somewhat
selfrighteous(Main Entry: self-righ·teous
Pronunciation: -'rI-ch&s
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1680
: convinced of one's own righteousness especially in contrast with the actions
and beliefs of others ) .IMO It is ludicrous to think that all such people who
disagree with your beliefs are therby irrational by virtue of their
disagrrement.


Believe me, John has my deepest sympathies, because on the
one hand he would like to be taken seriously by serious
engineers and scientists, while on the other hand he would
like to keep the magazine's circulation increase or at least
hold steady.


I don't believe you.

Hard to do that if he alienates a bunch of
readers by telling them that they have been played as
suckers for years by his magazine's reviewers.

Tough call. Glad I do not have to make it.


A call that is based once again on your axiom that your beliefs on audio are
irrefutable facts and, in this case, that JA secretly agrees with those
beliefs.



  #451   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?

S888Wheel wrote:

From: Howard Ferstler
Date: 6/17/2004 3:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


Well, in my humble opinion information that is erroneous is
not particularly valuable,


I would tend to agree. But I think Stereophile has a pretty good track record
on giving accurate information in their reviews.


Concerning the performance of speaker wires, interconnects,
line conditioners, etc.?

Incidentally, this will be my last bit of input with this
series of debates. I leave it to you to get in the very last
word in your response.

Now if you are talking about
subjective impressions this is again something that is not agreed upon as to
what is and is not eroneous.


Well, if a wire is not having any negative impact on the
sound and the reviewer goes off on a tangent and discusses
how it soundstages, images, delineates, etc., then I would
say that an error of some kind has been committed. A
subjective impression of something that does not exist at
all is going beyond the ethical or rational call of duty, I
think.

unless you are talking about
advertisers and manufacturers who depend upon error to sell
products.


Error? I suspect they want reviewers to accurately describe the equipment in
question.


So, I suppose this means that wire manufacturers agree when
reviewers start discussing soundstaging, imaging, etc.?

Again, if we are talking about subjective impressions the idea of
what is and is not an error is not agreed upon.


Again, if we are talking about soundstaging or spaciousness
with something like speaker systems then obviously there are
going to be disagreements regarding the abilities of
different speakers. However, with stuff like wire (and line
conditioners, and, forgive me, amps and CD players that are
decently made) we are talking about subjective impressions
of non-existent characteristics.

Should reviewers make up stories about non-existent
characteristics, in order to entertain their readers?

And it does not matter if the reviewer putting
forth that information is just confused or doing his work to
keep impressionable readers on the edges of their collective
seats. It still misinforms the readers.


Again, if you are talking about subjective impressions you are simply assuming
you are right and others who don't agree with you are wrong.


Well, I have the weight of science on my side when it comes
to the so-called "sound" of wires. Those who disagree with
me and those scientists and engineers are, in my opinion,
screwing over their readers. They talk them into spending
big money on items that do not do the job any better than
lower-cost versions.

That is an axiom
that will win any agument if accepted. I don't accept it. If the reviewer is
misrepresenting factual information about the equipment then there is a
problem.


I agree.

Because most audio or electrical engineers agree with
Nousaine that wire (within reason, of course) is pretty much
wire (especially if we are talking about speaker cables), it
would be proper for the editor of a magazine that supposedly
has its readers best interests at heart to make sure that
reviewers treat wire as it should be treated - and not put
forth mythologically related opinions about the performance
of upscale (and expensive) wires.


I don't think any audio review journal is required to base editorial policy on
some informal poll of electrical engineers.


Well, they can have any policy they wish. However, I think
that Stereophile (and a few other magazines) editorially
imply that the information they put forth is both accurate
and helpful to consumers. However, I do not think that
giving a fluff review to a set of megabuck wires is helping
consumers. Well, maybe a consumer likes to live in a fairy
tale, but I do not think that most people are that way.

No editor of any
magazine is obligated to evaluate information based on your perspective or
Tom's.


Well, of course not. However, in the case of a supposedly
accurate and technically oriented magazine they should
"evaluate information" based upon known scientific
principles and the considered opinions of scads of
electrical and audio engineers.


