wrote in message
oups.com...


William Sommerwerck wrote:
IMO, Stereophile crossed the "beyond worthless" threshold quite
some time ago. It is now simply an advertising vehicle for the
manufacturers. Period.

It would more correct to compare the magazine under JGH's management
with it
under JA's.

Under JGH, the magazine's view was primarily that reproduced sound
should
sound like live sound, and it was the magazine's role to determine which
equipment most closely achieved this goal.

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of
"high
fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it
exists
primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to
make.


Isn't this just saying the same thing in a gentler way? It's not much
of a leap from what you wrote to: "it exists primarily to justify to
the readers the purchase of whatever the advertisers want to sell ".

The following claims are not the same:
1: the magazine is beholden to advertisers
2: the magazine has no objective standards
3. justify whatever choice the reader wants to make

These have all been made as derogatory, but they are different.

Robert Morein wrote:

The following claims are not the same:

1: the magazine is beholden to advertisers

Seems like.

2: the magazine has no objective standards

Arguable. SP does do technical tests.

3. justify whatever choice the reader wants to make

Seems like.

These have all been made as derogatory, but they are
different.

So what?

2: the magazine has no objective standards

Arguable. SP does do technical tests.

But when have they ever been correlated with what one "actually" (???)
hears? An "objective" test is objective only if it correlates with valid
subjective tests. Otherwise it's meaningless. To the best of my knowledge,
Stereophile has never performed listening tests that might provide this
correlation (or show there was none). Stereophile's technical tests are
largely window dressing.

20+ years ago, when JA introduced cumulative decay spectra as a speaker
measurement, I urged him to hold off for a year or so, to do additional
listening tests in the hope they would reveal correlations between the
measurements and specific subjective aspects of the speaker's sound. This,
like every other suggestion I made to JA, was instantly rejected.

It's worth noting that, when I reviewed the AKG K1000 ear speakers, I ran a
waterfall plot that correlated with the 'phones' extreme midrange "honking".
JA's reaction was to ask me whether I'd run the tests properly.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
2: the magazine has no objective standards

Arguable. SP does do technical tests.

But when have they ever been correlated with what one
"actually" (???) hears?

I agree. SP's objective tests are far from being
well-informed in terms of audibility. I believe this
partically comes from a vain attempt to bring them into some
kind of congruence with their subjective evaluations, which
being non-blind are not really well-connected to real
audibility.

An "objective" test is objective only if it correlates
with
valid subjective tests.

I would restate that to say:

An "objective" test is relative only if it correlates with
valid subjective tests.

Since SP does so many invalid subjective tests, they dont'
have a ghost of a chance of making any connections between
reliable subjective evaluations and the results of objective
evaluations.

Otherwise it's meaningless.

I agree.

To the best of my
knowledge, Stereophile has never performed listening tests
that might
provide this correlation (or show there was none).
Stereophile's
technical tests are largely window dressing.

I agree.

20+ years ago, when JA introduced cumulative decay spectra
as a
speaker measurement, I urged him to hold off for a year or
so, to do
additional listening tests in the hope they would reveal
correlations
between the measurements and specific subjective aspects
of the
speaker's sound. This, like every other suggestion I made
to JA, was
instantly rejected.

Not invented in the mind of JA, or agreeable to his biases.

I note that the current issue of SP attempts to rebut JA's
personal cataclysm at the HE2005 debate by recounting the
same ancient anecdote about JA, blind tests, and amplifier
choices. All I can say is that repeating a tragic story does
not seem to mitigate that intellectual tragedy and its
deliterious long-term effects on JA's intellect.

It's worth noting that, when I reviewed the AKG K1000 ear
speakers, I
ran a waterfall plot that correlated with the 'phones'
extreme
midrange "honking". JA's reaction was to ask me whether
I'd run the
tests properly.

It's a fair question, provided the answer is considered
fairly. I take it that your answer did not get a fair
treatment.

It's worth noting that, when I reviewed the AKG K1000
ear speakers, I ran a waterfall plot that correlated with the
'phones' extreme midrange "honking". JA's reaction was
to ask me whether I'd run the tests properly.

It's a fair question, provided the answer is considered
fairly. I take it that your answer did not get a fair treatment.

As far as I could tell, JA had already decided he liked the K1000s (who
_wouldn't_ want to like such a sexy audiophile product?), and didn't want
anything to disturb his a-priori judgement.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
It's worth noting that, when I reviewed the AKG K1000
ear speakers, I ran a waterfall plot that correlated
with the
'phones' extreme midrange "honking". JA's reaction was
to ask me whether I'd run the tests properly.

It's a fair question, provided the answer is considered
fairly. I take it that your answer did not get a fair
treatment.

As far as I could tell, JA had already decided he liked
the K1000s
(who _wouldn't_ want to like such a sexy audiophile
product?), and
didn't want anything to disturb his a-priori judgement.

Probably something like what happened in his power amp
anecdote from the HE2005 debate.

The following claims are not the same:
1: the magazine is beholden to advertisers
2: the magazine has no objective standards
3. justify whatever choice the reader wants to make

These have all been made as derogatory, but they are different.

No one ever said (or implied) they were equivalent (though #2 and #3 are at
least Velcro'ed at the hip).