|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
64.142.27.2
How many decades old is the high-end audio press?Please don't tell me it all started with Stereophile. There had to be at least a few better quality amateur publications before that. Low end rags like Stereo Review helped set the stage with their inane raves over mass market gear? Was the high-end audio press a revolt against mediocrity, about the same way Audio Asylum was a revolt from AudioReview.com?
Follow Ups:
Stereophile's first issue was dated Sept./Oct. 1962. Gordon Holt had worked for High Fidelity in the 50's and did equipment reviewing for them. He left High Fidelity to work for Weathers turntables and did a newsletter for them. The mailing list for the newsletter became the basis for Stereophile which I suspect was the first mature version of a 'high end' magazine. I would not be surprised there were early,less refined versions, previously. But Stereophile was the first, well developed magazine of its type. And more importantly it lasted and bred competitors and a new species of audio mag. I think we can call Gordon the father of the genre.
Bought my first real system in 1968 and 1969, which was when I started
reading Hi-Fi News and Hi-Fi Sound in the UK. Didn't see my first
issue of Stereophile until 1977.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I played 78's for my DAD who had polio from the time I was 5 on his RCA mahogany flip/top changer record player. It had a full range 8 inch speaker. Don't laugh, it played the full range that it could, just not what we could hear. The cabinet was very nice wood veneer and had a "tone" control. Awsome! It had two jacks on the back for a remote "full range" speaker. Cool! No one I knew even knew where to get one.If any of my Dad's friends had known anything about real high end audio back then my paper route money would have gone for more that just baseballs and Louisville sluggers and my Wilson A2000. My folks might have never had to endure that swell Delmonico cabinet "stereo".
I can think of a four letter word that has now replaced the Delmonico brand that was sold exclusively through your neighborhood Western Audio store. Be nice here. Times they are a changin.
Brands that might have made it into our home could have been Citation, JBL, AR, Fisher, Bozak, Altec...now that would have been something.
J. Gordon Holt.For a very decent article on origins:
Not much DIY or amateur hobbyist material in Stereophile nowadays. Mostly just reviews and glossy photos of megabuck gear. Has Stereophile lost touch with it's roots? Or are there very good reasons for cutting DIY out of the magazine?
Why should they? At one time there were virtually no manufacturers of audio equipment. DIY and kit building were the only choices for those interested in the hobby. Those days are in the past for the vast majority of us. Note to JA, listen to the recommendations here (DIY focus, no advertising) and Stereophile will have the lifespan of a house fly.
Audio used to be known as "an engineer's hobby". The hobby part for most of us today -- and most of us are *not* engineers -- is otherwise known as "tweaking". Which means, trying to get more out of our stuff than the original makers, for whatever reason, provided.In the (perhaps) "good old days" one never questioned that the record was good as it stood, one instead built amps and loudspeakers. Today we know that records (and CDs) require all sorts of attention, and rest content to change tubes in our amps and reposition our speakers.
If you care to know, I think the new way is preferable. And to whatever extent Stereophile covers tweaks -- granted, that's not a lot -- it covers the "hobbyist material".
clark
> Not much DIY or amateur hobbyist material in Stereophile nowadays.
I have explained before on the Asylum why this is so. Stereophile
has never paid a lot of attention to this area, BTW, even when
Gordon Holt was the editor.
> Mostly just reviews and glossy photos of megabuck gear.
I think you are confusing Stereophile with another magazine.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I would like to find your earlier remarks about lack of DIY/hobbyist content in Stereophile. Got a link?Also, I can see now that my use of the phrase "megabuck gear" to describe Stereophile content was broadly inappropriate. You suggest as much quite politely. John Marks also 'explained' it to me in his post below. I get it now, and I regret if my comment came across as a slur.
Begging your pardon,
> I would like to find your earlier remarks about lack of DIY/hobbyist
> content in Stereophile. Got a link?
I really don't have the time to do a search myself, but if you use
the Asylum's search function using the keywords DIY + Atkinson or
mods + Atkinson, in "General" or "Critics Corner" you should get
some hits.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
.
.
You wrote:"Mostly just reviews and glossy photos of megabuck gear."
Perhaps this statement could be regarded as literally true, IF one were to assume that the word "megabuck" denoted anything costing more than one thousand dollars.
But I think that most fair readers would take your statement to mean that most of the equipment covered in Stereophile is beyond the economic reach of most of the readers. And I think that that is flat wrong. For every (meaning all of one) absuedly expensive amplifier that costs more than a waterfront house on Rhode Island's south shore, there are thirty or forty products covered that are affordable and good value for money.
Stereophile brought the Benchmark DAC to the attention of audiophiles, and awarded it the Editor's Choice award. That award went to a sub-$1,000 preamp/DAC, not the $300,000+ amplifier. My most recent column was dedicated to assembling a music lover's stereo system that a school music teacher could afford. Mr. Reina has for years covered sub-$1,000 loudspeakers. Art Dudley covers lots of affordable equipment.
True, Stereophile has not covered kits much at all. Perhaps Art Dudley will share information about his threatened winter project of building some new Lowther cabinets. If my head ever stops spinning a la Exorcist, I might even investigate a kit. But without question, from the Tivoli radio through the Benchmark DAC through sub-$2,000/pr speakers, a sizable chunk of Stereophile's page count each year is devoted to affordable gear.
I think your problem is one of perception rather than reality, although I can see how the occasional $300,000+ amplifier or $7,500 speaker cables could act as a red flag that sticks in the memory.
