[
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]
|
Home
/ FAQ
/ News Classifieds / Events |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer |
Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
207.91.86.2
In Reply to: RE: Messrs. Atkinson and Fremer are mad as hell and they aren’t going to take it anymore! posted by regmac on January 26, 2008 at 12:44:36
at $6.00.
(I really have to renew my subscription.)
And your point is?
Surely you are not going to argue that MP3s are indistinguishable from RBCD in any half-decent playback system.
And perhaps you didn't see a recent article by a non-audiophile in an non-audiophile publication that mentioned that JA and, IIRC, WP distinguished between two cables in an SBT, even though many of the run-of-the-show people were less successful in doing so.
Having now read both pieces (Atkinson's and Fremer's), I think it's fair to say that their basic point is that people need to be reminded of what music really sounds like, and it's disappointing (to say the least) when people who listen to music seriously (like Teachout) promote the notion that playback quality doesn't matter (or doesn't matter very much).
The only gripe that I have is about Fremer's analogy between "old" music and old technology (like vinyl). Of course no one would seriously argue that "old" music is worse than "new" music; it's just different. But, in the world of technology "new" is often -- but not always -- better. So -- picking up on Fremer's analogy -- while it is ridiculous to say that 1950s jazz is inferior, that fact does not make it equally ridiculous to say that 1950s audio playback technology is inferior.
In fact, for those who've been around long enough to know, today's vinyl playback system is not "your father's" vinyl playback system of the 1950s. It is better. Vinyl is an old technology, but that doesn't mean that it's not susceptible to improvements. The reason that CD looked so good at first is that it does solve the identified problems with vinyl: pitch instability, low-frequency noise, harmonic distortion, dynamic range.
However, CD brings with it a whole new set of problems, unknown to vinyl. It's just that those problems are "invisible" to the metrics traditionally applied to vinyl playback.
Meanwhile, with a lot of diligence, the magnitude of vinyl's problems has certainly been reduced over the past 40 years.
Bruce: “Thanks to your post, I actually went out and bought a newstand copy.”
Well, I’m flattered to learn that in my own small way I’m enhancing Stereophile’s bottom line.
Bruce: “And your point is?”
Bruce, my good man, you’re a successful attorney in D.C. And because of that fact your reading comprehension skills are, presumably, superior to many of those who frequent this thread. Admittedly, most here don’t agree with my position but they bloody well get it. So I’ll assume your question is rhetorical in nature. As for your other concerns:
Bruce: “Surely you are not going to argue that MP3s are indistinguishable from RBCD in any half-decent playback system.”
I argue no such thing and see no need for you to erect a straw man. I merely note that compressed files appear to be “good enough” for Teachout, Tommasini, and millions of consumers. Consumers, by the way, who readily grasp the fact that there are qualitative differences in audio components/formats, as with virtually all other products. (The concept of qualitative distinctions among products is hardly new or unique to audio.)
As I stated earlier, iPod users seem to be having considerably more fun than their audiophile counterparts, judging by the sardonic letters-to-the-editor one reads in audio journals, and the acrimony one encounters at this venue. The MP3 generation is enjoying music instead of getting bogged down in eternal debates and internecine warfare. So, who really has the problem here?
I readily admit that RBCD offers a qualitative improvement over compressed files, but do not think the difference is so great as some would have us believe. I deem it closer to a nuance than a night and day difference. And I doubt hoi polloi will be overly impressed by mere nuance.
Bruce: “And perhaps you didn't see a recent article by a non-audiophile in an non-audiophile publication that mentioned that JA and, IIRC, WP distinguished between two cables in an SBT, even though many of the run-of-the-show people were less successful in doing so.”
Now you’re off straw men and onto non sequiturs. What does this article have to do with my larger point i.e., that I see no evidence of media responsibility for the demise of hi-end audio? In my view the audio industry needs to take responsibility for its own problems, instead of looking for scapegoats. Mr. Fremer would disagree. Thus the title of his essay: “The Swift Boating of Audiophiles.”
Perhaps you reference this article because of my DBT suggestion. In any event, here’s what I took away from the article:
1) “One of the tests compared a high-quality MP3 file from an iPod with a CD on a $3,000 player. Three-quarters of the 24 people taking this test preferred the CD. That was no surprise. However, when I played .wav files on the iPod -- these are digital but uncompressed files; I was connecting the headphone jack to the amplifier -- 52% of the 21 who took this test preferred the iPod. That made me smile, not because snooty audiophiles got the ‘wrong’ answer, but because it suggests GREAT SOUND CAN COME FROM POPULAR, CHEAP GEAR.” {Emphasis mine}
2) A rep. from Audience LLC couldn’t identify {blind} his own $2,800 power-line conditioner a third of the time. He doesn’t recognize his own product yet neophytes and skeptics are supposed to be impressed by its benefits? Cut me a break.