Steophile is not a technically oriented magazine.


We agree on that issue.

It is a hobbyist review
magazine that is not technical friendly.


Agreed. I wonder if John Atkinson would agree.

Accuracy of a subjective review
journal is an inherently paradoxal concept.


Actually, here I disagree. There is no reason why a good
subjective review cannot be accurate, or at least useful to
consumers. Now, if fluff reviews are psychologically useful
then perhaps some subjectivist magazines are indeed worth
the trouble for consumers.

I am sure JA is already making such evaluations on a daily basis. The
success of the magazine depends on his choices in this matter to a large
degree.


It also depends upon a group of readers, who, as I have
noted in other commentaries, are sitting on the edges of
their collective seats, waiting for the latest hyperbolic
news from audio headquarters.


We know that there is a group of people buying the magazine. What else they are
doing is purely conjecture on your part. The fact that the magazine is selling
speaks to it's success.


More than one erroneous magazine out there in the world is
selling well.

Looks like JA is doing OK in his evaluations.


It depends upon what the magazine is supposed to do. If its
job is to entertain a bunch of naive enthusiasts
(irrespective of any accuracy issues), who have a
mythological attachment to audio hyperbole then by your
standings he is "doing OK."


Now you are just bashing unnamed readers because you don't agree with much of
the magazine's editorial content. from a purely business point of view the
magazine is "supposed" to generate sales. It appears that Stereophile is doing
so.


OK, now we have hit the nail on the head. Yep, there are
certain kinds of impressionable audio buffs out there
(perhaps they are born that way or perhaps over the years
the fringe magazines have created them) who will line up to
read hyperbole. OK, so from that perspective Stereophile and
some of the others are certainly successful.

And if the people involved with such magazines are happy
being the way they are, then I suppose we cannot fault them
for their points of view. I wonder if John Atkinson is happy
with the way his magazine is, or if he would prefer that it
become a considerably more technically oriented journal.

From a philisophical point of view it is suppose to aid audiophiles in
their hobby. If audiophiles are buying it then we can conclude that at least
some of Stereophile's readers believe it is helping them persue their hobby.


I agree. The question is: is it good for the hobby to be as
disconnected from technical reality as it sometimes appears
to be? Of course, not everyone can be a technophiles, but
one wonders how the hobby would be if a more brass-tacks
approach were taken by all the magazines. Would that change
the audio world and all those impressionable consumers? Most
likely, new magazines would appear and they would mimic what
the fringe journals are now doing and the cycle would
continue. As Barnum once said, there is a sucker born every
minute.

However, if the magazine is
doing what it claims it is doing, namely giving useful and
accurate information to the readers (at least about wire in
this case), then maybe it is not quite so successful.


The information does seem to be mostly accurate. I rarely hear of manufacturers
claiming their products were misrepresented by Stereophile.


I think that both Dunlavy and Waveform had problems. In any
case, I am sure that even if a really techno-oriented
manufacturer got a positive product review based upon
hyperbolic opinions from a reviewer they would not contact
the magazine to complain.

Again, in so far as
subjective impressions are concerned accurate information is debatable.


Subjective impressions of non-existent characteristics
really do give me problems. I am not sure that hearing
non-existent artifacts (with wires: soundstaging, imaging,
etc.) is something I would call "debatable."

Unless
the reviewers are lying about thier impressions it is hard to say their reports
of their impressions are not accurate representations of their impressions.


But the reader should at least be given an impression that
is based to some extent upon reality. If a guy hears
soundstaging artifacts with a set of megabuck speaker wires,
I would want something more than just an impression. I would
want some kind of proof. Of course, many readers do not need
proof, and those are the ones who are prone to being
suckered by the reviewers.

Are the reviewers themselves deluded, or are they merely
playing a game and giving readers a good time? Hard to say,
and I suppose that there are both kinds doing reviews, and
probably most reviewers actually split the difference.

If his reviewers are offering up data that is
hyperbolic in nature he is by definition (as an editor)
obligated to sort out the more extreme facts and make sure
that impressionable and naive readers are not given
(intentionally given, or otherwise) bogus or misleading
information.