Cordially,
You took a single phrase, "megabuck gear", and made that the thrust of all I had to say. In fact it wasn't my main point at all. My point was that hobbyiest roots of building and modding gear are pretty much non-existent in your magazine. I even stated there may be good reasons for Stereophile's not covering the hobbyist/DIY end of audio, and yes I was hoping for some further explanation about that.Yes, I see my mistake now in using the phrase "megabuck gear". It implies luxury and non-affordablity. You've nailed me on that with 5 paragraphs of rebuttal. I concede the point.
What's also awkward for me is the personal tone you set with your final comment, which begins "Your problem is...". Why is it necessary to make ad hominem remarks?
It's getting very difficult in this forum to have a friendly interchange of ideas and opinions. So I give up. You win. Good bye and good luck.
The issue with DIY is not in the inherent worth of building something with your own hands. It has more to do these days with available time, interest, expense, and personal intrinsic value of the DIY process/experience itself.Many of us old timers built kits from Dynaco, Hafler, even Heathkit. There will be many who built the Heatkit Color TV which is quite a project just given the time and perseverance. Many came back into the store I worked at to get up in running from a minor component wiring error. You could even buy speaker kits from Heathkit from JBL and Altec and just about any piece of audio gear you wanted including a kit Advent 201 cassette recorder/player. The HeathKit operation in Michigan was quite a remarkable thing.
With expensive American manufacturing pretty much gone from the audio front, cheaply robot assembled, high quality hifi gear is everywhere making any possible DIY savings non existent. I am not sure that a DIY $39 DVD player would have much of a market or a DIY Ayre 5 Cd player. Most people will not even take time to PLAY vinyl anymore, opting for time spent downloading MP3's for their portable player.
The DIY part of this business has always been about the "Norm Abram" side of us. There is value in building "your own", but it is a personal thing and the market is all but vanished. I am afraid the lack of time has also become our enemy. Gone as well a walk in the park, a ride in New England in the fall with the promise of a cup of hot cider, quiet time with a good book. Now it is parents sending kids to computer or soccer camp or the next big game which has its own value to the participants, or just being dropped at the Mall to cruise. The times have changed. So have society's audio interests.
John Atkinson's AA posts about DIY are also pretty good. He says DIYers are just not a big enough community. Not big enough to justify column space in Stereophile. He even recommends the smaller publications that cover DIY well, like Glass Audio, Vacuum Tube Valley, Audio Xpress and a few others.Somehow DIYers just don't get the respect they deserve. Hobbyist DIYers jump-start high-end audio. High end audio enjoys commercial success. Commercial success pushes out the hobbyist DIYers. If ya can't make a buck from 'em, who needs 'em?
"High end audio enjoys commercial success."As has been said many times, the best way to make a small fortune in high-end audio is to start with a large fortune. There are few businesses that are more difficult to make profitable than high-end audio. The failure rate is astronomical. In most cases, one would be better off putting there money in a passbook savings account. Most do it for the love of the hobby and not to make a financial killing. There are simply easier ways to make money.
OK, on topic, DIY is a very, very small niche and is not now nor will it ever be a significant part of a market that, in the scheme of things, is
not much more than a niche market itself.
I knew you'd come clean. If it ain't about money, then it doesn't deserve consideration. Your view, eh? Stereophile's view too?Funny how that guy Holt persevered for two decades in putting out Stereophile on a next to nothing budget. Somebody forgot to tell him that money was king.
And this very forum; you think it's about money? And the DIYers who started this hobby, was it about money for them?
Admit it. Money and market economics are only a major slice of audio. The rest of audio is built on good will, sharing information, love of the hobby, and various other nebulous things.
Of course, it's always about money. Some one has to pay for writing, editing and publishing. Stereophile didn't exactly thrive in those first twenty years....it barely survived. TAS was in even worse shape. The model will not work today for a print magazine. The costs are simply too high. It may be possible with an emagazine where the costs are much lower and people may be willing to do it as a hobby but not as a going business concern. The WEB is the tool for those who want a focus
on DIY. Don't expect it from an established magazine that is expected to be profitable.
If high-end audio products are available decade after decade, that tells me that manufactures and dealers are doing well enough. Which is to say high-end audio IS commercially viable. I never made the argument that high-end audio was lucrative or a good investment, but you replied to my post as if I had.Seems like we've strayed off topic.
I posted to solicit opinions about the DIY/hobbyist community and its role in high-end audio. Talk about that!
I read the same thing you did and did not perceive anything that resembles "ad hominem remarks".Given the sharp tone exhibited in CC towards certain Stereophile staff, I am personally surprised we don't see more evidence of sandbags and flack jackets than we do.
No kidding. Fell off my bike last night in a road construction area. Need to have my hand xrayed.As for ad hominem content, Webster's online dictionary defines 'ad hominem' as follows:
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions madeWhen Mr. Mark's says "your problem is ...", it implies unambigiously that I have a problem. The issue has become me, rather than "an answer to the contentions made".
I do not believe Mr. Marks intended to make a personal remark, it just slipped. About like my "megabuck gear" comment. Both comments were inapproprate. I've made my amends. No big deal. Please forget about it.
and just needs a day or two to get right. That reminds me, I need to get my bike out a little more often. I have had zero falls this year and that is out of character for me.
Asphalt had been scraped away 1.5 inches down. Right next to original level of asphalt. Mid-lane. At night I just didn't see the line. Flew off the bike, broke the fall completely with my hands. First time I've fallen of my bike in many years.If I seem picky or crabby ....
I'll be seeking solace in a six pack. Red Hook, Widmer Hefeweizen, and Fuller's London Pride are my current favorites.