3) JA insists the sonic difference between CD and compressed files is “not particularly subtle.” Which is another way of saying it’s fairly “obvious.” Obvious enough, presumably, that the masses would have little difficulty distinguishing between the two formats. Yet, 25 percent of the listeners, according to the article, preferred the compressed file or could not distinguish between the two. Citing this article is a curious way of making your case, counselor.
4) “I was struck by how the best-informed people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable.”
This flattering assessment of their skills contradicts Mr. Fremer’s notion that the mainstream press delights in ridiculing audiophiles.
5) “In absolute terms, though, the differences weren't great. Mr. Atkinson guesstimated the expensive cables sounded roughly 5% better.”
Again, we are back to mere nuance and I suspect that’s a deal breaker for most of the great unwashed.
6) “Remember, by definition, an audiophile is one who will bear any burden, pay any price, to get even a tiny improvement in sound.”
See my response to number five.
7) “Attendance at the show was disappointing…”
Bruce: “Having now read both pieces (Atkinson's and Fremer's), I think it's fair to say that their basic point is that people need to be reminded of what music really sounds like,”
I’m sure it is, Bruce. But this is no different than Robert Parker insisting that people need to be reminded of what fine wine tastes like. But the vast majority of consumers have little interest in going to the time and expense of searching out First Growth Bordeaux; likewise hi-end audio gear. And I’m afraid the media aren’t going to be of much help insofar as changing those attitudes, at least anytime soon.
Concerning the media: As best I can discover, there’s no “swift boating,” or “constant attack” to harm the hi-end audio industry or to disparage audiophiles. I’m open to being persuaded otherwise. But I don’t see much evidence to support such claims. Do you, counselor?
Bruce: “and it's disappointing (to say the least) when people who listen to music seriously (like Teachout) promote the notion that playback quality doesn't matter (or doesn't matter very much).”
Life is full of disappointments, Bruce. But if that’s Teachout’s opinion then so be it. Would audiophiles rather he lie in order to promote their industry? Besides, methinks JA&MF credit Teachout and Tommasini with wielding too much influence. If their point is that two aging music critics are responsible for holding back an entire industry then perhaps they should rethink their position or take steps to revamp their industry.
Taking a confrontational approach with the media will only invite ridicule, which was my point when I wrote that I was afraid MF was on the verge of shooting himself in the foot. (I don’t think JA&MF would care to see their industry become fodder for SNL.)
If the hi-end industry wants more respect then let it get to work and earn it. But don’t complain, like petulant children, that the big boys won’t let you in their game. It’s unseemly.
If audiophiles wish to broaden their customer base then they need to prepare to meet with a healthy degree of skepticism. Therefore, it’s important to be logically consistent in one’s approach. Don’t, as Mr. Fremer does, insist the problem is that audiophiles are under “constant attack,” and then a short time later insist the problem is that audio “is not being covered.” One can’t have it both ways.
I suggest the audiophile industry get its talking points straight before drawing further attention to itself. So, what’s the position vis-à-vis the media going to be? Is the problem that the industry is under attack by a hostile media, or that the media are ignoring the industry?
I think I get it.
There is a subtext in the Fremer piece (and in Art Dudley's lament in his column in the same issue, which is otherwise irrelevant to my post here) that you found off-putting, but didn't mention. The reason I know that, is that I found it off-putting, too; and your politics and mine aren't that far apart.
The subtext is the political one -- the use of the term "swift-boating." And the reason that I found it off-putting was that, assuming, arguendo the truth of the Democrats' original gripe (that is that the "swift boat veterans for truth" was a completely baseless attack on Sen. Kerry's "war hero" status) the metaphor is inapt in the context in which Fremer uses it. These two guys are not "attacking" high-end audio (which is your point).
They're just not supporting sound quality -- and they ought to be. Just as an oenophile would probably be horrified if a noted wine critic drank his vintage out of paper or styrofoam cups, Fremer finds that idea that classical music critics are saying lossy compressed digital audio is "good enough" to be reprehensibe. But the reason these music critics ought to be supporting better sound quality is not simply that they should support conoisseurship in a related field (a contestable proposition), but that the world's best music -- music that people have found worthy of their time and attention for generations -- suffers the most from crappy reproduction. There is a qualitative difference between hearing a symphony live in a good hall and hearing it reproduced on an MP3 in a "personal stereo" that does not exist between hearing a rock concert live and reproduced the same way. Sure, the live rock concert is deafeningly, viscerally loud; but it's not qualitatively different than the way it sounds on an MP3. A characteristic of orchestral classical music is its scale, which is part of its attractiveness. That the scale is diminished in any reproduction is a commonplace; but lossy compressed reproduction through the equivalent of a table radio removes all of the scale of the music.