Hyperbolic data? Could you cite an example of hyperbolic data? I don't

think
subjective impressions are what one would typically call data.


Well, they listen to the wires and make comments about
soundstaging, depth, clarity, etc. Seems is that is pretty
hyperbolic data.


No it is an impression. Here is an online defenition of data...

(snipped data on data, which admittedly seemed to be
accurate)

Unfortunately, I think that many readers are not looking at
those subjective impressions as subjective impressions. They
see the review as hard data, delivered from the mouth and
soul of a true audio golden ear. For them, a review like
that is harder data than any amount of real "hard data."

At least bona fide audio and electrical
engineers would call it hyperbolic.


A bona fide engineer would not likely call subjective impressions data.


Right. However, he would also say that a review of speaker
wires that praises their soundstaging, imaging, etc. is not
a very useful piece of information. If it causes readers to
go out and purchase the wire he would probably not call it a
subjective impression, either. He would call it a misleading
review.

Now, all it would take
is a quick series of DBT comparisons to determine if upscale
wire is all that special. This is an issue that could be
solved pretty fast, if what we are talking about is the
audible advantages of super-duper wire.


I do not expect audio reviewers, most of whom are not making a living at
reviewing, to have to do scientifically valid DBTs for the sake of a few people
who would like that. If the demand fore this were substantial enough, I suspect
JA would consider doing mandatory DBTs or risk loosing readership.


Over the years, the magazine, and others like it, have made
a point of downplaying the usefulness of DBT work.
Obviously, guys like Harley (who did a lengthy piece on
audio reviewing when he was with the magazine) and a few
others have gone out of their respective ways to show that
subjective reviews are actually superior to brass-tacks
reviews, particularly when it comes to products that many
engineers would consider to be sonically benign if built
decently. The latter would include wires, for sure, but also
amps and CD players. And those engineers would not be
particularly in tune with stuff like special power cords or
line conditioners, either.

If the magazine started doing valid DBT work a very large
percentage of the products the reviewers have lauded over
the years would be shown to be useless junk. Obviously,
making the big switch to a brass-tacks approach would not be
good for business.

it seems
likely that they could hear differences between, say, 16-AWG
lamp cord and some megabuck speaker wires with relative
ease, and do so consistently in any kind of DBT situation.

However, as best I can tell (admittedly, I rarely read the
magazine these days), all the reviewers really do is
recommend the wire based upon some very sloppy work.


Sloppy work abounds in hobbyist magazines. I have seen it in a magazine that
you write for.


So have I. I hope you are not referring to my stuff,
however. Well, maybe you are. Actually, I am quite the
subjectivist when it comes to stuff like speakers. I am not
in the brass-tacks camp with those items as much as guys
like Nousaine, Toole, Davis, and even Roy Allison are. I cut
speaker builders a lot of slack, although I do require
reasonably smooth room/power response to get a speaker into
the good-performance ball park.

(snips)

What is his [Atkinson's]
take on the subject of wire? If he agrees with all those
audio and electrical engineers that super-duper wire is
overkill, then why on earth does he let his reviewers go on
and on about special wire?


That has been answered. He allows independent opinions to be reported by his
reviewers. He does his "editing" in the selection of his reviewers. This is not
so unusual in the world of review journals. Especially those that seem to favor
independent POVs.


Fine. But I am interested on knowing his take. I am not
talking about freedom to let his writers write hyperbole. I
am talking about whether or not he thinks big-buck wires are
worth the money. If so, then I think his credibility with a
lot of the engineers he wants to be buddies with will go
down the tube. If not, then he is willingly letting his
reviewers mislead consumers.

And why is said special wire
listed in any kind of recommended products list the magazine
publishes?


Based on the reviews and opinions of the editorial staff. The rules and methods
of inclusion in the recomended components list is included in every recomended
components list. If you are reading the list you should know the answer to your
question.


There should not even be a recommended components list for
wires, in my opinion. Ditto with stuff like line
conditioners.

(snips)

There are audio engineers and electrical engineers that think amps and wires
don't all sound the same.