And JM is one of the good guys. I read his "your problem" as being more of a figure of speech than as a personal shot.
I fell perfectly. Nice to know I occasionally do something right, even if it's falling down.About JM, I know he is one of the good guys. And squabbling is horrible. So I'd rather forget it.
Thanks to all for the well-wishing; it helps. Bass pale ale is helping too. 3 lovely bottles and I forgive and forget the aggravations of the day.
I could have as easily said, "It is an issue of..." and in the future I will attempt to remember to use that formulation.I am glad you are OK.
Late response due to circumstances beyond my control, but not involving health professionals.
Sincerely,
.
You landed more gracefully than I. My clavicle and three ribs were fractured a few weeks ago in a bicycle fall.
Besides the PAIN, you lose time off work? The worst is being stuck at home when it hurts just to move. Horrible! Cold beer gives me a nice euphoric mood altering mind-set. Now I understand the Aussie phrase, "No worries!" It means they're plastered. Good beer really does help. God speed your recovery.
Thanks for the update -- have another beer to ease the pain!
as I'd give you one of my "Jack Daniels" beers. ;~)
would come out to play.
...need more skeet targets?
In terms of targets, TAS has been giving people plenty to shoot at. It's just no fun if the target never shoots back. In the last few issues RH has been pushing (albeit somewhat awkwardly) to open some issues for debate. The problem being that it appears the debate can only take place in the space alloted for letters. That, as you know, makes for a very lopsided conversation and not much of a debate.His approach would be much more interesting if he would venture into this forum. Stereophile takes most of the heat in CC only because the staff actually spends time in here interacting with some of their targeted readership.
Here is one minor example: Of all of the "tools in the shed" that were readily available for a review of the "digital" turntable (my abbreviated name for it), how did that task fall upon JV? Even if JV were completely wowed by that product, he would have been between a rock and a hard spot to actually say so. Like I said, that is a minor one. There are plenty of other issues that would be worthwhile to discuss, IMHO.
As for the issues that RH is trying to promote a debate on? I pretty much agree with him on everything, except his penchant for doing away with the CD and adopting some (in his opinion, apparently any) new hi-rez disc. Sometimes, the yearning to re-live the old transition from vinyl to CD and accompanying increase in merchandise and magazine sales is a little too obvious.
Why not e-mail RH directly? I'm out of the loop when it comes to editorial matters at TAS, including the reasoning behind review assignments.
Wanna bet lunch at the place of your choosing (in Vegas) that I don't get an answer?
> > Wanna bet lunch at the place of your choosing (in Vegas) that I don't get an answer? < <You're on! RH is usually pretty good about answering all his e-mail--not only from us, but from TAS readers as well. Lucky for you, I'm a burger 'n fries kind of gal ;-)
...of your current piece(s) on affordable gear.
you try listening to some of the same such gear. They may challenge some of you current assumptions, at least my reading of them (your assumptions), e.g. that differences between components are often very subtle, require exceptional hearing acuity and listening experience to detect, that sort of thing. Oh I suppose there's always the possibility that one is 'tin-eared' but I suspect this is more rare than the occurance of components of similar price/design/features sounding so much alike as to require an 'expert' to detect/describe, in other words, unlikely.
Might I suggest you try listening to some of the same such gear.I'm workin' on it bjh. It's one of my central ambitions: to get a good listen of lots of different gear. But I'm busy and I live in a bit of a backwater, audio-wise. There's a great dealer 2 hours from me, but with my schedule that's a long haul.
But as to your larger point, I don't think you should assume that my experience is ALL THAT limited, and I'm surprised that you--who presumably has listened to quite a lot of it--would argue (or seem to) that the differences are more than subtle. Now if we're talking about speakers I would agree with you. And analog front-ends can sound dramatically different. But I would argue--and please don't take this out of context; it is NOT a plea for DBT--that for any component where folks have a hard time getting it right in blind testing--and that goes for many amplifiers, cables certainly, and quite a few digital front ends (though by no means all of them)...well that fits my definition of "subtle." That doesn't mean they aren't important, and it doesn't mean I can't hear them, and it certainly doesn't mean that golden-eared pro's like you can't hear 'em. But if you do a rigorous test and the results are inconclusive, THAT'S subtle.
> But I would argue--and please don't take this out of context; it is NOT a plea for DBT--that for any component where folks have a hard time getting it right in blind testing--and that goes for many amplifiers, cables certainly, and quite a few digital front ends (though by no means all of them)...well that fits my definition of "subtle." That doesn't mean they aren't important, and it doesn't mean I can't hear them, and it certainly doesn't mean that golden-eared pro's like you can't hear 'em. But if you do a rigorous test and the results are inconclusive, THAT'S subtle.>Excellent and I agree completely, even if 'subtle' in this area is probably a bigger difference than you think.
But...when a reviewer listens to his reference system (with which he is intimately familiar) day in and day out, he may describe small or subtle differences as being greater and more important than they actually are - because to him they stand out in much greater relief than they will to anyone else casually listening to that particular component.
So it's really a matter of the reviewers needing to keep things in perspective so that when they describe a difference as 'huge', they are sure others will hear it to the same extent.
"But...when a reviewer listens to his reference system (with which he is intimately familiar) day in and day out, he may describe small or subtle differences as being greater and more important than they actually are - because to him they stand out in much greater relief than they will to anyone else casually listening to that particular component."I would postulate that an audiophile's personal system is just as, if not more, stable as a reviewer's system. Consider how many components a reviewer examines in a year and contrast that with component changes in an audiophile's home system. It is not the exceptions to the rule but rather the norm (which admittedly is near impossible to ascertain) that is of interest in such musings.