So, for these music critics -- who make their living off of "serious music" -- to overlook those differences is unfortunate because the first time most people these days encounter serious music is outside the concert hall, in playback of a recording. And what it would be nice for these critics to say is, "If you want to know what the excitement of serious music is; if you want to know why it merits your undivided attention, it helps to have it reasonably well reproduced." Then, a novice whose experience with serious music doesn't "grab him" may at least put it down to poor reproduction and be willing to try "the real thing" (attending a concert) nonetheless.
Now, to my final point. In their own way, the boys at Stereophile are doing the hobby a disservice as well, with their implicit assumption -- reflected in the use of terms like "swift boating" -- that everyone with any sense of taste or potential to appreciate the subtleties of expensive audio is a liberal Democrat (and the converse of that statement, that anyone who isn't a Democrat is a functionally deaf, beer-swilling, boombox-toting philistine). Unless they've got concrete proof of this proposition (based on a population sample that doesn't believe that the country ends at the Hudson River until you reach San Francisco Bay), they're alienating some group of actual or potential supporters of high end audio.
So, ironically, Fremer is as guilty of swift-boating (his term) high-end audio as the two people he writes about in his column; and he's not the only regular writer in S'phile who does so.
"music that people have found worthy of their time and attention for generations -- suffers the most from crappy reproduction."
Absolutely and an astute observation.
...YOUR politics than theirs.From Wikipedia:
"Swiftboating is American political jargon that is used (primarily) as a strong pejorative description of some kind of attack that the speaker considers unfair or untrue—for example, an ad hominem attack or a smear campaign."You took that one term and wrote a whole page justifying Regmac's silly rant.
Sorry the term offends your delicate rightish political sensibilities, but it means the same thing to anyone with half a brain, regardless of their politics.
Get real.
In your favor, at least you paid for the magazine.
he first considered the source before stating his case.
Do tell how many reviewers and manufacturers alike from the left coast, east coast (and Boulder for that matter), did not believe the Dan Rather report in that election? Hey, the documents may be forgeries, but we all know that the facts are true. Wink, wink. Until I ever read anything along the lines of "The Z3A speakers sucked big time, much like that of a White House intern" or "It is obvious that the amplifier manufacturer did not do enough spade work prior to releasing the X4Bs," I'll have to believe the intent of the comments were as Bruce outlined.
P.S. Barack has my vote as he has pretty much promised me the world. Who'd you vote for in the primary on Tuesday.
What odds would you give that the author of that wikipedia article is a Republican?
Be careful how you answer, now. Remember that you think all Republicans are cretins!
;=)
(nt)
and they have an inordinate fondness for bananas!
...in the future.
At least the ones of you who believe in evolution...
They'd never go off the straight and narrow, as they see it :-)
Dear Bruce:
We ought to put our act on the road. Herewith a trial balloon. As I’ve said before, Mr. Dudley is a splendid writer, whose politics, while decidedly left of center, do not prevent me from enjoying his columns. (Nor is Stereophile bereft of conservatives.) But why this should matter to folks is beyond me. It’s a safe bet that no one reads Stereophile for its political content. What does Mr. Dudley say that you find so egregious?
Concerning JA&MF: I suspect their fevered columns were an overreaction, born of frustration, that the hobby they’ve given their lives to is not being accorded the recognition and respect they think it deserves. Indifference can be the ultimate insult for passionate types who find themselves in such circumstances.
Yes, there exists a highly insular group that thinks Manhattan and San Francisco represent an accurate U.S. demographic. Bernie Goldberg writes of an encounter he had with an exasperated native of Manhattan’s upper West Side. The poor fellow was lamenting another GOP presidential victory. Turning to Goldberg he asked, “How does this keep happening?! I don’t even know any conservatives!”
Wishing you and yours all the very best.
Mr. Dudley describes his daughter's dress: "a curiously stylized thing made of brown satin, with ruffles down the front, in the manner of Prince's stage outfits or the undergarments worn by certain Congressmen. [italics mine].
On second, thought, I slap myself upside the head for being bitchy. Perhaps because it is such a nice turn of phrase (until the Congressman part), the thing jumped out at me as jarring. I do read Art's column faithfully; and I agree with 99.1% of what he says in this particular column, although I'm not as pessimistic as he is. For example, if you have the jazz classic "Waltz for Debby" which was recorded live in some sort of a club, it's pretty obvious that not everyone there is sitting in respectful silence as the Bill Evans Trio gives what most people acknowledge is a landmark performance. I wonder if any of them subsequently realized that when the recording came out and felt stupid for having been "suave and sophisticated" with their date, their martini and their Chesterfield dripping gray ash as it passed from their lips to the ashtray instead of just focusing on the music. So "pearls before swine" when it comes to live performances is not just today's phenomenon.