Well, some amps are junk, and ironically some of those cost
quite a bit. Let's just say that all decently designed amps
sound pretty much the same up to their clipping points,
provided they are not called upon to drive weird loads. In
any case, most of the good engineers would not agree with
reviews of really good amps that involve descriptions of
soundstaging, depth, focus, imaging, etc.

But in the case of some products (wire, for sure, but also
amps and CD players), this is not the case. Taste is not
involved when there are no audible differences at all.


A point that is not agreed upon.


OK, the reviewer may like the looks of an amp or player, or
they might want one with special features. However, in this
case I am talking about audible differences.

At
least if we are talking about sound quality and not other
things like heft, durability, bragging rights, etc.

In other words, my problem is not that I object to certain
people's tastes. My problem is that certain reviewers are
generating information that is clearly misleading.


Clearly based on your axiom that your opinions on audio are irrefutable facts.
You loose me there.


Well, it is a fact that wire is wire. Anyone who gives a
smash-bang review to a set of expensive wires, knowing that
some readers will mortgage the homestead and go right out
and purchase a set, is not doing that reader any real good.
Yeah, I know the reader might feel good, but he would also
feel good if some guy sold him some dope. There has to be
more to high-end-audio journalism than pandering to
psychological needs.

I do not
know if they are themselves deluded or if they are
intentionally trying to dupe people in order to pump up
circulation.


An either/or proposition predicated on your axiom that your opinions are
irrefutable facts. Sorry, I'm not buying the premise so the argument goes
nowhere with me.


So, you can hear differences between wires? I mean, while I
cut everybody some slack when it comes to speakers, rooms,
surround processors, equalizers, and a few other items, I do
not cut them any slack at all when it comes to wires, and I
do not cut them much slack when it comes to amps and CD
players. A little, but not much. Not all of my opinions are
irrefutable facts, but I think that those concerning wire,
and the bogus selling of same, are just that.

The BIG problem is that the people who have a psychological
dependence upon audio hype have to a great extent been
created by fringe-element journalism.


Please feel free to prove this assertion and it's prevelence in audiophilia.


Well, I could be wrong. As Barnum said, a lot of suckers are
just born that way. Of course, the sad thing is that said
journals make a point of roping in such individuals.

That is, over the
years certain magazines have created a Frankenstein monster.


The analogy makes no sense to me.


They have created a group of individuals (those who have a
kind of will to believe) who depend upon the magazine for
baloney information. If the magazine changed course and took
a brass-tacks approach it would go down the tubes. The
created reader base depends upon the magazine to keep
feeding it hyperbole. Kill the monster and you kill the
magazine.

No doubt (in my mind, at least) this was initially done,
because certain audio journalists had strong beliefs about
audibility issues. They really thought they could hear
differences, and they never really did settle down and do
rigorous comparisons to see if their impressions were
correct.

When science finally rears its head and says enough, certain
magazine editors are put into a terrible bind.


I look forward to the day that legitimate science rears it's head in
audiophilia. It looks like scientists have better things to do with their time
and resources.


There is nothing wasteful about those involved in audio
journalism taking a scientific approach. I am not saying
that scientists who are working on DNA or cancer research,
or space exploration, have to temporarily switch to audio
for a while. All that is required is for those who are
already involved in the hobby to adopt a more honest
approach with what they are doing.

If they
ignore what the engineers and scientists say they risk being
put into a tweako pigeon hole by some very intelligent
people.


What are scientists saying? Do you really think there are no scientists that
believe in amp sound or cable sound? You think there are no engineers that do
so either?


Well, none that I have heard of have any opinions about
cable or wire sound. Sure, amps can sound different.
However, I'll bet that the ones that do sound different from
the mainstream are junk jobs (even if expensive), designed
to sound different - but not accurate.

On the other hand, if they decide to become rational
themselves and adopt the scientific approach (and, for
example, say that lamp cord sounds as good as any upscale
speaker wire) they will alienate all those naive true
believers created by their overzealous writers over the
years.


I would say the your assertion that one is being irrational if they don't agree
with your beliefs in audio is highly prejudicial and is somewhat
selfrighteous (snipped definition).


Hey, they do not have to agree with me. All they have to do
is be honest in their evaluation work.