Thus when an audiophile makes a component change he/she is just as well positioned to recognize the change as the reviewer. Of course casual listening, e.g. in an audio shop, may have been the only opportunity some poor audiophile had to evaluate the piece before bringing it home, but that hardly changes the fact that it will then be inserted into a stable system.
This actually leads to an idea that I have pondered from time to time, namely, is it possible that average audiophiles, with less opportunity to examine gear for extended periods in a familiar setting, 'train' themselves (subconsciously) to evaluate sound quicker than the typical reviewer?
Mind you I expect that the plight for many audiophiles, having to make quick decisions about major component purchases, is exaggerated, and that many, by hook or crook, find ways to coerce dealers into agreeing to home demonstrations. Sure they may only have a few days to evaluate a piece, but that leads to an idea that I have pondered ... (basically same as above but drop the "in a familiar setting" bit).
BJH wrote, "I would postulate that an audiophile's personal system is just as, if not more, stable as a reviewer's system."I agree and think this explains why many times the reviews on Audio Asylum are more accurate and valid than those in the magazines.
> Thus when an audiophile makes a component change he/she is just as well positioned to recognize the change as the reviewer.>...but...a reviewer is listening to his system - which is assembled to easily discern differences - 'critically' most of the time where the average audiophile mostly relaxes and listens for enjoyment. There is a big difference and it translates into the reviewer's ability to recognize small differences and sometimes describe them out of perspective.
If you look at everything through a magnifying glass it changes your perspective.
. . . I often hear stuff regarding my system more readily when I'm *not* listening "critically." Trying real hard to hear the differences between stuff (as you might say happens in some ABX tests) seems a bit like writing--you can stare at a rotten paragraph for an hour and your eyes glaze over and you miss obvious faults.
> I often hear stuff regarding my system more readily when I'm *not* listening "critically." Trying real hard to hear the differences between stuff (as you might say happens in some ABX tests) seems a bit like writing--you can stare at a rotten paragraph for an hour and your eyes glaze over and you miss obvious faults.>You are exactly right, there is a paradox here. First, that's why long term listening is necessary. I think of it as "the Zen of listening" - although that comment will probably send some of the objectivists over the top.
You need to be looking for differences, although much of the time you're doing it passively as you casually listen in a relaxed manner to the music. Then when you match levels and switch components, you are aware of the differences which are there - the ones you missed when you were trying hard to notice them.
It's like you become aware of them on a subconscious level and they bubble up into your consciousness. Then once you become consciously aware of them, it becomes easy to identify and describe them.
I can only add that I certainly hope that the average reviewer takes the opportunity to relax and listen for enjoyment as well, and not just during non-review time, but rather incorporates such observations into the critical review process itself. The reports of many would suggest they do, all should.
But that's only what my own experience tells me, and that includes experience with cables, in particular ICs. However I get the distinct impression my experience is in concert with those of a great many audiophiles (not to mention reviewers).BTW, in case there's any possible doubt, my opinions are my own and I'm no Stereophile groopie. I used and enjoyed a ARC SP9II for almost a decade and as far as I know it might be the only ARC component that could be said to have received a good spanking by Stereophile. It replaced an Acdom 565 which, roughly at the same time, was a budget component that they cooed over (and placed very high in the 'list'). Verdict: SP9II beat the pants of the 565 in the 'realism' department, especially for phono.
Eventually they tried to back down (in a "Follow-up") by claiming a certain tube brought the SP9II to respectibility but that was pure BS. I moved to those tubes myself and found only a minor improvement, not changing the essential sound in any significant way.
---
p.s. Suggest column "As We See It" be renamed to "As I See It". That subtle change alone would have many of you unexperienced (in the empirical sense) views considerably less alarming.
> I used and enjoyed a ARC SP9II for almost a decade and as far as I
> know it might be the only ARC component that could be said to have
> received a good spanking by Stereophile.
No, it was the original SP9 that got the thumbs down from J. Gordon
Holt. The Mk.II got a more positive review in 1990. You can find both
reviews at www.stereophile.com/tubepreamps/739 .
The Audio Research LS8 also got the thumbs down from Stereophile, in
Martin Colloms' review in March 1999, while Mikey Fremer was bothered
by some aspects of the VTM200 monoblock in Januar 2001.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
.
It's all a matter of perspective, isn't it? If you wish to think of the differences in sound as being profound, I have no problem with that. And if the majority of audiophiles agree with you, that, too, is fine. And if I am not yet fully indoctrinated into the audiophile world--if I do not yet accept the dogma unquestioned--then, well, I consider that a good thing.But, fwiw, I also have no problem admitting the possibility--indeed, the probability--that there are many people out there with more experience, better hearing, more training, whatever, than I have. Perhaps you are one of them. Possibly effects I can barely discern, or cannot discern at all, may, to you, be obvious. I have no problem with that at all. "Golden ear" is not my chosen pretension.
The subjective reviews exist for people, audiophiles, who CAN and DO appreciate the sonic differences described. If this represents but a tiny fraction of the readership (those Golden Eared AND experienced) then what good is it, and in fact this would suggest that for the vast majority of the readership the high-end (not necessarily the high-priced) is an exercise in futility, a vanity fair!; and BTW your musings about wealth that appeared at Prop Head just a little time back suggest that you actually are leaning in that direction.One doesn't begin to the appreciate the benefits of superior musical reproduction by becoming indoctrinated in a dogma. Atkinson found himself immersed in a dogma at one point in time, the DBT dogma (because it's practice in audio is little more than a exercise to support another). Did he shed that dogma because he got in touch with reality, or did he simply exchange it for another.
