| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#161
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Ferstler Moves On
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:00:27 -0500, dave weil
wrote: PS, want to express your opinion of post-graduate types again for us? Howard never repeats himself, Dave. He only repeats others. (Sorry, Howard, I couldn't resist). |
|
#162
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 17:41:44 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote: Actually, I only rarely reviewed amps or players. I could not hear a difference when comparing level matched, and I did not bother to measure. (I do not own gear precise enough to measure properly, anyway.) I tried to simulate what a typical enthusiast could do, and for them that would mean listening comparisons, only. However, I did want to make the point that such comparisons, be they done quickly or done slowly, should be level matched and blind. Better yet, double blind. Frankly, I don't get this blind stuff. Why do I need to be blind? If I'm comparing two amps I've never heard before, and have no preference for either one, why do I need to be blind? In any case if I a/B'd the way I like to, over a long period, I'd just be falling over the furniture all the time. I can certainly understand you railing against tweako-freako merchandise, because frankly most of that stuff offends common-sense; and I can understand you bewailing the spending of vast sums on equipment that measures no better, sometimes worse, than cheap stuff. However, let's leave the nutty side of the hobby to the nuts, and the high-end to the rich, and at least admit that there may be perceptable differences between affordable amps and CD players. That way you don't offend common-sense, yet you allow enough to permit the hobby to continue and we subjectivists to have some fun comparing stuff. Is that a fair deal? Well, with the amps that I reviewed, as well as commentary articles that I did that discussed comparing amps, I made it a point to: 1. Not take my word for it. I wanted the more skeptical (of my results) readers to do their own comparing - level matched and blind, at the very least. And they would do that how exactly, under shop conditons? 2. Point out that other variables (speaker quality, room acoustics, recording quality) would have way more impact even if small amp variations would be audible under very rigid listening/comparing protocols. For most enthusiasts, I should think that the musical content would overwhelm any need for absolutely clean amp sound. Fair enough, and the last point is similar to one I made just recently. However, the sound of any component in your system is constant, whereas room acoustics and recording quality are variables (I mean that you can hang drapes and chuck out the worst sounding CDs). If there really is a "sound" to your amp, it will affect all CDs all the time, and possibly also thwart all attempts to improve sound through changing room acoustics. What I'm saying is that if you're wrong and the amp you're using IS imposing a sound, it's going to taint everything without you ever realizing what the problem is. So in that sense we're both wrong about that last point. Note that I continue to think that decent amps, if not driven past limits and with sane speaker loads, will deliver subjectively absolutely clean sound. I will say that Stereo Review probably had an editorial position that limited negative reviews. I heard rumours that that was the case. I think that their then technical editor, Larry Klein, outlined this in an article somewhere, although I cannot remember the details. It may have been printed in a back issue of the Boston Audio Society magazine "Speaker." By the way, Klein was given a biographical outline by me in The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound. Supposedly, this allowed them to present products that readers might care to buy, rather than present products that put some small manufacturers out of business because of negative reviews. Or offended big manufacturers who cared nought for sound quality. Most of the large manufacturers were not concerned one way or the other. If a product was panned by a magazine review they could simply discontinue it and come out with a replacement, assuming that the review triggered poor sales. (Probably, the replacement would be a cosmetically reconfigured version of the previous product.) Not probably but certainly. And firms like Pioneer and JVC did this on a regular basis. It was the smaller companies that would be severely impacted by a bad review, due to their inability to retool so fast. So Stereo Review was motivated purely by altruism toward small business? :-) Space was limited and the editors probably felt that people would be more interested in decent components than in reading about junk. But what about when the junk was labelled a decent component? Well, I think that rarely happened, even with Stereo Review or Audio. They might make a mistake, but I do not think they gave any product a "pass" that they did not think deserved it. If they didn't believe in subjective differences between amps, they most certainly could give junk a pass. Note that while Stereo Review's amp and player reviewer were rather bland (unless you enjoyed measured data and printed curves, which I will admit that I often do), their speaker reviews at least did allow for a fair amount of speculation. Which raises the question, if they only seemed to detect audible differences between speakers, why not just review speakers? Why review amps when it was clear they were not going to comment negatively on sound quality? They needed to sell magazines. Note that their amp reviews usually did not come right out and say that a given, somewhat expensive amp, did not sound any better than scads of other units that often cost less. What they did do was evaluate the features and then summarize (this is Hirsch) by saying that the unit sounded transparent, etc. Yes. That's what made the mag so interesting. zzzzzzzzzzzzz....... Indeed, Julian Hirsch, although pretty straightforward and analytic when reviewing stuff like amps and players, was definitely a bottom-line