| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#121
|
|||
|
|||
"Chung" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "Chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 9 Dec 2004 01:09:34 GMT, wrote: Harry Lavo wrote: Lots of audiophiles apparently believe in the garbage-in-garbage-out theory, which holds that the speakers are the LEAST important link in the chain. (This theory was first propounded by a turntable manufacturer, I believe.) Linn, to be exact. And that was 25 years ago. Once again, you give no credit to the average audiophile to have educated himself since then. I don't know who the average audiophile is, or how many of them there are. I do know that this argument is made with some frequency on other discussion boards. Strictly speaking, it was coined in nthe computer industry, Linn just picked it up in order to sell expensive turntables. While the theory is of course true, and hence is a fair argument poer se, a false financial implication is often made by so-called 'high enders'. Unless you are still using vinyl, the reality is that there is no system budget implication in GIGO, since top-class input signals all the way to your speaker terminals may be obtained for less than $1,000. Certainly, it makes no sonic sense to spend more than $1,000 on the source component, when absolutely state of the art 'universal' players from Denon and Pioneer cost less than this. Except for the inconvenient fact that many high end reviewers don't consider them state-of-the-art CD players. Whether this perception is accurate or not I personally don't know. You would find that your pursuit of accurate audio reproduction is significantly hindered if you placed faith on "high-end" reviews. The endorsements we have seen on the WAVAC amp, the cables, the stones, the green pens should have pointed to you that the emperor wears no clothes, most of the time. Read those subjective reviews for entertainment, not for technical accuracy. Whether the high-end reviewer considered a piece of gear state-of-the-art is of absolutely no concen to anyone interested in the pursuit of accurate audio reproduction, i.e., hi-fi. It is reason enough to pause and listen for yourself. That's all. Rather than blindly accept Stewart's judgment (let's face it, when you call something "state-of-the-art" you are making a judgment, even if basing it on measurements. And frankly, high-end equipment has to be evaluated on sound as well as measurement. So unless Stewart is prepared to publish a peer-reviewed dbt of these two units versus say the Levinson combo, or the Linn player, or the new UA universal, then it is simply his opinion..one among many, many of whom do not agree. Well, you seem to think that the high-end reviews carry a lot more weight. As you put it, you felt it was "inconvenient" to rate a piece of gear highly if the high-end reviewers don't consider it state-of-the-art. My point is that as far as opinions go, the high-end reviewers are often not to be trusted at all, and you're better off discarding the subjective reviews from Stereophile altogether. In fact, given what we have read, I would not buy anything Stereophile reviewers consider state-of-the-art, simply because it is likely to be way over-priced with questionable or simply average performance. Indeed, Stereophile subjective reviews are so worthless that I don't bother to read them at all. One look at the bench tests tells me all I need to know. My only regret is that John Atkinson reads the reviewer's copy before he writes up his comments on the lab tests. It would be better if he didn't. If you make a habit of reading both the lab tests and the review, you will soon begin to wonder if they're talking about the same piece of equipment. It's clear to me that audio reviewers do not necessarily prefer an accurate presentation. Quite often they show a preference for highly distorted and non-linear sound. How else to explain SET movement? Norm Strong |
|
#122
|
|||
|
|||
|
normanstrong wrote:
Stereophile subjective reviews are so worthless that I don't bother to read them at all. Norman, Norman, break my heart, why don'tcha! One look at the bench tests tells me all I need to know. My only regret is that John Atkinson reads the reviewer's copy before he writes up his comments on the lab tests. It would be better if he didn't. Seriously, why do you say that? I think it far more important for my reviewers _not_ to see the measurements before they write up their opinions on sound quality, to avoid them "hearing" what they think they should. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#123
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#124
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#127