Look, I've had plenty of conversations just like the one we are having today many many times here at the AA. However in virtually every cases the other party was typically a naysayer of one sort of another. Personally I never thought I'd be having it with a naysayer, a particularilly odd sort that doesn't even know he is one, that writes articles for the "As We See It" column in Stereophile.
Meaningless, indeed!, in that like most naysayers your viewpoint is immobile, the changing of which is as futile as banging ones head against a rock.Maybe the column name shouldn't be change, rather change the name of the publication itself ... it's starting to become an insult to the legacy of JGH.
You may enjoy the last word it you so desire ... I've had enough!
Differences among the best high-end components are becoming so small that it is increasingly hard for a self-professed golden ear, let alone a professional reviewer, to hear describable differences. Those who work at it can still come up with something to talk about, but we are all working these days at the very limits of human perception, where the detection of tiny differences is often more a matter of feeling—of responding to the sound at an emotional rather than analytical level—than of observation. There is a tendency to reach out toward what we are hearing, meticulously winnowing every aural cue that we can hang an adjective on. And at this point, the question of what is a real perception or an imaginary one becomes significant.This was written in an AWSI column by The Man Himself, in 1987. He continues, later:
Perhaps what bothers me so much about the Belt affair is the alacrity with which supposedly rational, technically savvy individuals have accepted, on the basis of subjective observation alone, something which all their scientific and journalistic background should tell them warrants a great deal of skepticism. But then, perhaps I shouldn't be that surprised.
Read the whole thing. Apart from stating, in no uncertain terms, precisely what you've accused me of polluting his legacy by repeating, it also illuminates the whole IC affair with the light of his analytical, common-sense approach, as applied to L'Affaire Belt" . (Thanks to TJE for sending me this link a few weeks ago.) Not that this matters, but I had not read this piece when I wrote my May AWSI. I'm glad I hadn't't, because if I had I probably wouldn't have bothered and we'd all have missed this fun.
In short, perhaps you should reexamine what you THINK high-end audio is about...especially if you intend to continue to hold up JGH as high-end audio's patron saint.
Best Regards,
Jim
Firstly we must place this quote in it's proper context. Picture a scenario where some seemingly irrational, from a scientific point of view, tweak(s) are gaining currency in your favorite hobby. Despite the apparent absurdity many members of the critical press appear to be jumping on the bandwagon, i.e. picture this (all quotes from AWIS - L'Affaire Belt, J. Gordon Holt, December, 1987, except where noted):"This guy is clearly a three-layer nutcake, right? That's exactly what I thought when I first started hearing about all this. But then I heard more. Mr. Belt, I learned, has been demonstrating his devices to various audio people, individually and in groups, and most of them were reporting that his gadgets do in fact improve the sound. Martin Colloms, for example, and his associate Paul Crook felt that differences could be perceived when a sheet of Mr. Belt's electret foil was placed under a CD player. John Atkinson felt that he heard a difference between when an LP was "polarized" correctly and incorrectly in a demonstration run by the English magazine Hi-Fi Answers at the show. Jimmy Hughes, chief reviewer of Hi-Fi Answers, was—despite admitted skepticism—so impressed by what he heard that he extolled the virtues of the Belt devices across four pages in the October 1987 issue of the magazine! Jimmy also demonstrated to our own Alvin Gold much of the effects claimed (see "Pure Gold," Vol.10 No.6)."
Recognize any names? We then learn that JGH had no such luck with the miraculous devices:
"I am still damned if I can hear them doing anything at all. But then, I didn't expect to. And maybe that's the key to this whole phenomenon."
He then proceeds to make hay of Belt's 'scientific' thinking and for that matter his ethics, makes some very interesting observations on the topic of scientific objectivity and subjectivity featuring wonderfully lucid thinking that at least entertains the possibility of cause and effect, but concludes:
"There may indeed be something to all this, but I have a gut feeling that it's utter nonsense."
I'm guessing JGH didn't have a PhD as he apparently didn't have the confidence to completely rule out a 'something'. But as to a more practical 'something' we have: "I submit that the reason is because of another kind of potent although unmeasurable energy source: that of suggestion."
This then leads directly to the first quote:
"Differences among the best high-end components are becoming so small ..." [see previous post]
So why this? Go study 50-60 of JGH's and if you conclude that his subjective observations are in concert with the claim in the quote. I content you will be left shaking you head and going ... "but, but, he said" ... very likely stupefied if in romantic zeal he has achieved demi-god status in your mind.But the quote proceeds a summary of what science has revealed about the unreliability of human perception, and the claim of small differences along with the known science of perception provides the device to solve one of the dilemmas that Holt clearly finds so unsettling ... that "veteran listeners who have built professions on their ability to hear what's going on in reproduced sound", those "supposedly rational, technically savvy individuals" (from the second quote) are reporting the effectiveness of the Belt tweaks.
What do I think? I think he got a little carried away, got swept up by the tide as it were. I mean in the quote you get the impression that products in the hi-end are damn near indistinguishable.
But just the month before he gave the ARC SP9 a good spanking. Well OK the quote did say "the BEST high-end components" (emphasis added), no harm done. But in that same review we have:
[http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/739/index.html]
"By critical consensus, the SP11 is the best-sounding tube preamp Audio Research has ever made; certainly it has few, if any, peers."
Hmmmm ...? Few if any peers? But weren't there any number of hi-end manufacturers around at the time that had their own statement pre-amplifiers? Seems like a discordance with the 'best damn near indistinguishable' statement.