Believe me, John has my deepest sympathies, because on the
one hand he would like to be taken seriously by serious
engineers and scientists, while on the other hand he would
like to keep the magazine's circulation increase or at least
hold steady.


I don't believe you.


Well, I certainly do not think he wants circulation to
shrink. And I do think he wants to be taken seriously by
engineers and scientists.

Hard to do that if he alienates a bunch of
readers by telling them that they have been played as
suckers for years by his magazine's reviewers.

Tough call. Glad I do not have to make it.


A call that is based once again on your axiom that your beliefs on audio are
irrefutable facts and, in this case, that JA secretly agrees with those
beliefs.


Well, perhaps he does not. I really do not know what the guy
thinks, to tell the truth.

Howard Ferstler

  #452   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?

know if they are themselves deluded or if they are
intentionally trying to dupe people in order to pump up
circulation.


An either/or proposition predicated on your axiom that your opinions are
irrefutable facts. Sorry, I'm not buying the premise so the argument goes
nowhere with me.


So, you can hear differences between wires? I mean, while I
cut everybody some slack when it comes to speakers, rooms,
surround processors, equalizers, and a few other items, I do
not cut them any slack at all when it comes to wires, and I
do not cut them much slack when it comes to amps and CD
players. A little, but not much. Not all of my opinions are
irrefutable facts, but I think that those concerning wire,
and the bogus selling of same, are just that.


You are entitled to believe youyr opinion on wires is an irrefutable fact. That
is not going to dictate policy for Stereophile though.


The BIG problem is that the people who have a psychological
dependence upon audio hype have to a great extent been
created by fringe-element journalism.


Please feel free to prove this assertion and it's prevelence in

audiophilia.

Well, I could be wrong. As Barnum said, a lot of suckers are
just born that way. Of course, the sad thing is that said
journals make a point of roping in such individuals.


Well don't worry, the hard core objectivist journals are not reaching too many
people.


That is, over the
years certain magazines have created a Frankenstein monster.


The analogy makes no sense to me.


They have created a group of individuals (those who have a
kind of will to believe) who depend upon the magazine for
baloney information. If the magazine changed course and took
a brass-tacks approach it would go down the tubes. The
created reader base depends upon the magazine to keep
feeding it hyperbole. Kill the monster and you kill the
magazine.


Prove it.


No doubt (in my mind, at least) this was initially done,
because certain audio journalists had strong beliefs about
audibility issues. They really thought they could hear
differences, and they never really did settle down and do
rigorous comparisons to see if their impressions were
correct.

When science finally rears its head and says enough, certain
magazine editors are put into a terrible bind.


I look forward to the day that legitimate science rears it's head in
audiophilia. It looks like scientists have better things to do with their

time
and resources.


There is nothing wasteful about those involved in audio
journalism taking a scientific approach.


I agree. It just doesn't happen.

I am not saying
that scientists who are working on DNA or cancer research,
or space exploration, have to temporarily switch to audio
for a while. All that is required is for those who are
already involved in the hobby to adopt a more honest
approach with what they are doing.


Again you are questioning the honesty of soem reviewers simply because ou don't
agree with them. That is selfrighteous by defintion. Science is much better
served when scientists can leave their selfrighteousness at the lab door.
Objectivists reviewers and journals will never be truly scientific until they
can do this. So far IMo they haven't.


If they
ignore what the engineers and scientists say they risk being
put into a tweako pigeon hole by some very intelligent
people.


What are scientists saying? Do you really think there are no scientists

that
believe in amp sound or cable sound? You think there are no engineers that

do
so either?


Well, none that I have heard of have any opinions about
cable or wire sound.


Well that is your limmited slice of life experience. I know scientists and
electrical engineers that do have opinions about cable sound. so there you have
it.

Sure, amps can sound different.
However, I'll bet that the ones that do sound different from
the mainstream are junk jobs (even if expensive), designed
to sound different - but not accurate.


One man's junk is another man's treasure. Your treasure may be junk to some.