As far as not listening to music while doing something else, I don't listen to music in my car either, not that that's too possible, it being a soft-top roadster. Hell, at highway speeds, I can't even use a cellphone with an earpiece and that's with the top and the windows up!
Mike Kuller is giving thumbs down on our act, so we might want to revise our profit projections before taking it on the road.
“Mr. Dudley describes his daughter's dress: "a curiously stylized thing made of brown satin, with ruffles down the front, in the manner of Prince's stage outfits or the undergarments worn by certain Congressmen.”
Yes, but how and the hell did Dudley gain access to Barney Frank's intimate apparel?! Now THAT is a surprise. Perhaps I will subscribe for the "entertainment value." “Brown Satin”? Odd that. Ol’ Barn strikes me as the sort who would be hot for lavender silk. Liberals will insist this serves me right for thinking in stereotypes.
"As far as not listening to music while doing something else, I don't listen to music in my car either, not that that's too possible, it being a soft-top roadster. Hell, at highway speeds, I can't even use a cellphone with an earpiece and that's with the top and the windows up!"
A sales rep. who used to call on me, once remarked that if not for classical music he would have been unable to endure the 40,000 monotonous miles of driving he put in each year. Music was his inoculation against boredom and in that regard it served a utilitarian purpose. I once asked him what sort of gear he listened to at home and was surprised to learn that he did not own a home stereo system. His listening habits were limited to the road.
And there’s my 25-year-old nephew who has traveled thousands of miles attending a dozen or so Dave Matthew’s concerts. He’s also fond of listening to Matthews on his iPod and enjoys watching DVD concerts of the band. What he won’t do is waste (his word) an hour listening to the band while sitting in “the sweet spot.” An informal survey of his friends reveals similar attitudes.
He once told me, with a twinkle in his eye, that upgrading his home “system” seemed more important to me than to him. Audiophiles would do well to remember that musical quality is not the summum bonum for 99.999999 percent of humanity.
"Mike Kuller is giving thumbs down on our act, so we might want to revise our profit projections before taking it on the road."
Aw, shucks, I betcha he’d change his mind if JA gave it a thumbs up.
...about MF and JA passing a SBT with cables.
Well, 61% of 39 (that would be 24) appears to be statistically significant. Pity there were no real controls so we don't really know what was happening.
The blind test methodology didn't prevent them from getting a positive result.
-
"It pertains to all men to know themselves and to be temperate."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
...PropHead say there's never been a positive blind test with cables, you can refer them here.
That's what Gomes says. So the most that can be said would seem to be that people could tell the difference between two different systems--granted, with the same models of equipment in each except the DUT. But as andy_c pointed out the obvious on rec.audio, the speaker placement couldn't have been the same. As well, what with manufacturing tolerances, the speakers may have been different enough to sound slightly different. So the test establishes absolutely nothing about the different cables.
-
"It pertains to all men to know themselves and to be temperate."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
"So when your pals on......PropHead say there's never been a positive blind test with cables, you can refer them here."
I'd refer them to some better run tests--these were speaker cables, you know. The trouble with Gomes' tests is that we don't really know what was happening.
-
"It pertains to all men to know themselves and to be temperate."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
The trouble with Gomes' tests is that we don't really know what was happening.
That was my impression as well. My thoughts on what little information Gomes provided are here
I went back and read the article more closely. It's worse than I realized!
-
"It pertains to all men to know themselves and to be temperate."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
...it's the never-ending DBT debate from a bunch of idiots whose objectivist opinions are constantly stated as though they're facts.
.
-
"It pertains to all men to know themselves and to be temperate."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
it's the never-ending DBT debate from a bunch of idiots whose objectivist opinions are constantly stated as though they're facts.
The forum in question is rec.audio.opinion, which contains a wide variety of posts from all kinds of people. Certainly there are nutcases on both sides of the issue, and both nutcase sides are well represented there, as well as many positions in between. The original post in that thread, to which I replied, was from John Atkinson. Its subject was the very one you brought up yourself upstream in this thread, and John was the one who brought it up there.
So if you didn't want this particular cable test discussed, you shouldn't have brought it up. It appears to me that it's not the subject itself you wish to avoid (since you brought it up yourself), but views that oppose your own. Not my problem.
If anybody knows any details of the protocol of that test that were left out by Gomes, I'd be interested in hearing more about it - but probably in a separate thread, maybe in a different forum. I remain open-minded about it. As I mentioned in my usenet post, very little information is provided - not enough to reach a conclusion one way or the other.
when you choose to ignore all tests that have positive results. Such is the MO of the objectivists. I have been told by one notorious objectivist that I literally lied about my personal blind tests because I got positive results. DENIAL incarnate.
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]