subjectivist when he reviewed speakers, even though he also provided rudimentary measurements. I did that sort of thing, myself, by the way. Also, back when he was reviewing cartridges Hirsch did a good straddling of subjective and objective points of view. Would it be possible not to be a subjectivist when reviewing speakers? Would anyone seriously suggest all speakers sounded alike, or sounded as they measured? Actually, I think that Floyd Toole (previously at the Canadian NRC and now at Harman) would say that. He has been working for years to correlate measurements with subjective impressions, and has published articles on the topic. To a small extent I have also been that way. I did very basic RTA measurements of speakers in my main room that measured a combination of the direct and reverberant fields. My technique was a bit different than typical, however. I measured at a 10 foot to 15 foot distance (to each speaker in a playing pair, depending on placement in relation to the front wall) and moved the measurement microphone very slowly over a 1 x 1 x 5 foot box-shaped area at roughly head height at the listening couch. During this time my AudioControl SA-3051 RTA would do a cumulative, 20-second averaging of the signals hitting the microphone. This limited the impact of reflective hot spots and standing waves, while still gaining me a fairly accurate room curve, for that room. With speakers that measured similarly (I noted a similarity between my Dunlavy Cantatas and a Triad sub/package in another thread) I found that the spectral balance that I heard was also similar. Very similar. On the other hand, speakers that measured rather poorly (and I did publish reviews of a few of them, with some being fairly expensive) easily not only sounded different from my three reference systems (the Cantatas, plus a pair of NHT ST4 units in a mid-price category and my Allison IC-20 systems in the wide-dispersion category) but also sounded just plain wrong. Of course, in some cases there were variables that had been dialed in by some of the manufacturers, with most of those involving midrange dips or downward slopes from the midrange to the treble, that made systems that were at least smooth still sound different from the flatter-measuring reference units. When I reviewed such systems I pointed out those artifacts and also noted that in many cases (different rooms, different furnishings, different listening distances, different recordings) such anomalies might not be all that bad. I even did an article that showed how speakers with moderate midrange dips (the result of tweeter/midrange driver size differences) might sound better than flatter-sounding systems under some conditions. As I have noted before, I cut speaker manufacturers a lot of slack in my reviews. However, I did make a point of showing why speakers may have sounded as they did. Interesting. Back in the late 70s I wrote an article for an OZ mag which touched on the Dalquist DQ10, then all the rage, and the fact that it had a measurable midrange dip yet sounded better than most of its peers. All this of course raises the question of whether measured accuracy is desirable, or should speakers at least be designed purely by listening. I guess the ideal is what most designers do: start off trying for a flat frequency response and lowest distortion and then tweak by ear. But in my view the tweaking would ultimately have to take precedence over measurement. In my reviews, I never showed the readouts that I made (Hirsch never did this with speakers, either), but some time back I did a pair of comprehensive commentary articles where I illustrated a whole group of curves run on speakers that I had either reviewed previously or had on hand as references. I then discussed the importance of such curves and also made a big point of noting that such curves were not the be all and end all of speaker evaluating. Starting points, but not finishing points. I just don't get the point of mags that deny the reality of subjectivism. It's like a mag about fridges that says, "Hey, they all freeze the bloody ice cream so what are you worried about? Just get the size that suits." Well, The Sensible Sound (where I mostly wrote for the last few years) is often outrageously subjective. Yes, guys like me, David Rich, and David Moran (and Fred Davis, when he helped me with a wire review that I got suckered into by the management) were (and are) pretty brass-tacks oriented. (Rich goes well beyond even that with his amp and player reviews.) However, most of the remaining contributors turn speculation into an art form. And as I noted, Hirsch's reviews of speakers were more subjective than objective. I also wrote for The Audiophile Voice, and I must admit that I avoided reviewing any products for them that had black-box performance. Black box? An analogy. Straight wire with gain for amps. Straightforward performance with players. No colorations at all with wires. I did not care to pontificate for a reading group who already felt as they did about those topics. Gene Pitts (the editor) had already told me that most of his readers thought that measurements "do not mean a thing," and that skeptical outlooks like mine would not go over well. However, with full-range speakers and subwoofers I could be fairly candid and not get into trouble, because speakers are all audibly flawed by definition. Even so, he did not want me dwelling too much on my measured data. Hmmm...sounds like an interesting relationship. You must have been walking on rice paper much of the time, Grasshopper. Speakers and subwoofers, only, and even then the editor wanted minimal technical babble. Which is reasonable, wouldn't you say? However a speaker measures, whatever the wonders of its conception and design, its subjective performance is all that matters. I should say one on-axis and one off-axis frequency response is about as much as I want to to know about how most speakers measure. I did not go even that far. When I first started measuring I took speakers outdoors on the deck next to my house and tried to get assorted on and off-axis readouts. The problem is that when measuring horizontally at different angles you still have to