On the other hand, if they decide to become rational
themselves and adopt the scientific approach (and, for
example, say that lamp cord sounds as good as any upscale
speaker wire) they will alienate all those naive true
believers created by their overzealous writers over the
years.


I would say the your assertion that one is being irrational if they don't

agree
with your beliefs in audio is highly prejudicial and is somewhat
selfrighteous (snipped definition).


Hey, they do not have to agree with me. All they have to do
is be honest in their evaluation work.


Prove that they aren't already doing that.


Believe me, John has my deepest sympathies, because on the
one hand he would like to be taken seriously by serious
engineers and scientists, while on the other hand he would
like to keep the magazine's circulation increase or at least
hold steady.


I don't believe you.


Well, I certainly do not think he wants circulation to
shrink. And I do think he wants to be taken seriously by
engineers and scientists.


So?


Hard to do that if he alienates a bunch of
readers by telling them that they have been played as
suckers for years by his magazine's reviewers.

Tough call. Glad I do not have to make it.


A call that is based once again on your axiom that your beliefs on audio

are
irrefutable facts and, in this case, that JA secretly agrees with those
beliefs.


Well, perhaps he does not. I really do not know what the guy
thinks, to tell the truth.


  #453   Report Post  
Bromo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?

On 6/19/04 11:50 PM, in article KP7Bc.82803$Sw.62274@attbi_s51, "Howard
Ferstler" wrote:

S888Wheel wrote:

From: Howard Ferstler
Date: 6/17/2004 3:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


Well, in my humble opinion information that is erroneous is
not particularly valuable,


I would tend to agree. But I think Stereophile has a pretty good track record
on giving accurate information in their reviews.


Concerning the performance of speaker wires, interconnects,
line conditioners, etc.?


This particular debate has been couched with the hidden assumption that
anything beyond the "yup I plugged my equipment in to the power strip and it
powered on" is erroneous. The measure of this error has been the %-age of
reviews (in a gross sense) dedicated to wires and interconnects.

Unless the people declaring a mainstream magazine are willing to back up
their claims when the editor of that magazine comes back and refutes them
(showing how the accuser isn't even right about the %-age he said) - but
doggedly sticks by the unproven assumption that despite the assumed
observations noted in the reviews (which were never analyzed for content -
their mere presence was thought to be enough) that it was somehow wrong.

Well - it all has the taste of an attack rather than a careful criticism.

Now if you are talking about
subjective impressions this is again something that is not agreed upon as to
what is and is not eroneous.


Well, if a wire is not having any negative impact on the
sound and the reviewer goes off on a tangent and discusses
how it soundstages, images, delineates, etc., then I would
say that an error of some kind has been committed. A
subjective impression of something that does not exist at
all is going beyond the ethical or rational call of duty, I
think.


Except that someone can borrow the equipment from a reputable high end
dealer and try it out for him or herself and see if the observations are
correct, if there is any care to.

If the person in question thinks it is all hogwash - and believes that he or
she has achieved audio nirvana with a c. 1985 Magnavox CD player hooked up
to a Emerson Boombox, connected to their Bose speakers with 200' of 20 ga.
Zip cord -- there is no need to attempt to improve upon said perfection...

unless you are talking about
advertisers and manufacturers who depend upon error to sell
products.


Error? I suspect they want reviewers to accurately describe the equipment in
question.


So, I suppose this means that wire manufacturers agree when
reviewers start discussing soundstaging, imaging, etc.?


Except the manufacturer is not doing the review. I suspect that in the high
end, or any other review in any other magazine - will agree with a favorable
review and disagree with a unfavorable review.

I went to an issue of TAS where one cable (supra ply 3.5 I think) was said
to be bad for the person's system - the reviewer very politely disagreed in
the area dedicated to a manufacturer's response.

IN another one - where the balanced integrated amplifier by Ayre went
UNSTABE when the unbalanced interconnects were used - and the manufacturer
responded disagreeing - but it was clear they were afraid of contradicting
the reviewer.

So, point: If it is a good review I am sure only a stupid reviewer would
contradict.

Again, if we are talking about subjective impressions the idea of
what is and is not an error is not agreed upon.