I could go on, pulling statements from Holt reviews to prove the point but why bother. Point is that when the industry is going through one of its spectaculars lots of mistakes are made and a great deal of stupid and regretful statements are made. There couldn't be a better time to understand this I might add.
But I'd like to conclude with an observation. When JGH decided that a stance in favor of rationality and science was warranted he had the balls to do so himself. He didn't need some PhD with crapolla audiophile experience to stand in for him. He made his own appeal and his own mistakes. That why we respect his legacy wouldn't dear suggest that the odd transgression here or there has any real bearing on the big picture.
...you were giving me the last word. ;-)
you have to fall on the sword and do the right thing. A times that may mean shutting up, at others, speaking out. I thought it best to provide a meaningful context for the JGH quotes you so triumphantly rolled out.And anyway when I said I had enough I meant I had enough of your regurgitating the same arguements over and over, and indeed, had enough of regurgitating my own contrary opinions (to you). Thus while I thought I had provided sufficient context to understand the exclamation I'll allow that perhaps I was negligent ... after all there are those considered quite intelligent and expert within their chosen fields who can appear, in fact may be, quite dense when they step into others.
...that your suggestion that I--we--were somehow tainting JGH's legacy seems a bit silly when you see that he said pretty much the same thing himself, even if he did express other points of view at other times.FWIW, your apparent anger/outrage is unjustified, and not shared.
JGH didn't say "pretty much the same thing". If you had said the same thing as JGH, I would have no beef with you. There are two critical differences:1) He actually took the trouble to try the tweak under question.
2) He didn't make a flat-out pronouncement as to whether the thing could work or not.
I'm still waiting to hear why you think your flat-out pronouncements should be accepted as infallible, both by Atkinson and by Stereophile readers. You have already admitted that other persons with greater qualifications might not agree with your views.
I'd also be willing to bet that your views have changed over time. If that assumption proves to be true, please explain why we should accept your 2005 beliefs instead of your 2001 beliefs or your 2008 beliefs.
> I'm still waiting to hear why you think your flat-out pronouncements
> should be accepted as infallible, both by Atkinson and by
> Stereophile readers.
Because they are _opinions_, Charlie. Nothing that is published in
Stereophile is inteded be taken as infallible fact, which is why you
can often find me publishing contrary reports on things. As I wrote
years ago in the magazine, I regard the Truth as unattainable, like
the peak of a high mountain. What are apparently contradictory views
may well be views of the same mountain from different sides.
The only thing I ask from any of my writers is that they report what
they honestly think, regardless of the consequences. That is just
what Jim did in his May "As We See It," for which I thank him.
As I mentioned in an earlier posting that you may not have seen, the
Stereophile writer who does possibly come in for some justified
criticism is _me, because of all the Stereophile writers who have
written about the IC -- Jim and Sam Tellig in the magazine, Ken
Kessler and myself in our enewsletter -- I am the only one who hasn't
tried it.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
In random order:1) The very title "As We See It" more than strongly implies that these are the views of the magazine as a whole. The fact is that you don't just choose random editorials that support random viewpoint from say, Lipshitz or Aczel.
2) Austin didn't represent his opinions as opinions, but rather as facts. For example, "There's some interesting science behind the Intelligent Chip, but it is not especially novel, and it's happening between our ears, not between the chip and the CD." He makes it sound as if he had proof this were the case.
Contrast this with Stereophile's earlier dismissal of Belt's tweaks, "So why not just dismiss the whole business out of hand? Because there is a possibility that, as unlikely as it seems, Mr. Belt might actually be on to something." Or Stereophile's dismissal of the Tice "Magic Clock", I would never discount a product merely because I don't accept the explanation offered for its operation. Most cable manufacturers present questionable arguments on their products' behalfs, but I still find significant sonic differences among cables."
It's especially disturbing because on this forum Austin has admitted that he has previously rejected tweaks out of hand (speaker cables) and yet now accepts them as valid. How do we know he won't change his mind about this one?
3) You could find anybody to support any opinion conceivable. Geoff Kait would say that all tweaks (including the IC) work great. Austin says all tweaks works great, except for the IC and maybe mechanical supports under power cords. We could find any number of people that think nothing makes a difference except loudspeakers.
The point is that each of these people are drawing a line somewhere. Logically speaking, there are only two valid places to draw a line:
a) The only real differences are those we can measure. Everything else is psychological.
b) There are more things we don't understand about sound reproduction than we do. When we have credible reports of an effect, we must investigate it and not dismiss it out of hand.
Stereophile has had a history stretching back more than 40 years that is consistent with (b). Now with Austin's editorial Stereophile has dipped a toe into the "objectivist" waters of (a). This diminishes the very foundation of the magazine's philosophy.
4) Austin had not listened to the tweak in question when he wrote the editorial.
5) Much of Austin's editorial is based on unfounded assertions. These range from the absurdly ridiculous, "the imaginary differences are far easier to sell [than the real ones]", to the shamefully libelous ones, "There's money to be made from people's open-mindedness (if you want to call it that), not just from daft tweaks and obvious snake oil like the Intelligent Chip."
In my opinion it was a mistake to publish this editorial, and furthermore Austin owes both Kait and Curl apologies.
No one could claim that what Austin wrote was inconsistent with his beliefs. After all given his lack of experience and, apparently, interest, one can't invoke passion or disdain ... it's not necessary! They are simply his views.Yet those views appeared in the "As We See It" column of Stereophile. Now if invoking DBT as the sole arbiter of audible differences, and using language that can be used support the notion that the hi-end is little more than a vanity fair, is consistent with the editorial view of Stereophile then please simply confirm this to be the case. We could then take Austin's writing as little more than a typical cheap shot at the audiophile community, morn the passing of a era at the publication, and ignore it.