determine just how high or low you want to locate the microphone. If you get what you believe to be a definitive measurement at, say, 45 degrees off the horizontal axis at one microphone height location, you will discover that if you raise or lower the microphone a bit and measure again the result will be considerably different. Which means I guess that to accurately inform the reader that this is the speaker for him you'd have to go to his home and take measurements at his preferred listening position. So one can understand why some reviewers took a purely subjectivist line with speakers. (big snip) Components like that will allow a reviewer to go overboard with speculation at times, and yet the review will still be educational and worthwhile. And of course, we still have the power-output and wild-load issue with amps, even if they sound alike under more sane conditions. Lots of questions there. Cannot a wild load affect an amp's performance even at sane levels, for one? Yep. However, the impact is probably slight in most cases, assuming that this "wild" load merely involves very low impedance. With reactive loads like electrostatics all bets are off. Surely all crossovers are reactive to some degree. And surely a very low impedance dip will compromise an amp's integrity even more than a reactive load. Especially an amp using a "cheap" power supply. Obviously you went out of your way to avoid testing amps, but I wonder to what degree a reviewer generally tests the "stiffness" of an amp's power supply. As I have noted elsewhere in this series of posts, while it is still hot here, my workshop and its deck out back are in the shade most of the day, and so, in spite of what I have said before about it being too hot here to do woodworking projects, doing things like that out there is not really all that bad. Consequently, I am going to back off from RAO for a while and do some other interesting things. There is one exception, however, and this involves whether you come up with some interesting comments about this particular post. If not, see you later. Howard Ferstler Couldn't think of any interesting comments, so you'll have to go with these ones. Or not. |
|
#163
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
wrote in message ups.com... Well, I do have an affinity for sending tight-assed, clueless old fogeys like yourself running for the hills. I forgot exactly how many times you have left RAO with your tail between your legs. when does your next hiatus begin? When the 30-day free trial runs out? |
|
#164
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message wrote in message ups.com... Well, I do have an affinity for sending tight-assed, clueless old fogeys like yourself running for the hills. I forgot exactly how many times you have left RAO with your tail between your legs. when does your next hiatus begin? When the 30-day free trial runs out? Forgery Alert! -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#165
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
Howard Ferstler wrote: paul packer wrote: On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:30:04 -0400, Howard Ferstler wrote: I will say that Stereo Review probably had an editorial position that limited negative reviews. I heard rumours that that was the case. I think that their then technical editor, Larry Klein, outlined this in an article somewhere, although I cannot remember the details. Larry Klein addressed this subject in person at the 1990 AES Conference in Washington DC. If a review turned out negative, Kelin would negotiate a rewording of the text with the manufacturer. If agreement could not be reached, the review would be "spiked," ie, it would nto be published in Stereo Review. By the way, Klein was given a biographical outline by me in The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound. Why? Payback for having published articles by you, Mr. Ferstler? Or merely for sharing your views on publishing ethics? John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#166
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
|
|
#167
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:08:55 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message The thing I don't get is, if mags don't talk about subjective differences, what do they talk about? The good ones talk about subjective differences that are reliably perceptible. To you, Arnie? That wouldn't occupy much space. Back in the 70s I read a couple of issues of Stereo Review and was bored to tears. I suspect that most of it was written above your reading level. That's lame even by Krueger standards. Every product was excellent except one or two that maybe should have placed the balance control to the left rather than right of the volume control. It was all harmonic and intermodulation distortion graphs, and once you've seen one of those you've seen them all. I note that the equipment reviews were a tiny fraction of the editorial content of the magazine. I guess that in Packer world, none of the rest of the magazine existed. You mean the profiles of audio pioneers or whatever? Nope, equipment reviews are where it's at for me. That's why the British mags were vastly superior. What is the point of a mag that makes no comment on sound quality, or assumes there is none? That wasn't SR. Most of the magazine was about subjective differences, starting with the music reviews. And ending with them unfortunately. I think we were reading two different magazines, Arnie. Or maybe you were only looking at the pictures, mostly frequency response graphs. Oh I get it, Packer never read those parts of the ragazine, you know the ones about music. If I want to read about music I buy the Gramophone magazine, as would any sensible person. Okay, admittedly some of the subjective mags hear differences where a dog would have difficulty, but I'm sure most readers compensate for that with a healthy dose of skepticism. Most subjective ragazines are so deep into imaginary differences that they wouldn't know the difference. Eh? I just don't get the point of mags that deny the reality of subjectivism. There aren't any. Subjective differences between amps and CD players, Arnie. Don't be obtuse. It's like a mag about fridges that says, "Hey, they all freeze the bloody ice cream so what are you worried about? Just get the size that suits." That would be a figment of your imagination, Paul. At least I have an imagination, Arnie. |
