Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#441
|
|||
|
|||
Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?
On 6/12/04 12:56 PM, in article jBGyc.32786$HG.21420@attbi_s53, "Nousaine"
wrote: No. I mentioned another year's figure in passing to demonstrate that the year you chose was not representative. I made no claim that this other year was typical or representative. OK why not just post all the years from 1999 to now? As you are the accuser - and he has handily refuted you - it seems the burden of proof is in your court, actually. |
#442
|
|||
|
|||
Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?
In message jBGyc.32786$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
|
|||
|
|||
Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?
|
#444
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?
|
#447
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#448
|
|||
|
|||
Doing an "evaluation" test, or has it already been done?
|
#449
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#451
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
ALL amps are equal?? | Car Audio | |||
Light weight system challenge | Car Audio | |||
Note to the Idiot | Audio Opinions | |||
Mechanic blames amplifier for alternator failing?? Help>>>>>>>>>>> | Car Audio | |||
Southeast Invitational Sound Challenge | Car Audio |