Again, if we are talking about soundstaging or spaciousness
with something like speaker systems then obviously there are
going to be disagreements regarding the abilities of
different speakers. However, with stuff like wire (and line
conditioners, and, forgive me, amps and CD players that are
decently made) we are talking about subjective impressions
of non-existent characteristics.


Dunno - Try comparing the stereo image of a NAD C541i and a NAD DVD 532
playing a CD. Tonal balance and detail is different in my system - and so
is the apparent stereo image. As all stereo imaging is created in your head
by an auditory illusion - I can see how sometimes one person's observation
will differ.

Should reviewers make up stories about non-existent
characteristics, in order to entertain their readers?


I do not believe they do this - nor in all honesty should you.

And it does not matter if the reviewer putting
forth that information is just confused or doing his work to
keep impressionable readers on the edges of their collective
seats. It still misinforms the readers.


Again, if you are talking about subjective impressions you are simply
assuming
you are right and others who don't agree with you are wrong.


Well, I have the weight of science on my side when it comes
to the so-called "sound" of wires.


Do you? This is the ABX testing that is fashionable? Rather then get into
a long discussion about the validity of that test - and what it does and
does not prove (it can and has been used to show that there is no difference
between a live band and a cheap audio cassette, and has also been used as
early as 1927 to show live vs. equipment of that era) - suffice it to say
the validity of that test is in question when it contradicts personal
observation.

Those who disagree with
me and those scientists and engineers are, in my opinion,
screwing over their readers. They talk them into spending
big money on items that do not do the job any better than
lower-cost versions.


You are entitled to that opinion. But what if you find the cheaper cable to
be better sounding than the more expensive one?

Well, they can have any policy they wish. However, I think
that Stereophile (and a few other magazines) editorially
imply that the information they put forth is both accurate
and helpful to consumers.


I am sure they honestly believe that, regardless of all the ABX tests and
other ways you can measure sameness.

However, I do not think that
giving a fluff review to a set of megabuck wires is helping
consumers. Well, maybe a consumer likes to live in a fairy
tale, but I do not think that most people are that way.


Except that there may really be differences regardless of the ABX tests you
read about (but have not personally done). If there is a difference,
perhaps the ABX tests are not accurate or are measuring the wrong things.

Steophile is not a technically oriented magazine.


We agree on that issue.


It is not - though they do attempt to measure equipment.

It is a hobbyist review
magazine that is not technical friendly.


Agreed. I wonder if John Atkinson would agree.


Does it matter? They valiantly attempt to present technical measurements
(which given the typical setups is, IMHO, a mistake).

Accuracy of a subjective review
journal is an inherently paradoxal concept.


Actually, here I disagree. There is no reason why a good
subjective review cannot be accurate, or at least useful to
consumers. Now, if fluff reviews are psychologically useful
then perhaps some subjectivist magazines are indeed worth
the trouble for consumers.


I agree - a subjective review if carefully done will relay the various
sounds and experiences in an accurate and somewhat repeatable manner. If
there is interest in verifying the review - the reader can usually locate
and borrow the equipment from a dealer and try to see the differences him or
herself!

Now you are just bashing unnamed readers because you don't agree with much of
the magazine's editorial content. from a purely business point of view the
magazine is "supposed" to generate sales. It appears that Stereophile is
doing
so.


OK, now we have hit the nail on the head. Yep, there are
certain kinds of impressionable audio buffs out there
(perhaps they are born that way or perhaps over the years
the fringe magazines have created them) who will line up to
read hyperbole. OK, so from that perspective Stereophile and
some of the others are certainly successful.


Stereophile and TAS has been very successful in rooting out a lot of
equipment that cost a lot but simply did not measure up (this was in the
early 1970's) - and I believe they have fallen from their mission a bit, but
by and large are honest magazines.

The last year with the reviews of the iPod, they are showing the High End
that the new music formats can be high end (which we already knew, but this
magazine is bringing it to the attention to its public).

And if the people involved with such magazines are happy
being the way they are, then I suppose we cannot fault them
for their points of view. I wonder if John Atkinson is happy
with the way his magazine is, or if he would prefer that it
become a considerably more technically oriented journal.