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... wrote: normanstrong wrote: Stereophile subjective reviews are so worthless that I don't bother to read them at all. Norman, Norman, break my heart, why don'tcha! One look at the bench tests tells me all I need to know. My only regret is that John Atkinson reads the reviewer's copy before he writes up his comments on the lab tests. It would be better if he didn't. Seriously, why do you say that? I think it far more important for my reviewers _not_ to see the measurements before they write up their opinions on sound quality, to avoid them "hearing" what they think they should. That's good practice. But he's suggesting the *you* not read *their* reviews before write up your measurement results...if that's what you do. What don't you guys get? His measurements are objective; they can't be changed by knowing what the subjective reviewer thought. But vice-versa, and you have a prior influence. Moreover John often does comment on discrepancies between his measurements and the subjective review, sometimes suggesting what the reviewer may have been hearing, and sometimes reflecting puzzlement over a pretty major difference. Give John a break. His measurements are the best thing going for the general audiophile public right now, offered in conjunction with the subjective review. Here's what you don't get, Harry. What Norman said was that Atkinson should perform his measurements first before reading what the reviewers said, *and* then provide a technical review or provide comments of the product based on measurements only. No doubt, he would have been much more critical of the Wavac amp, for instance. Or the huge differences claimed between cables. |
|
#128
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
John often does comment on discrepancies between his measurements and the subjective review, sometimes suggesting what the reviewer may have been hearing, and sometimes reflecting puzzlement over a pretty major difference. En masse, these discrepancies might provide some insight into what matters and what doesn't, regarding perceived quality. Give John a break. His measurements are the best thing going for the general audiophile public right now, offered in conjunction with the subjective review. Thank you, Mr. Lavo. I think people should also note that my review team doesn't refrain from saying what they think they hear, despite knowing that the products are subsequently going to be pulled apart on the test bench. Takes guts to do that, in my opinion. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#129
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Chung" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... wrote: normanstrong wrote: Stereophile subjective reviews are so worthless that I don't bother to read them at all. Norman, Norman, break my heart, why don'tcha! One look at the bench tests tells me all I need to know. My only regret is that John Atkinson reads the reviewer's copy before he writes up his comments on the lab tests. It would be better if he didn't. Seriously, why do you say that? I think it far more important for my reviewers _not_ to see the measurements before they write up their opinions on sound quality, to avoid them "hearing" what they think they should. That's good practice. But he's suggesting the *you* not read *their* reviews before write up your measurement results...if that's what you do. What don't you guys get? His measurements are objective; they can't be changed by knowing what the subjective reviewer thought. But vice-versa, and you have a prior influence. Moreover John often does comment on discrepancies between his measurements and the subjective review, sometimes suggesting what the reviewer may have been hearing, and sometimes reflecting puzzlement over a pretty major difference. Give John a break. His measurements are the best thing going for the general audiophile public right now, offered in conjunction with the subjective review. Here's what you don't get, Harry. What Norman said was that Atkinson should perform his measurements first before reading what the reviewers said, *and* then provide a technical review or provide comments of the product based on measurements only. No doubt, he would have been much more critical of the Wavac amp, for instance. Or the huge differences claimed between cables. I know what he said. But I don't see what difference it would make...once John hears what the subjective reveiw is, he then says what he has to say. In both cases. |
|
#130
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 15 Dec 2004 01:33:50 GMT, wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote: John often does comment on discrepancies between his measurements and the subjective review, sometimes suggesting what the reviewer may have been hearing, and sometimes reflecting puzzlement over a pretty major difference. En masse, these discrepancies might provide some insight into what matters and what doesn't, regarding perceived quality. Give John a break. His measurements are the best thing going for the general audiophile public right now, offered in conjunction with the subjective review. Thank you, Mr. Lavo. I think people should also note that my review team doesn't refrain from saying what they think they hear, despite knowing that the products are subsequently going to be pulled apart on the test bench. Takes guts to do that, in my opinion. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile The problem you have here is that this leaves two possibilities: 1. You review team has cloth ears, and is hearing stuff that isn't there - or failing to hear what is. 2. Your review team is writing what it is "supposed" to write in order to keep the advertisers coming. Either way the credibility of Stereophile is shot. (And yes, I bought a copy once). d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
|
#131