He actually took the trouble to try the tweak under question.Listened, heard no effect, and attributed the effect others claimed to hear to the power of suggestion--the same conclusion I reached about the IC.
He didn't make a flat-out pronouncement as to whether the thing could work or not.
He had a lot more space to work with, so he could spare more words, and he was, I admit, a bit more delicate than I was. But he had the luxury of approaching the subject cautiously--not something I could do in the space I was allowed. But clearly he concludes, by the end of the article--by the middle in fact--that the technology is bogus. "I've got a gut feeling that it's total nonsense," or something like that (I'm quoting from memory).
I encourage everybody to go back, re-read what I wrote, then read this:
> > Without any concepts of how scientific knowledge is gleaned from intuition, hypothesis, and meticulous investigation, or what it accepts today as truth, anything is possible. Without the anchor of science, we are free to drift from one idea to another, accepting or "keeping an open mind about" as many outrageous tenets as did the "superstitious natives" we used to scorn 50 years ago. (We still do, but it's unfashionable to admit it... The notion that a belief should have at least some objective support is scorned as being "closed-minded," which has become a new epithet. In order to avoid that dread appellation, we are expected to pretend to be open to the possibility that today's flight of technofantasy may prove to be tomorrow's truth, no matter how unlikely. Well, I don't buy that. < <
I did go beyond what JGH said in one important way, and it was, indeed, the main point of the May column: I suggested motives--that these beliefs persist in high end audio because they are profitable. But other than that, though the tone is different, the gist is remarkably similar.
Jim
Bad ScienceAustin wrote, "[JGH] Listened [to the Belt devices], heard no effect, and attributed the effect others claimed to hear to the power of suggestion--the same conclusion I reached about the IC."
If you are in anyway suggesting that what JGH did was comparable to what you did, you should be glad that I was not reviewing your thesis. There is a night-and-day difference between performing an experiment and sharing the results (as JGH did) as opposed to sharing your opinions without the benefit of any experimental results (as you did).
Arrogance
Austin asserts that he couldn't put forth a nuanced view on the IC due to the limited space he was allowed. I have a hard time accepting that this was the actual problem. Here on the Audio Asylum, where there is no shortage of space, Austin writes things like, "The IC CAN NOT possibly work."
Now, Jim, let me ask you a question. Did you ever change your mind about anything pertaining to audio? Or were your opinions somehow fully formed (like the newly born Athena springing forth from Zeus' head, wearing full armor and uttering a war cry) before you had any experiences with hi-fi? For instance, did you ever think that there was no way that speaker cables could sound different, but then had some experiences that caused you to reconsider your position?
Now, Jim, let me ask you a question. Did you ever change your mind about anything pertaining to audio?Yes. And you?
Power cords. I thought it was unlikely that changing out an A/C cord could make a difference. In fact, switching from a high-quality standard A/C cord (a shielded, heavy-gauge Belden) to a fairly inexpensive aftermarket cord (VERY heavy gauge, triple-shielded, with a distributed ferrite layer), made a difference that was comparable to a component upgrade...and that was on a relatively low-powered integrated amp.
Charles, I think because I said something that made you mad, you've grabbed ahold of an image of me and won't let go. You insist on making me something that I'm not, on attributing to me opinions that I don't hold. In fact, I'm quite open minded. The IC is fairly unique in being so scientifically accessible. Unlike most things in audio, it's fairly easy to conclude that it can't possibly work, except in the realm of perception. I can rule it out. And I can't say that about very many things in audio.
Signing off...
You owe me, Jim!
...but there is absolutely no possibility that you're wrong this time? None?
Charlie,You are actually beginning to sound unstable, in my opinion (no, I can't prove it).
Mr. Wendell Narrod, please examine what you wrote to Mr. Hansen. "You are actually beginning to sound unstable". That is an ad hominem remark, and inappropriate for this forum.Best,
Fair enough. I find stridency, in debate, to undermine an argument because it moves the focus from the issue to the messenger. I have zero interest in the IC but have previously stated that I find it intellectually dishonest to make a judgement without an audition. Clearly Jim and Charlie aren't going to convince each other to reconsider the other's position. Perhaps it's time to move on and, hopefully, the two parties will choose to do so. JA has stated his position and I would be surprised he changes his editorial decisions
based on this discussion. My last post on this subject. I'm bored.
> JA has stated his position and I would be surprised he changes his
> editorial decisions based on this discussion.
Charlie did give me much to think about, but no, I am not convinced
that Stereophile did anything inappropriate. Reflecting on what I
wrote about the GSIC, I think that over the years, each bullshit,
bogus "explanation" offered for some new tweak has eroded my tolerance
for tweaks in general. If that partial closing of what once a
totally open mind is found offensive, my apologies. I am what I am.
In addition, I am increasingly aware of the ridicule audiophiles are
subject to from outsiders who could benefit from what companies like
Ayre have to offer but turn away, put off by, among other aspects of
our hobby, the fringe of bullshit that surrounds audiophilia.
My 2 cents.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I haven't gotten my apology yet! ;-)
Hi Charlie, this too shall pass! ;-) They think I'm crazy too!
suit you to pick from the weeds of the legacy of the man, context be damned, to create an association with like ideas/statements/whatever, is something I leave to you. I've said enough to demonstrate what I think of the merit of such an exercise. As regards the JGH legacy I'm mostly interested in the forest, not the weeds. But I thought I had already made that clear as well.
is how the "electret" mentioned in the JGH column resembles the "Intelligent Chip" -- the difference being that one goes on top of your CD player and the other goes underneath it.I wonder if you use both, then you get double goodness . . . or if they counteract each other and you get nothing.