That would be a good question. But there are technical journals already in
the IEEE.

From a philisophical point of view it is suppose to aid audiophiles in
their hobby. If audiophiles are buying it then we can conclude that at least
some of Stereophile's readers believe it is helping them persue their hobby.


I agree. The question is: is it good for the hobby to be as
disconnected from technical reality as it sometimes appears
to be?


It always has had a tendency to dive down the silly dead end that it has.
You are leaving out the polarized camps - "subjectivists" and "objectivists"
and assuming "subjectivists" are wrong.

It is also a mistake to assume that the magazine *is* the hobby (though I am
sure the editor would like it that way). Case in point a few years ago when
Carver wqs making claims about his product that "sounded like tubes" without
being tubes - and got a magazine to sign up to it (I think is was The Audio
Critic before the current incarnation) - and it was clear that it was not
like tubes in the slightest and the magazine almost folded over that and a
few other similar reviews.

Of course, not everyone can be a technophiles, but
one wonders how the hobby would be if a more brass-tacks
approach were taken by all the magazines. Would that change
the audio world and all those impressionable consumers?


I would welcome that - though if they spent all their time refuting
competing magazines I doubt I would read many issues.

I believe a truly critical subjectivist journal stating the good and bad
points without hyperbole (as Stereophile and TAS tend to do) would be good.

Most
likely, new magazines would appear and they would mimic what
the fringe journals are now doing and the cycle would
continue. As Barnum once said, there is a sucker born every
minute.


Which fringe journals - I am curious.

I think casting the subscribers to TS and Stereophile as "suckers" is
incorrect and needlessly insulting. It is also a cop-out as you then do not
display the rigor you claim to represent.

Again, in so far as
subjective impressions are concerned accurate information is debatable.


Subjective impressions of non-existent characteristics
really do give me problems. I am not sure that hearing
non-existent artifacts (with wires: soundstaging, imaging,
etc.) is something I would call "debatable."


That means you have a pre-conceived notion about what you expect a wire to
be capable of assisting with - and if you see an observation in
contradiction to what you think the reviewer should say is incorrect.

I would agree that there are some things each component, when well executed,
will be capable of doing, and some things it will not. I disagree that the
reviewers are lying.

Unless
the reviewers are lying about thier impressions it is hard to say their
reports
of their impressions are not accurate representations of their impressions.


But the reader should at least be given an impression that
is based to some extent upon reality.


Again - I do not think the reviewers are lying as you seem to do.

If a guy hears
soundstaging artifacts with a set of megabuck speaker wires,
I would want something more than just an impression. I would
want some kind of proof. Of course, many readers do not need
proof, and those are the ones who are prone to being
suckered by the reviewers.


You are usually welcome to borrow said cables from a high end source or a on
line cable rental place and find out for yourself.

Are the reviewers themselves deluded, or are they merely
playing a game and giving readers a good time? Hard to say,
and I suppose that there are both kinds doing reviews, and
probably most reviewers actually split the difference.


I do not think they are lying.

  #454   Report Post  
Bob Marcus
 
Posts: n/a
Default Subjectivist and Objectivist -- Are these misnomers? (WAS:

Bob Marcus wrote:

* James Boyk once wrote that there are
only two meaningful measurements on a spec sheet: the dimensions,
which
tell
you if it'll fit on your shelf, and the weight, which tells you if
your
shelf will hold it.

Just to set the record straight, Boyk actually quoted someone else saying
this.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
Watch the online reality show Mixed Messages with a friend and enter to win
a trip to NY
http://www.msnmessenger-download.cli...ave/direct/01/
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ALL amps are equal?? Pug Fugley Car Audio 60 August 17th 04 03:33 AM
Light weight system challenge Sonoman Car Audio 6 May 2nd 04 01:05 AM
Note to the Idiot George M. Middius Audio Opinions 222 January 8th 04 08:13 PM
Mechanic blames amplifier for alternator failing?? Help>>>>>>>>>>> SHRED© Car Audio 57 December 13th 03 11:24 AM
Southeast Invitational Sound Challenge SQ 240 Car Audio 0 August 12th 03 03:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:27 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"