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 12 Dec 2004 23:36:44 GMT, wrote: normanstrong wrote: Stereophile subjective reviews are so worthless that I don't bother to read them at all. Norman, Norman, break my heart, why don'tcha! Always nice to see a measured and thoughtful reply from the editor of such an august publication. My apologies, Norman and Stewart, I forgot Tom Nousaine's diktat made a while back on r.a.h-e that humor has no place in audio. :-) My only regret is that John Atkinson reads the reviewer's copy before he writes up his comments on the lab tests. It would be better if he didn't. Seriously, why do you say that? I think it far more important for my reviewers _not_ to see the measurements before they write up their opinions on sound quality, to avoid them "hearing" what they think they should. Unfortunate that an editor seems to have difficulty with a clear English statement. Norman is not suggesting that the reviewers see the lab tests... Which is the meaning I took from his words, hence my response "Why do you say that?" and my statement about what I think "far more important" than Norman's proposition. I think you took the opposite meaning from my clumsily underlining of the word "not" when I should have underlined the word "reviewers." Sorry for the confusion. he's suggesting that the lab tests are published with no reference to the subjective review, thereby frequently pointing up what trash the subjective guys like Fremer are spewing. With respect, Stewart, I think Stsreophile's readers are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves what they feel to be trash and what they don't. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#132
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Chung" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: What don't you guys get? His measurements are objective; they can't be changed by knowing what the subjective reviewer thought. But vice-versa, and you have a prior influence. Moreover John often does comment on discrepancies between his measurements and the subjective review, sometimes suggesting what the reviewer may have been hearing, and sometimes reflecting puzzlement over a pretty major difference. Give John a break. His measurements are the best thing going for the general audiophile public right now, offered in conjunction with the subjective review. Here's what you don't get, Harry. What Norman said was that Atkinson should perform his measurements first before reading what the reviewers said, *and* then provide a technical review or provide comments of the product based on measurements only. No doubt, he would have been much more critical of the Wavac amp, for instance. Or the huge differences claimed between cables. Imagine this scenario (which is not too far off reality  The crimelab receives a bloody shirt from the victim of a fatal attack. The police want to know if any of this blood matches the DNA of a suspect. So they provide the lab with the shirt and a vial of the suspect's blood. The lab reports that there are traces of the suspect's blood here and there on the shirt. What would you say? Is this evidence? Now let's make a slight change. Instead of a vial of the actual suspect's blood, the detective in charge of the case substitutes a vial of his own blood, mismarking it as the suspect's. The lab duly reports that there is, indeed, blood from the suspect on the shirt. Does this constitute evidence of the detective's guilt? Norm Strong |
|
#133
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: (Don Pearce)
Date: 12/15/2004 5:20 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: On 15 Dec 2004 01:33:50 GMT, wrote: Harry Lavo wrote: John often does comment on discrepancies between his measurements and the subjective review, sometimes suggesting what the reviewer may have been hearing, and sometimes reflecting puzzlement over a pretty major difference. En masse, these discrepancies might provide some insight into what matters and what doesn't, regarding perceived quality. Give John a break. His measurements are the best thing going for the general audiophile public right now, offered in conjunction with the subjective review. Thank you, Mr. Lavo. I think people should also note that my review team doesn't refrain from saying what they think they hear, despite knowing that the products are subsequently going to be pulled apart on the test bench. Takes guts to do that, in my opinion. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile The problem you have here is that this leaves two possibilities: Only two? 1. You review team has cloth ears, and is hearing stuff that isn't there - or failing to hear what is. Funny, I thought you and several others thought this was normal and due to expectation bias. I didn't know that it meant they had "cloth ears." Are you impervious to expectation bias or do you also have cloth ears? 2. Your review team is writing what it is "supposed" to write in order to keep the advertisers coming. Just what are they "supposed" to write and how do you know? Either way the credibility of Stereophile is shot. (And yes, I bought a copy once). |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Power conditioner or power cord or something else | Audio Opinions | |||
| Audiophilia updated | Audio Opinions | |||
| Crazy market saturation! | Car Audio | |||
| Note to the Idiot | Audio Opinions | |||
| System balance for LP? | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