|
#168
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
"paul packer" wrote in message
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:08:55 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message The thing I don't get is, if mags don't talk about subjective differences, what do they talk about? The good ones talk about subjective differences that are reliably perceptible. To you, Arnie? That wouldn't occupy much space. Well Paul, since you're just trying to be irritating, and not the least bit interested in truth, that's it. |
|
#169
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
|
|
#170
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
Howard Ferstler wrote: Clyde Slick wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Well, I do have an affinity for sending tight-assed, clueless old fogeys like yourself running for the hills. I forgot exactly how many times you have left RAO with your tail between your legs. when does your next hiatus begin? Immediately, but without my tail between my legs, tweako. While it is still hot here, my workshop and its deck out back are in the shade most of the day, and so, in spite of what I have said before about it being too hot here to do woodworking projects, doing things like that out there is not really all that taxing. I have some items I want to build now, and I also am getting back into reading. The fact is that duking it out with some of you RAO trilobites is, for the most part, both demoralizing and a waste of time. I have managed to post enough for assorted newcomers to get a feel for the stupidity of the tweako point of view. All you did for the newcomers is to confirm that yes, Howard Ferstler did retire from audio journalism in disgrace. I'll drop back in one of these days to see if the same people are ranting about the same pointless subjects. Whatever keeps you from sticking that gun in your mouth, slick. Boon |
|
#171
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
|
|
#172
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
Howard Ferstler wrote: Jenn wrote: Why would anyone take the time to come to a place that he supposedly despises, displaying all the while that it's difficult for him to leave and stay away, taking pains to be critical of others' opinions in a groups whose name contains the word "opinion", and claiming to be educating others about how "goofy" their hobby is? I was a philosophy major in grad school. Adios Maybe you should be spending more time with the alt.suicide.holiday newsgroup. You might find it a more productive way to spend your life than hanging out here, slick. Boon |
|
#173
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:32:46 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:08:55 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message The thing I don't get is, if mags don't talk about subjective differences, what do they talk about? The good ones talk about subjective differences that are reliably perceptible. To you, Arnie? That wouldn't occupy much space. Well Paul, since you're just trying to be irritating, and not the least bit interested in truth, that's it. What is it, Arnie? Don't keep me in suspenders. |
|
#174
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:41:44 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote: (paul packer) said: Fair enough, and the last point is similar to one I made just recently. However, the sound of any component in your system is constant, whereas room acoustics and recording quality are variables (I mean that you can hang drapes and chuck out the worst sounding CDs). If there really is a "sound" to your amp, it will affect all CDs all the time, and possibly also thwart all attempts to improve sound through changing room acoustics. What I'm saying is that if you're wrong and the amp you're using IS imposing a sound, it's going to taint everything without you ever realizing what the problem is. So in that sense we're both wrong about that last point. That's the nicest thing about being an electronics hobbyist: you *can* alter the sound of your amp, and realize what you're doing. Take it one step further: you *can* change the character of the entire system (room acoustics notwithstanding) by tweaking one (or more) components in the chain. The next step is tweaking the components towards eachother (like: amp to speaker, which has the most effect. But also: arm/cart, and cart-preamp). You can even strive for "system synthesis", with that I mean the outcome is more than just the sum of the parts. I believe I have reached that stadium just yet ;-) I presume you mean "haven't". In any case you make a good point, though I guess even if you achieved perfect synthesis and started marketing the "perfect system", individual room acoustics, individual taste and lousy recordings would still taint your Utopia. Still, it's all in the right direction, or would be if Home Theatre hadn't buggered the whole thing up. |
|
#176
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ferstler Moves On
Signal said:
I certainly would build my own speakers, if I had a fully-equipped woodworking toolshed at my disposal. As it is now, I have neither the space, nor the money to build up an entire woodwork place. I would like to, however. I feel it as a shortcoming in my experience that I have never built any serious speakers myself (only one subwoofer doesn't count IMO). You're discounting the JM Lab Utopia clones then...? ;-) Those were knockoffs, not my design, not my woordwork. I just did the electronics. -- "All amps sound alike, but some sound more alike than others". |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| The Mental Decline of Howard Ferstler | Audio Opinions | |||
| Article draft from Ferstler | Audio Opinions | |||
| Another older article from Ferstler | Audio Opinions | |||
| Ferstler Announces | Audio Opinions | |||
| Ferstler Readies and Article | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