The GSIC has been reported to work underneath a player. Try to stay on top of things would ya'. :)
And inside the player is best of all, see ref to demo of the New Machine at Deja Vu tomorrow on General :-) nt
Have you followed Hansen's advice about retracting your "literally incredible" (his words) definitive explanation yet? Seems he's greatly concerned about the potential damage it may do to you. Good thing he's so willing to stomp his foot and demand an apology from those who ridicule you over it, eh? Odd really since in his consulation he pretty much says that's exactly what you could expect ... kinda makes it sound like it's you own damn fault, in fact after reading it I'd imagine that many a reader would come away thinking you're rather obtuse! How do you take that shit man?, I don't recall seeing a peep out you over it.What's that other thing you're on about? ... a demo ... and I would, like, give a damn exactly why?
The new machine uses Intelligent Chip technology. The machine can upgrade up to 5 discs simultaneously in 2 sec. There appears to be some advantage having the "chip" inside the box, though I'd say even outside the box it's pretty damn good.Obtuse? Who, me?
Please don't confuse these two issues, as they are totally and completely separate.Journalism
When Stereophile in essence endorsed Austin's dismissal of a tweak without even trying it, they crossed a line and undermined the good work they have been building for over 40 years. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the IC or whether it works or not. The fact is that when there are consistent reports from credible sources that a tweak works, then it should be investigated in a fair fashion. If they test it and find it ineffective, that's fine. (They've done precisely that on many occasions.)
Stereophile crossed another line when Austin accused Kait of ripping people by selling them snake oil. The assertion was that Kait knew the IC was worthless and was just selling it to make money. While it is possible that was the case, Austin offered no evidence of this whatsoever. Furthermore, if Stereophile has decided that their mission is to protect their readers from false advertising claims, there are *far* more egregious examples of such, including ones where it is patently obvious that the claims are cynically made knowing that they are false.
Marketing
I am something of a student of the history of high end audio. I try to learn from the mistakes of others so that I don't have to repeat them. In my opinion, Kait made a big mistake in marketing the IC in the way that he did.
If you look at the history of all of the crazy tweaks ever offered in the marketplace, they pretty much are consigned to one of two fates:
a) Either they are eventually accepted; or,
b) They fade into obscurity as a failure.
Interestingly enough, virtually all tweaks fall into category "a" -- speaker cables, tip-toes, cable risers, LP treatments, CD treatments, cartridge demagnetizers, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Out of the thousands of tweaks invented, I can think of only three previous instances *ever* when tweaks have failed to eventually become accepted in our niche market:
1) The Tice "Magic Clock".
2) The Peter Belt tweaks.
3) Various tweaks offered by Peter Moncrieff (liquid coatings, etc.)Looking at these, we can see that they all share one common characteristic -- their construction principles and operating mechanisms were not clearly explained by their inventors. The main reason for this was undoubtedly because it would have been far too easy and inexpensive for competitors to copy these ideas if the method of construction had been explained.
These three tweaks (out of the thousands that have been invented) must have failed for one of only two reasons:
a) They did not provide the actual benefit claimed. People tried them regardless of the validity of the marketing explanations, but found them not to operate effectively; or,
b) They did provide the actual benefit claimed, but without a credible story people were reluctant to purchase them fearing they were being taken advantage of. In other words, they didn't want to be like the crowds admiring the Emperor's new clothes only to be pointed out as fools later.
Given that there were many adherents of each of these three products, I suspect that the latter is the true reason for their failures in the marketplace. Students of marketing know that there are two main tools used to sell products -- sex (if you buy this product, you'll be more attractive to the opposite sex) and fear (if you don't buy this you won't be cool, or smart, or sophisticated, et cetera). In these three cases, one of the fundamental marketing principles was working directly *against* their success -- people were afraid that they would be seen as fools if they *did* buy it.
Kait unwittingly fell into this same trap. Based on history, I don't see how the IC could possibly be successful given the way Kait has marketed it. Please note that this has nothing to do with whether or not the thing actually works. Please also note that this has nothing to do with how Stereophile should judge products.
I read the damn thing, have problems with it, articulated those same so many times now that blowing my head off somehow seems more inviting than doing it again, but as regards your assertions they charged Kait with willfully ripping people I disagree.To me it's a simple case of you having thrown an tantrum during which you said a great many silly things and now clearly lack what it takes to back down.
Go sell you story to someone else.
p.s. the "Hansen line" strikes me very much like the 'spoon' in the Matrix, i.e. ... there is no line
Just out of curiosity, could you give me a couple examples of the "great many silly things" I said? I'd be curious to get your perspective.
.
Audiocraft. It was back in the late 50's.
"1972: Vol.3 No.3 of The Stereophile is the first issue to feature advertising," That's ten years into publication, and money seems to be just about the last thing on his mind. Damn! Can there really be something more important than ....... money?
I can remember reading in my dad's about the sweet 16 speaker system project.
but one more than the others. Audiocraft bridged the gap between DIY/design and appreciation and I mourned its passing.HFN came along quite a bit in the 60's and 70's. HighFidelity made little impact, except for its treatment of music and recordings. Stereo/HiFi Review had a few very nice whole system subjective comparisons done by groups of reviewer's and, of course, organized by JGH.
Kal
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: