|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.88.232.48
The suggestions offered below are made after reading Stereophile, TAS, Stereo Review, High Fideltiy review, etc., for many years. One of my concerns is that the high-end audio industry appears to have become an expensive hobby for a relatively narrow interest group. I think that good audio reproduction, and listening to great music on a good system, should be conveniently available at affordable prices to all. And at least partially due to the policies of Sterephile, TAS, etc. (along with a number of other factors, of course), market forces are essentially inoperative in the quality audio field. The result is that manufacturing efficiencies are lacking, and most members of the public find the costs of even a mid-range stereo or surround system incredible and out of the question.Although I wouldn't want an audio review periodical published by the CR staff, a truly consumer-oriented audio publication would, in my view take a very different approach. Changes might include some or all of the following, relating generally to SF, of which I am a long-term subscriber:
A. Instead of posting reviews of individual, usually newly released components, I suggest including at least some reviews (and frank comparisons) of components of the same general type or "family." For example, review and compare four or five amps, speakers, or decks that readers might want to consider for a particular application. (Isn't that what we audiophiles would try to do if we were considering a new amp, speaker, etc.)
B. Instead of eliminating components from the SF "recommended components" list three years after they were last reviewed, include a listing of other possible choices, including some reviewed in prior years. Note that I'm not suggesting extensive, detailed reviews of all possible choices, but rather, a listing of reviewers' suggestions of other interesting candidates, particularly best buys with good performance at reasonable cost. (Again, isn't that the kind of thing we audiophiles would be checking out if we were considering a component of a particular type? In fact, I suspect it's also what reviewers themselves would do if they were considering the purchase of a new component.)
C. As in wine reviews (which are as subjective and difficult as audio, or more so) information regarding the availability of a particular component and the history and reputation of the manufacturer would be helpful. - For example, a manufacturer with a known reputation, and a reasonable high production rate, might be of more interest. - Please avoid the caracatures. - I'm not suggesing that smaller, newer companies offering hand-built, specialty components shouldn't be considered. But some of us might prefer to shop for the best sound for the money rather than paying for great, custom work by a small specialty shop. Opinions may differ, but I'm suggesting that we should at least have the information.
D. I find that many reviews consist of multiple pages of personal "meanderings", seeming attempts to write a novella or other literary work, expressions of personal philosophical views on various subjects, etc. This requires the reader to wade through several pages before he or she gets the gist of the report. While some readers may enjoy such articles, for those of us who have some priorities and limits on our time, it would be helpful if there were a clear summary of the review at the beginning of such long-winded discussions. We should be able to determine conveniently what's being reviewed, what's different or distinct about the component, the price (E.g., I may not want to spend lots of time wading through a review of a $50K amplifier.), and the gist of what the reviewer thought about the component. Also helpful would be what the good and less good features were, how the component compares to other possible choices in the same category, and what other alternatives may be available. Apparently, this suggestion has been considered and rejected by SF. To me, this suggests a truly snobbish attitude on the part of SF and a total disregard for the time and priorities of its readers.
E. If the mag were truly "consumer oriented", I think that more articles suggesting ways to improve and upgrade our audio systems would be appreciated. For example, more emphasis on articles suggesting ways to find good buys on various new and used equipment, comments on kits and audio-related projects such as testing, evaluating, and improving room acoustics, etc., would be appreciated. Note that I'm not suggesting changing to a "how to do it" or kit building format. Just a recognition that the audio hobby comprises more than reviewing, discussing, and buying the latest and greatest equipment.
F. Lastly, get off the "either or" - "you're for us or against us" syndrome regarding blind testing. I think that most readers would like to see at least some reports of blind testing IN SOME FORM (for example, permit the use of more extended listening periods) in addition to the extensive, philosophical reviews of single, individual components.
Knee-jerk objections immediately arise, and are essentially repeated month after month. - DBT is too expensive? Let the readers decide whether it would be worth an increase in the (ridiculously low) subscription price. - The results are sometimes inconclusive and inconsistent? - That in itself is of interest to the reader, since it suggests that performance improvements, if any, offered by particular components may not be as significant to a listener than they are with respect to other components in which test results show clear, repeatedly discernable improvements. Effects of the placebo effect are far more significant that we like to admit, which may be one reason we see so few blind test results.
OK, fire away! - I'm suggesting consideration of at least some of the above suggestions. Again, they apply only if an audio publication is truly "consumer oriented." Otherwise, forget it.
Follow Ups:
They do what you want the closest.They take say 5 amplifiers have a panel of listeners (often - the makers of the amplifiers among others) and they blindly listen level matched and score the gear). As Choice notes - some of the makers do not even choose their own equipment as best.
Unfortunately their results get automatically chucked because they actually do find amplifiers that are woefully lacking in sound and after all - all SS amplifiers working properly sound the same enough for nobody to detect the differences - so since the results are not the same as the objectives believe them to "should" be then they blame the fact that their is a panel influence blah blah blah.
Bottom line:
Level Matched
Blind
Lot's of listenersThey also have sighted reviewing. The fact is though that it STILL boils down to YOU getting of your ass and listening to it yourself. The fact that 99 people choose system A and 1 person chose system B does not mean that YOU will fall into the camp of 99 people. It's not a democracy in science - just because MOST doctors agree on something or most scientists or most engineers does not make them right.
That's the main problem with probability in the first place. Is my car in the parking lot? Well I parked it there, as I have done the last 200 days. And every time I go to the parking lot it has been there. Yet when I go to the parking lot "it's not there" this time. The probability of a thing to happen stops when in fact the opposite does.
For instance the notion that there is a 50% probability that if you flip a coin it will be heads and 50% that it will be tails in fact makes not one bit of sense if you say the statement after the coin was flipped.
In fact there is a 100% fact and a 0% fact once the coin is flipped. If it is heads it is 100% heads not a 50% chance to be heads.
Of course probability theory helps you decide whether you want to go and spend money gambling in Las Vegas. But how someone else hears audio gear in a test environment and how you will hear it when not is a big leap of faith.
So there is a large Faith based component in probability followers that borders on religion.
You got JA to respond. Feel better now? Guess it's time to threaten to cancel your subscription and dig out those issues of The Audio Critic for re-reading. You just don't get it, do you?
"Your troll post finally paid off -You got JA to respond. Feel better now? Guess it's time to threaten to cancel your subscription and dig out those issues of The Audio Critic for re-reading. You just don't get it, do you?"- - But I enjoy reading Sterephile. I don't want them to cancel my subscription.
Then what exactly is your agenda with this post? If you were honestly just trying to convince JA to make changes to Stereophile, it could have been done by contacting him directly. Nope, you've got some other motivation... I smell troll.Why don't you just head over to The Audio Critic site? I think you'll like it there. Link below.
In Reply to: Re: Well, your rambling troll post finally paid off... posted by Avocat on March 21, 2007 at 14:36:12:
"Then what exactly is your agenda with this post? If you were honestly just trying to convince JA to make changes to Stereophile, it could have been done by contacting him directly. Nope, you've got some other motivation... I smell troll. Why don't you just head over to The Audio Critic site? I think you'll like it there."
----------------------------------------------------------You don't like my opinions, so you want me to stop posting on Critics Corner and move over to Auto Critic? I don't think so, SF.
My initial note was a follow-on to the previous discussion of the differnces between the general policies of Consumers Report and those of current audio publications. My intent was to point out some of the underlying differences and suggest characteristics that might be expected in a user-friendly audio publication primarily devoted to helping and empowering its readers. SF, feel free to disagree with me, but don't accuse me of dishonesty.- My note expressed my own opinions, and concerns, about the matter.
What's my agenda? - Expressing my own views, eliciting some interesting discussion, and perhaps moving the general consensus in a slightly different direction. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I thought was generally expected on CC.) I obviously have little direct influence on the policies of SF, but it does seem that they follow the gist of such online discussions. Incidentally, I note that the opinions expressed in several of the follow-ups don't exactly conform to your opinions or JA's or to the SF surveys.
Jim
In the above post you state:"My intent was to point out some of the underlying differences and suggest characteristics that might be expected in a user-friendly audio publication primarily devoted to helping and empowering its readers"
But that's not what your ORIGINAL post articulated... in fact, the bulk of your original post comes off as a rant primarily aimed at Stereophile. Here are some excerpts from your post:
"Changes might include some or all of the following, relating generally to SF"
"Instead of eliminating components from the SF "recommended components" list three years after they were last reviewed, include a listing of other possible choices, including some reviewed in prior years"
"Also helpful would be what the good and less good features were, how the component compares to other possible choices in the same category, and what other alternatives may be available. Apparently, this suggestion has been considered and rejected by SF. To me, this suggests a truly snobbish attitude on the part of SF and a total disregard for the time and priorities of its readers."
I have not said that you're being dishonest, and I am not challenging your right to post in this forum. But I do question your motives. If it were known to you that some other editor from some other audio magazine posted here regularly... would you then direct your criticism at that other mag? In other words, your posts in this topic (which you started) seem like they are formulated to get a response from JA, NOT like a productive discussion at all. If you read Stereophile regularly, then you would know that it is not a publication that uses DBT in its reviews. Knowing this, you toss out completely unfounded claims like:
" I think that most readers would like to see at least some reports of blind testing IN SOME FORM..."Where do you get this information? You mean that YOU would like to see it. According to you, there are SCORES of disappointed Stereophile readers out there. Who/where are they?
Your biases seem to outshine any constructive influence your post might have had.
I, for one, hope that Stereophile stays just like it is... That doesn't prevent you from finding something you like better. More power to you!
Folks, the following relates to questions SF has raised about my honesty and integrity (I'm only a troll, in his opinion), not the substance of this discussion string. I this doens't interest you, don't waste your time following it. ---
SF, your note stated, first including excerpts from my previous note:
"My intent was to point out some of the underlying differences and suggest characteristics that might be expected in a user-friendly audio publication primarily devoted to helping and empowering its readers"
SF stated:
But that's not what your ORIGINAL post articulated... in fact, the bulk of your original post comes off as a rant primarily aimed at Stereophile. Here are some excerpts from your post:"Changes might include some or all of the following, relating generally to SF"
-----------------------------------Actually, here's what the first paragraph of my ORIGINAL post stated:
"Although I wouldn't want an audio review periodical published by the CR staff, a truly consumer-oriented audio publication would, in my view take a very different approach. Changes might include some or all of the following, relating generally to SF, of which I am a long-term subscriber:"
Since, as stated, I am a long-term subsriber to SF, and since Sf is the audio mag with the largest circulation, it's logical that my comments would relate primarily to SF. - My comments described my thoughts about the characteristics of a truly consumer/reader/subscriber-centered periodical (in contrast to one primarily concerned with circulation and advertising revenue), and it was logical that I explain the suggested changes with respect to SF, since that's the audio publication with the most publication, that most on this group are familiar with. (How in the world could I explain the characteristics of a consumer-oriented magazine without contrasting it with Stereophile?
SF stated:
"I have not said that you're being dishonest,.."You did the same thing, and you imputed my motives. - You stated that my purpose for posting this note was that I was trolling for the purpose of getting JA's reaction. - That was not my purpose.
SF stated:
"...and I am not challenging your right to post in this forum. But I do question your motives. If it were known to you that some other editor from some other audio magazine posted here regularly... would you then direct your criticism at that other mag? In other words, your posts in this topic (which you started) seem like they are formulated to get a response from JA,"In your opinion, of course....If other editors posted here reularly, I would not hesitate to criticise their publications.
SF then stated:
NOT like a productive discussion at all. If you read Stereophile regularly, then you would know that it is not a publication that uses DBT in its reviews. Knowing this, you toss out completely unfounded claims like:" I think that most readers would like to see at least some reports of blind testing IN SOME FORM..."
Where do you get this information? "
Where did I get the information? I got it from reading hundreds of notes from audiophiles posted on this and other audio discussion groups over the years. And also, from reading responses to my note posted on THIS discussion THIS week. (Did YOU read them, by the way, SF?
"Your biases seem to outshine any constructive influence your post might have had."As do yours....But we all have our own biases and opinions. - Why are you so intent of putting mine down? Why are you so particularly disturbed by my comments? In other words, it's not enough for you to call me a troll, you want me to go away, to get off the discussion group altogether! Could it possibly be because my note introduced some points and observations that you hadn't previously encountered?
Jim
I have not questioned your honesty or integrity...only people who know you can do that. I have questioned your motive. There is a difference. And yes, I have read the entire thread (sigh).I won't bother to quote any of your last post.
There is a certain belligerence in the tone of your posts that suggests (to me), that you have an axe to grind. If that is not the case, then I am mistaken. You may make of it what you will.
"Well, your rambling troll post finally paid off...You got JA to respond. Feel better now? Guess it's time to threaten to cancel your subscription ...."-- This is not questioning my integrity?
I don't believe so... but I guess variations in the meaning of the term "integrity" could make it appear so.Your integrity as what? A poster on an internet forum? An editor of an audio magazine? An auto mechanic? Schoolteacher? From what area of activity does this integrity arise?
To me, integrity is an evolving trait. Much like a person can come to trust another over time... these are traits that are built in the minds of people as they learn more about a person, not bestowed instantly or universally. I hope you understand what I mean.
SF when I said that you had a job waiting for you at Stereophile cleaing up after the editor, I meant it as a joke.
I know JA can pick and fight his own battles. It seems sometimes that people just want to call him out because they feel they can cajole him into responding, whether they actually have a point to make or not! I simply want to let those persons know that there are people on AA who don't appreciate that sort of trolling. I feel that JA's participation on the board is resource worth protecting... although it can be fun watching JA cooly shoot down some of the more pathetic attempts at getting his dander up.
Aaah, one of those hinden agenda thingies.ray
And the philosipher mused: "Am I playing with my cat or is my cat playing with me?"
> I think that most readers would like to see at least some reports of
> blind testing IN SOME FORM...
I see people occasionally making this statement, but I have to say
that it is not born out by my own experience. Back in the 1990s we
published several large-scale blind tests of loudspeakers, at
considerable expense. While I don't regret the effort -- the tests
gave me significant insight into the listening abilities of the
magazine's review team -- they were unpopular with the magazine's
readership. As an editor, I have no future if I publish material that
people have little desire to read. :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Based on your blind tests, years later in 1994 I auditioned used EPOS ES11 speakers so well liked under blind conditions, as new satellite speakers to replace my Spica TC50's.These small one-cap crossover speakers would otherwise have been completely ignored based on their small size and modest price.
I bought them used for $400 and they were excellent satellite speakers when used with a 70Hz./24dB per octave Marchand crossover and playing near-field at the modeast SPL's I prefer.
The original owner thought the bass was too weak and he was a typical high-end anti-subwoofer audiophile with speakers that desperately needed subwoofers.
I still use the EPOS speakers since no other small satellite speakers I've tried at home have been significantly better so far.
To thank you for this unusual test, I will at every opportunity give you a hard time here to encourage you to get back to work on Stereophile and stop wasting your valuable time here, thereby doing you and Stereophile readers a favor (and you probably thought I was just another argumentative old geezer suffering from Irritable Male Syndrome)
Like you are.Small cheap-looking speakers and other components sound better to some people when they can't see them during the audition. So blind tests work for speakers even though everyone agrees they all sound different. They all look different too.
be seeing a complete reversal of SF policy. No doubt shortly after blind testing will be adopted by pretty much everywhere.This will also lead to a revival of the B&M sector however with the twist that most will combine audio with Wardrobe and other types of blinds.
Great news actually, why didn't you speak up earlier?
I would expect that you would have even less future if you were to publish material that your advertisers do not wish their prospective customers to read. ;-)
__________________________________________________
Boo!
> I would expect that you would have even less future if you were to
> publish material that your advertisers do not wish their prospective
> customers to read. ;-)
More uninformed trolling. No, "Ivan303," I don't select either what I
publish or how I choose how to run my magazine based on what
advertisers might wish readers to read. As my mentor John Crabbe,
editor of Hi-Fi News 1964-1982, used to tell me: if you have readers,
you will have advertisers; but if you pander to advertisers, you will
no longer have readers, which in turn means you will no longer have
advertisers.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
nt
Count me among those who would like to see more double-blind testing, that is of those who make a living claiming to hear what many cannot. It is the editors and reveiwers who should be required to prove they actually possess the listening skills which they purport to have. The skill to make the draw the kind of distinctions which they make in their monthly reviews.It is those with the golden ears who should submit to double blind testing to determine whether they in fact hear meaningful differences, e.g. distinguish between the CD and Super CD layer. If they where able to do this consistantly, I might pay more attention.
Testing the golden ears is the best use of DBT.
...those who make a living claiming to hear what many cannot.Don't worry, in the absence of such testing you are protected! Every major audio publication is signatory to the 1989 International Hirsch-Houck Convention. In a nutshell, this states: If you cannot hear it, you cannot read about it, even when what you cannot hear sounds the same. When reviewers write about what, for you, is consigned to silence, their words actually become invisible. In fact magazine racks contain entire audio publications you can't subscribe to, much less see. This is for your own good and is the true meaning of 'double blind tested reviews'.
By the way, could you please identify a few contemporary reviewers who claim "to hear what many cannot".
"'By the way, could you please identify a few contemporary reviewers who claim "to hear what many cannot".'" HTML tag not allowed
I stand for DBT'g reviewers (and their editors).
many of which, the industry needs to 'hang on for dear life'. it isn't going to happen. a top 3,000 recommended components list is more likely.
Start your own DBT-tested publication, and you will make a fortune. You'll be rich beyond your wildest imagination. There has to be literally hundreds of people that share your views.
That is no defense. You assume the editor and his reviewers could not even tell the difference between a CD and a Super CD. But that's my point, I don't think they could either, nonetheless they routinely describe hearing differences which are much more subtle. Small wonder they run a publication constantly loosing money.
Have you ever read a review that correlated written word wth what you actually experience with your ASL Hurrcanes? Or with your Alons? They've been extensively reviewed. If so, then you have a reviewer whose "golden ears" match your own. If not, you've got a reviewer whom you shouldn't trust. While we're at it, did you do DBTs when you chose your equipment? I'm just curious. Bet you just listened...The point? Proving they can hear differences is not as important as finding the reviewer whose music taste and equipment biaases most closely resembles your own. Then, if they describe what you hear with your equipment, you'd be well-advised to listen to what they say.
nt
(nt)
is a pretty good indication of how well they hear. It's a very simple, inexpensive but effective way to do things. BTW, most reviewers have regular day jobs. They don't make a living as a reviewer.
(nt)
However I would like to see magazines publish repeatable reviews/tests, meaning that more than one independent reviewer gets his independent unedited comments published about the same component ... and those reviews end up being similar, rather than seeming like the two or more listeners were NOT listening to the same component!I'd bet you my entire savings (almost $73 and going up, up, up with my investments in Bulgarian bean futures) that no two reviewers would independently write the same or similar comments about any wire!
If a review or test is not repeatable, it is probably worth zero.
Maybe less than zero if your review.
heh hehBut even if a test IS repeatable (Consumer Reports), it still may not be useful for any specific reader, although it's likely to be at least somewhat useful for most readers.
.
.
.
that proved to be pretty interesting. I'd get some, check them out, and then send a pair to a friend (who lives several hours away) and let him try them. Two completely different systems (one tubes, one SS, one with full-range speakers, the other with monitors), two different tastes in music, two different rooms. You'd be surprised by the similarities in our conclusions.
...Mr. Ass Nut thinks, it happens all the time.Some years ago in my TAS days, Cardas sent me three different sets of his cables at a speaker manufacturer's request to be used with his speakers - Golden Reference (fat burgandy, expensive), Golden Section (fat grey, less expensive) and Neutral Reference (thin tan, inexpensive), IIRC.
I listened to them all and formed my opinion and when I was done sent them all to another reviewer, Neil Gader, who wanted to hear them.
After he listened to them, we shared our impressions and they were pretty much the same - we both preferred the smaller, least expensive ones.
We had the same conclusions. (Note: the wires I am talking about aren't "cheap" to begin with, so don't jump to conclusions.)
I thought your publication did a terrific job doing those speaker tests, particularly given the complicated logistical problems. I was also impressed with the statistical analysis of your results.I know it is not practical to do such tests on a regular basis, but I would like to see your magazine mix things up a bit more and do different things once in a while, just like those group tests.
I can guess why such tests may seem unpopular to your readers. Those most likely to react will be readers who own the products under test. If you test ten speakers, then the owners of nine will be unhappy with the results and only one will be happy. By contrast, the results of regular reviews are a bit more ambiguous.
s
> ...they were unpopular with the magazine's readership.>The pro-DBTers are a very tiny but vocal minority of audiophiles.
And then there are the people who hear about DBTs and think it's a great idea but don't really understand about the rigorous methodology, the statistics involved and the expense to do it right.And then once you're done, you've shown that differences between a tubed amp and a solid state amp can be identified blind.
Yawn.
I think most people just want to be entertained reading about audio equipment.
In Reply to: Re: Characteristics of consumer-oriented audio publications posted by John Atkinson on March 21, 2007 at 04:23:25:
> ...they were unpopular with the magazine's readership.>
The pro-DBTers are a very tiny but vocal minority of audiophiles.Please don't categorize me among the DBTers who favor "quick-switch" ABX machines. - I favor blind testing in general, (in ADDITION to conventional reviews), and I would favor letting the SF staff determine what procedure to follow.
And then there are the people who hear about DBTs and think it's a great idea but don't really understand about the rigorous methodology, the statistics involved and the expense to do it right.
And then once you're done, you've shown that differences between a tubed amp and a solid state amp can be identified blind.
Yawn.Yes, some people find, after extended listening, that they prefer the distortion inherent in "tube sound" despite the fact that such distortion might have caused them to downgrade a tubeed component when listening to it in a blind comparison. Nothing wrong with that, but what's new? - Yawn.
"I think most people just want to be entertained reading about audio equipment."You're certainly welcome to your opinions, of course. Some of us want to listen to good music on the best equipment available within a rational budget. And we are sometime helped toward that goal by reading equipment reviews in SF and elsewhere. (SF has noted that the equipment reviews continue to be the most popular articles.)
...reading The Audio Critic instead of Stereophile.They are proponents of DBTs.
> Yes, some people find, after extended listening, that they prefer the distortion inherent in "tube sound"...>
LOL! As opposed to the distortion inherent in transitor sound?
"LOL! As opposed to the distortion inherent in transitor sound?
That statement sounds like something Aczel would say."-- Yes.
Suggest you read the article on "valve sound" available online at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valve_sound. - Note the paragraph that begins: "In particular, it turns out that the "warmth" and "richness" typically associated with "valve sound" is DUE TO SIGNIFICANT LEVELS OF 2ND ORER DISTORION, typically coming from a single ended (and thus by definition class A) SE stage, often the output stage. This being a classic tube amp design."
I'm not saying that SS doesn't have it's own forms of distortion, merely that the preference for tubes may relate to a preference for the "warmth and richness" resulting from such 2nd order distortion.
as tubies would have us believe. That ever so slight rolloff of tubes has also been known to smooth out the high frequencies of metal dome tweeters and the dreaded digital glare of red book. This is often miscredited to such things as linearity...It sounds like Aczel makes objective observations and sticks by them. While never having read his widely trashed publication myself, at least he probably never had said that his opinion was subjective. Does he trash subjectivists as much as they freely trash him?
Aczel versus John Atkinson for a discussion of whatever comes up at Hi Fi '07. I'd almost forgo a live music demo at the show for that one.
Certainly not frequencies."Note the more extended ultrasonic bandwidth of tetrode compared with triode in these graphs: –3dB at 115kHz vs –3dB at 87kHz, respectively. "
> Aczel versus John Atkinson for a discussion of whatever comes up...>It was JA vs Arny Kruger a couple of years ago at a Stereophile Show, IIRC.
Kruger is a noted radical objectivist on rec.audio-opinion, rabid pro-DBTer and co-inventor of the ABX box.
Arny was more bark than bite. It was JA by a unanimous decision.
You can probably find a transcript on the Stereophile site.
Azcel is now just an embittered, angry old man - not much theater in seeing him get out-debated.
In the debate, Arny Krueger wiped the floor with John Atkinson. Atkinson wasn't able to make a single point against his arguments.The link below is to a rather self-serving article by Jason Victor Serinus article which includes a link to the an audio file of the debate. The link is in the editor's note just above the picture.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
as tubies would have us believe. That ever so slight rolloff of tubes has also been known to smooth out the high frequencies of metal dome tweeters and the dreaded digital glare of red book. This is often miscredited to such things as linearity... HTML tag not allowed
"I think most people just want to be entertained reading about audio equipment."mikey, I think there are a lot of readers who also want to see their equipment rated highly on the 500 components list.
(nt)
While I will not take sides on the blind testing issue (way too mych hot air on that) I particularly enjoyed the speaker tests that were published in the early 90s. It gave me a chance to evaluate reviewers as well, and it was interesting to read the comaprison of their comments at the blind testing versus the detailed reviews that followed. i certainly understand that they were a ton of work, but I also think they gave an interesting insight into reviewer listening.
> I think that most readers would like to see at least some reports of
> blind testing IN SOME FORM..."I see people occasionally making this statement, but I have to say
that it is not born out by my own experience. Back in the 1990s we
published several large-scale blind tests of loudspeakers, at
considerable expense. While I don't regret the effort -- the tests
gave me significant insight into the listening abilities of the
magazine's review team -- they were unpopular with the magazine's
readership. As an editor, I have no future if I publish material that
people have little desire to read." :-)John Atkinson
Interesting. - What did you discover about the listening abilites of the magazine's review team? Also, what was the basis for your conclusion that blind testing reports were "unpopular" with your readership? For example, did you conduct some sort of poll, or was your conclusion based on informal discussions, discussions at trade meetings and the like, or based on letters to the editor? More to the point, since the blind testing issue has been the subject of heated debate and ongoing discussion (despite determined efforts to make it go away), to what extent have surveys been made of your readers' opinins on the subject. Were they worded by independent professionals in the polling field, or by your own staff?If a further, more scientific survey were to be considered (unlikely of course, but perhaps possible), I think it would be important to remove some of the usual caracatures at the outset. For example, it should be made clear that the reports of blind listening tests would be supplemental to the current equipment reviews and would not replace them. Also, that the testing format would not comprise the rapidly switched "sound bite" ABX approach, and that instead, the methodologies would be selected by Stereophile's own staff. Questions might be asked about the willingness of readers to accept a slight increase in the (extremely low) $11 subscription rate.
Thanks for your consideration of the above.
Avocat, use the search function looking for text "DBT" authored by SamTubes in Critic's Corner. Happy Reading.
Good ol' SamTubes. An early PIA in the AA. Sadly, though he is gone, his meassage and methods continue unabated....
You know, those drums we beat to help people take long vacations. ;~)I think he has been in seclusion somewhere recruting an army to fight his fight. Based on what I've observed in here lately, he must have an army of five already.
But really, what is with these people?? This hobby is supposed to be fun. Reading an enthusiast magazine is fun too.
but anymore I believe it has more to do with the way some people deal with middle age, having more time on their hands and more bucks in their pocket. Some people deal with it well, others apparently don't.Myself, I think they're probably [insert political party opposite your own]. ;~)
Why discuss DBT here when we've done it so many times before.
> What did you discover about the listening abilites of the magazine's
> review team?
That their abilities to characterize small differences under blind
conditions was no different from their abilities to do so
sighted, once interfering factors such as the order of presentation
of the speakers and the effect of the listening position had been
compensated for. In fact, I continue to listen with my writers when
possible, to see if I hear what they describe, though this is
invariably under sighted conditions. I do.
> what was the basis for your conclusion that blind testing reports
> were "unpopular" with your readership?
The usual data: newsstand sales figures, reader's letters, live
feedback from readers at Stereophile shows, surveys on our website.
> since the blind testing issue has been the subject of heated debate
> and ongoing discussion (despite determined efforts to make it go
> away), to what extent have surveys been made of your readers'
> opinins on the subject.
You can find the most recent poll at http://cgi.stereophile.com/cgi-bin/showvote.cgi?427. Interesting results, I am sure you will agree.
> Were they worded by independent professionals in the polling field,
> or by your own staff?
Our own staff. But shouldn't you be the one answering these
questions? For example, when you stated that you "think that most
readers would like to see at least some reports of blind testing...,"
what research have you done to be able to say that? What polls can
you cite? What market research can you refer me to that shows
that "most" magazine readers would like to see blind tests performed?
So far, all you have done is offer unsupported opinion. Not that I
have any objection to that but it seems curious that you appear to be
doubting my own experience in this matter while not feeling the need
to offer any data of your own.
I should also point out that if I am wrong in my editorial decisions,
the marketplace is quite efficient at conferring the usual
consequence, vide the ongoing failures of editors and magazines who
fail to offer readers what those readers value: the editors of Audio,
High Fidelity, The Audio Critic, etc, all got it wrong, for example.
If I am wrong about this, then ultimately my ability to pay my
mortgage will be compromised :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I second the compromise suggested below. Sounds like a good approach.Jim
Personally I would prefer a compromise of some sort. Logistically doing blind tests for everything can be a nightmare and would slow down the process. As such it's really not practical. Having said that I would like to see some way of blind testing speakers to see if the responses to the sighted reviews hold true. Maybe a sampling once a year? The reason I suggest this is cost. I would like to hear a reviewer critique speakers based on several common parameters and then suggest what price range they feel that quality of sound could substaniate. Of all the arguements the ABX people make I think the one regarding cost is the most relevant. I think one expects certain capabilities when they know how much something costs. I think it's human nature to want to be able to give a favorable review of someone else's life's work - especially when they are extremely expensive to desin and manufacture. (I experiance the same thing when i buy something or try a tweek. You find yourself wanting to support your own decision). As such I think - especially with speakers- a yearly calibration would be of some use. (Given the decline of high end audio it is virtually impossible for the average person to listen to even a fraction of what is available or recommended. As such - while your recommend people listen on their own and don't buy based on your reviews - it is often practical to do just that - as there is really no other choice. I bought Triangle speakers based on Sam review and the fact that I own tubes. When I did this there was no one within 250 miles that was selling them)
And it continues.... - robert young 14:04:01 03/21/07 (0)
In Reply to: Re: Another Inquisition begins :-( posted by Avocat on March 21, 2007 at 12:33:46:
JA is absolutely right. Why does he have to provide you with back-up when you don't do the same?? This is, indeed, Critics' Corner, but it isn't " Make the Editors Play By Rules That We Don't Have to Follow."
---------------------------------------------------What I asked JA was whether SF has conducted surveys of its readership regarding whether they would be interested in seeing articles with the results of blind testing from time to time. It's a reasonable question. From the information provided, SF hasn't conducted any scientifically based surveys. I don't recall then asking JA to get more "backup".
Regarding your requirement that I get more back up, what kind of "back up" would satisfy you Bob? Do you expect me to pay for an independent survey of audiophiles or of SF subscribers before I'm permitted to post opinions or questions on CC? (The point of your note, of course, is that you don't like what I'm saying, and you think demanding that I provide lots of "backup" before being permitted to express my opinions on this forum is a convenient "gotcha" you can use to put me down. -Isn't that about the size of it Bob? - Once again, what specific kind of "backup" would satisfy you?
My OPINION that lots of audiophiles and SF subscribers would like to see at least some blind testing results from time to time, perhaps once or twice a year, is based on reading many, many discussions of the subject over the years on a number of discussion groups, and even from reading letters to the editors on SF and other publications. IT'S ALSO BASED ON READING COMMENTS AND OPINIONS POSTED ON THIS PARTICULAR DISCUSSION STRING THIS WEEK. - Look around you Bob.
First, please try to respond directly to the post you are answering. It's hard to reply in a timely manner when you've answered someone else.Second, my name is not "Bob," it's Robert. This little factual tidbit is available by looking at my username. The patronizing and confrontational tone you take doesn't help your argument(s).
Third, let's look at "backup," shall we? I'll pick just one item. Here's what you posted initially:
"I think that most readers would like to see at least some reports of blind testing IN SOME FORM (for example, permit the use of more extended listening periods) in addition to the extensive, philosophical reviews of single, individual components."
You questioned whether JA had done any research: he replied with his answer, one you didn't like. You have asked him to give you "scientifically based surveys," but you have not provided any "backup" like that at all to suppport your INITIAL claim that "most readers would like to see at least some reports of blind testing..." Sorry, Avocat, there's no "gotcha" there, and no, I'm not looking for you to pay for an "independant survey" just to satisfy me. However, I do expect that you have SOME support when you make a claim like you did above. If not, then you have to be willing to acccept no back-up from JA or anyone else either. This has nothing to do with someone (supposedly me) trying to suppress your opinion. On the contrary, you didn't present this as an opinion, you made a statement of (purported) fact.
"My OPINION that lots of audiophiles and SF subscribers would like to see at least some blind testing results from time to time, perhaps once or twice a year, is based on reading many, many discussions of the subject over the years on a number of discussion groups, and even from reading letters to the editors on SF and other publications. IT'S ALSO BASED ON READING COMMENTS AND OPINIONS POSTED ON THIS PARTICULAR DISCUSSION STRING THIS WEEK. - Look around you Bob."Well, try presenting it as such right from the start. Opinions are fine. Unsubstantiated statements of fact are fair game for questioning. I shouldn't have to tell you that the rules ought to be the same on both sides of any debate.
I too have read the entire thread, Avocat. No need to "look around," either. Doesn't seem like "most people" are on your side, and even if every post here except mine supported your ideas, it would hardly represent the readership.
Really, you should try not to be so condescending in your replies. I have a difference of opinion with you, nothing else. That is at the very essence of debate. If that's not ok with you, if someone challenging your opinion is not kosher, then I respectfully suggest that you either develop some thicker skin, or try a different venue. Disagreement happpens here with nearly every thread: that is the nature of discourse. Disagreement is not an open invitation to boorish behavior.
...it is might brave and noble of you to keep responding to repetitive, difficult and even hostile queries. I certainly would have bowed out a long time ago, ungracefully too.I am dismayed though that the consumers, industry, et al have not railed for the pursuit of DBT's. If an initial attempt to pursue knowledge is unfruitful at first, then abandonment of the pursuit is not the answer [something about a spider on a wall in Scotland comes to mind].
I do not blame you for giving up..realities of survival and all. It would be patently unfair to expect an individual or group to sacrifice for something that has not gained quorum with the masses yet. As with so many other things in life I'll have to bear with my dissapointment of the slowness of real progress.
Posted by John Atkinson (R) on March 21, 2007 at 10:37:33
In Reply to: Re: Characteristics of consumer-oriented audio publications posted by Avocat on March 21, 2007 at 08:13:30:
- - John, my original note in this section discussed five or six areas in which I suggested possible improvements in SF. - You seem to be interested only in the blind testing issue, for some reason. What about the other suggestions? - -
>
> what was the basis for your conclusion that blind testing reports
> were "unpopular" with your readership?"The usual data: newsstand sales figures, reader's letters, live
feedback from readers at Stereophile shows, surveys on our website."Because your readers have been exposed to SF anti-blind-test propaganda over the years, I doubt that these discussions/letters/surveys are very significant. Sales figures (reflecting newstand purchases by non-subscribers unfamiliar with the issue) don't seem very significant. Regarding the poll, the results do seem to suggest a wide variety of opinions. In any event, I note that only 26% of those responding indicated that they didn't care about the subject. Also, many audiophiles seem to equate blind testing exclusively with ABX dbt methodology, with which is often smeared.
Some seem to think that because blind test results are sometimes ambiguous and don't produce a clear "winner" among several cadidates, the tests are meaningless and worthless. To the contrary, results that show differences of opinion or ambiguity amoung certain components can be quite valuable, in that they tell the reader something about the degree of audible improvement he might expect from a particular component, as well as the degree of audible improvement he may get per dollar spent on particular types of components. In other words, disclosing to the reader that the judement of a listening panel was substantially mixed about a particular component, as compared with others, would suggest that perhaps his budget would be better served by the purchase of another type of component about which the panel did discern significant, audible benefits, agreed to by most of the panel. - INCIDENTALLY, I HAVE NOT SEEN THIS FACTOR MENTIONED IN ANY STEREOPHILE ARTICLE ON THE SUBJECT OR DISCUSSED ON THE WEB BY ANYONE OPPOSING BLIND TESTING.
"You can find the most recent poll at http://cgi.stereophile.com/cgi-bin/showvote.cgi?427. Interesting results, I am sure you will agree."Thanks. The poll results are interesting, if inconclusive.
> Were they worded by independent professionals in the polling field,
> or by your own staff?"Our own staff. But shouldn't you be the one answering these
questions? For example, when you stated that you "think that most
readers would like to see at least some reports of blind testing...,"John, get a grip on yourself. - This happens to be an online discussion group, and, in fact, it's the "Critics Corner" secion of AA in which various opinions, questions, and viewpoints are supposedly welcomed. From the comments about my initial note, there does seem to be quite a lot of interest in these issues. Regarding blind testing, there obvioiusly are differences of opinion. But I'm certainly not the only one with such views.
--------------------------
"So far, all you have done is offer unsupported opinion. Not that I
have any objection to that but it seems curious that you appear to be doubting my own experience in this matter while not feeling the need to offer any data of your own."I asked whether, in view of the obvious and continuing interest in the subject, Sterephile has ever conducted a scientifically based survey or poll of the opinons of its readers on the subject. - Clearly, you haven't.
"I should also point out that if I am wrong in my editorial decisions, the marketplace is quite efficient at conferring the usual consequence, vide the ongoing failures of editors and magazines who
fail to offer readers what those readers value: the editors of Audio,
High Fidelity, The Audio Critic, etc, all got it wrong, for example.
If I am wrong about this, then ultimately my ability to pay my
mortgage will be compromised :-)"John, you have done a good job of keeping up the circulation of the mag over the years. ( Along with the editors of the Enquirer, Star, Sun, Playboy, etc.) Seriously, for a publication related to such a narrow interest group, SF has done very well, to your credit. Your staff is certainly doing a good job of selling advertising space. Incidentally, how does the revenue break down between subscription income, newstand sales, and advertising revenue. (Not asking for $$ figures, just interested in where most of the income comes from.)
As mentioned earlier, my comments are partially based on some general concerns about the audio and music industries as a whole, and not just the issues discussed above. - Per the discussion in today's Wall Street Journal, incidentally.
Jim
> my original note in this section discussed five or six areas
> in which I suggested possible improvements in SF. - You seem
> to be interested only in the blind testing issue, for some
> reason. What about the other suggestions?
I did note them. Some we already do, as Kal Rubinson
pointed out. Some are possibilities, some are impractical.
Any magazine continually evolves in response to market changes
and to reader's changing needs, so maybe you might see some
movement in the directions you describe. Or not.
> Because your readers have been exposed to SF
> anti-blind-test propaganda over the years, I doubt that
> these discussions/letters/surveys are very significant.
There are times when I just need to laugh out loud.
Your arrogamce astonishes me, Jim. So _your_ opinion
carries weight but those of other Stereophile readers
doesn't? I respectfully suggest you think again about
what you have just said, sir.
> Sales figures (reflecting newstand purchases by
> non-subscribers unfamiliar with the issue) don't seem
> very significant.
And again, I continue to be amazed by how much more
those without any publishing experience or hard information
know about my business than I do. :-)
> > shouldn't you be the one answering these questions?
> > For example, when you stated that you "think that most
> > readers would like to see at least some reports of blind
> > testing...,"
>
> John, get a grip on yourself. - This happens to be an
> online discussion group, and, in fact, it's the "Critics
> Corner" secion of AA in which various opinions,
> questions, and viewpoints are supposedly welcomed. From
> the comments about my initial note, there does seem to
> be quite a lot of interest in these issues. Regarding
> blind testing, there obvioiusly are differences of
> opinion. But I'm certainly not the only one with such
> views.
No you are not, but my experience has been that those
vociferously asking for a blind test regime in Stereophile
are a minority of readers and, to a large extent, aren't
even readers at all. I am curious, therefore, why you
feel that "most readers" of Stereophile share your
viewpoint? Why do you think that? Please stop avoiding the
question.
> John, you have done a good job of keeping up the
> circulation of the mag over the years. ( Along with the
> editors of the Enquirer, Star, Sun, Playboy, etc.)
Ah, time to reach for my can of "Troll-B-Gone," I see. :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
John
I have been a Sterophile subscriber for almost 15 years (I also subscribe to other publications and read all of the online pubs)I remember some of you blind tests. I believe some were with a panel that all listened together and then each was assigned a speaker to report on sighted.
Wasn't the panel test skewed by only one person being able to sit in the right spot? (I understand doing other wise would be a hassle)
Were the levels matched precisely system to system?
Personally I would prefer a compromise of some sort. Logistically doing blind tests for everything can be a nightmare and would slow down the process. As such it's really not practical. Having said that I would like to see some way of blind testing speakers to see if the responses to the sighted reviews hold true. Maybe a sampling once a year? The reason I suggest this is cost. I would like to hear a reviewer critique speakers based on several common parameters and then suggest what price range they feel that quality of sound could substaniate. Of all the arguements the ABX people make I think the one regarding cost is the most relevant. I think one expects certain capabilities when they know how much something costs. I think it's human nature to want to be able to give a favorable review of someone else's life's work - especially when they are extremely expensive to desin and manufacture. (I experiance the same thing when i buy something or try a tweek. You find yourself wanting to support your own decision). As such I think - especially with speakers- a yearly calibration would be of some use. (Given the decline of high end audio it is virtually impossible for the average person to listen to even a fraction of what is available or recommended. As such - while your recommend people listen on their own and don't buy based on your reviews - it is often practical to do just that - as there is really no other choice. I bought Triangle speakers based on Sam review and the fact that I own tubes. When I did this there was no one within 250 miles that was selling them)
> Wasn't the panel test skewed by only one person being able to sit in
> the right spot?
Yes. The first test used 4-5 listenrs at a time, which meant that the
tests ran over 2 days. Because it became apparent that the position
of the listener in the room was also a variable, in the subsequent
tests, we had just 2 listeners at a time take part, one sitting behind
the other, so that both were close to being in the sweet spot. This
stretched the testing to 6 days. It would have even better if we had
tested just one listener at a time, but this would have required too
much time just for the blind tests, let alone every other aspect of
the review, to be practical for a monthly publication schedule.
> Were the levels matched precisely system to system?
As closely as is possible with speakers, which have an unflat response
compared with amplifiers or digital front-ends. We matched the levels
based on the speakers' B-weighted sensitivities, which downplays the
effect of differences at the frequency extremes. We did publish the
experimental procedures in full detail, BTW.
One point that is continually glossed over by proponents of blind
testing is that when the audible differences are small in absolute
terms, which is very often the case, designing a blind test that has
sufficient sensitivity to detect such differences is not trivial.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"One point that is continually glossed over by proponents of blind
testing is that when the audible differences are small in absolute
terms, which is very often the case, designing a blind test that has
sufficient sensitivity to detect such differences is not trivial."Your point here is self-defeating, "audible differences that are small in absolute terms" will not be any easier to detect in a sighted test, the results will just a lot less reliable as a result of uncontrolled listener bias.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
> Your point here is self-defeating, "audible differences that are
> small in absolute terms" will not be any easier to detect in a
> sighted test, the results will just a lot less reliable as a result
> of uncontrolled listener bias.
It depends on the nature of the difference, the conditions of the
blind test, and the conditions of the sighted test. When real
differences exist, an endless series of inadequate blind tests that
produce null results, a la Tom Nousaine, is meaningless.
This was the point of the parable I related at the HE2005 debate,
reprinted at www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/705awsi .
The differences between the amplifiers under test had not been
detected by the formal blind test but had been under normal, sighted,
longer-term listening.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
> This was the point of the parable I related at the HE2005 debate,
> reprinted at www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/705awsi.
> The differences between the amplifiers under test had not been
> detected by the formal blind test but had been under normal, > sighted, longer-term listening.
Your little parable demonstrates that detectable differences are not the sole criteria for long term satisfaction of any given device, I can think of a very good example that captured the public interest in the UK. Volkswagen was gearing up to re-launch the Skoda in UK, In the consumer clinic, the car performed excellently until the test clinic subjects were made aware of the brand, needless to say it was downhill from there on. No matter how you cut it, once the identity of the object under test is known, expectation bias becomes an unavoidable skewing factor. If it were not the case, getting reliable results will simply be a matter of conducting blind tests immediately after sighted tests (where valid differences were reported) and the results of the blind test will correlate with the results of the sighted tests, however that is opposite of what is widely obtained in these tests. Expectation bias depends on a priori knowledge, a priori knowledge is always present in a sighted test.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
> > This was the point of the parable I related at the HE2005 debate,
> > reprinted at www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/705awsi. The differences
> > between the amplifiers under test had not been detected by the
> > formal blind test but had been under normal, sighted, longer-term
> > listening.
>
> Your little parable demonstrates that detectable differences are not
> the sole criteria for long term satisfaction of any given device...
Perhaps you didn't read my essay carefully? Perhaps you didn't
comprehend what I wrote? My point was that all the non-audio factors
were working _in favor_ of the solid-state power amplifier. Yet my
dissatisfaction with its sound turned out to be very real. And that
shortfall in sound quality had _not_ been detected in what on the
face of things had appeared to be a well-organized and well-designed
blind test.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
> Perhaps you didn't read my essay carefully? Perhaps you didn't
> comprehend what I wrote? My point was that all the non-audio > factors were working _in favor_ of the solid-state power amplifier.Well, you are touching at the heart of why sighted test are inherently weaker than blind tests, the non-audio factors at play are not at the sole discretion of the observer, neither is the observer neccessarily aware of all his/her biases, a priori knowledge brings to the fore all biases not just biases the observer is aware of at the time of the test. A priori knowledge is skewing factor irrespective of the duration of the test.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
when the resulting preference is contrary to the bias established by the non-audio factors?
"So, what conclusion can you draw when the resulting preference is contrary to the bias established by the non-audio factors?"Your question was implicitly answered in the original post you responded to. The observer is NOT necessarily aware of all his/her biases and there is no realistic method available to the observer to address this weakness. As a result, claiming that the resulting preference was contrary to the bias established by the non-audio factors is not a possible outcome as it assumes that observer is fully aware of all his biases.
preference for the many reasons was not for the solid state unit?I've made quite a few comparisons where my favored brand did not "win" in the outcome.
"What makes you think that Mr. Atkinson's preference for the many reasons was not for the solid state unit?"???? You are going round in circles asking the same question in various guises, the answer remains the same. At any rate that is not the only problem with Mr. Atkinson's parable, just the one that is impossible to reliably mitigate against in a sighted test.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
> that is not the only problem with Mr. Atkinson's parable, just the
> one that is impossible to reliably mitigate against in a sighted
> test.
You continue to miss the point I was making, "audiohobby." There are
2 incontrovertible facts involved in my parable:
1) The solid-state amplifier could not be identified in the formal
blind test.
2) The solid-state amplifier did not satisfy me in long-term
listening, despite all the non-audio factors working in its favor.
And two articles of belief among so-called objectivists:
1) That blind tests, merely by being blind, are an effective means of
detecting audible differences.
2) Sighted listening tests are inherently unreliable, due to the
presence of non-audio factors.
If the facts behind my parable are true, then these two latter
beliefs are mutally incompatible. Either the blind test was
ineffective or the non-audio factors don't actually affect the
listener's reaction to any significant degree. You can't continue to
insist that both are correct.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
> You continue to miss the point I was making, "audiohobby."I am not missing the point, however you are as I addressed the selfsame issue upteen times in my replies to E-Stat.
> There are 2 incontrovertible facts involved in my parable.
Only the first statement satisfies that criterion.
> 2) The solid-state amplifier did not satisfy me in long-term listening, despite all the non-audio factors working in its favor.
Your comments do not take into account hidden or unconscious bias. It is impossible for the observer to reliably claim that they are fully aware of ALL their biases, as a result it is impossible to claim that all their biases favour a particular choice as you have claimed. A priori knowledge informs both the known and hidden biases, since the observer is not necessarily aware of their hidden (or unconscious) biases, how do they mitigate against it effects in a sighted test? They can't, it is an inherent weakness in sighted tests.
> 2) Sighted listening tests are inherently unreliable, due to the presence of non-audio factors.And you will be correct because of the reasons outlined in my previous comments.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
> > There are 2 incontrovertible facts involved in my parable.
>
> Only the first statement satisfies that criterion.
In your opinion. I assure you that my dissatisfaction was real. I find
it amazing that you now claim to be a mind reader in order to be able
to wriggle out from the implications of my experience.
> > 2) The solid-state amplifier did not satisfy me in long-term
> > listening, > despite all the non-audio factors working in its favor.
>
> Your comments do not take into account hidden or unconscious bias...
Nor do they take into account ESP or your claims to be able to
discern my state of mind a quarter century ago. Again: despite my
love for the Quad amplifier, despite the fact that it was very much
less expensive than the amplifier it replaced (meaning I made money
on the exchange), despite it being, small, cool-running, and despite
the hero-worship I felt (and still feel) for its designer, in the long
term, and without reference to other amplifiers, it proved extremely
unsatisfying in the task for which I had purchased it. That sir, is a
fact.
I suppose you will next suggest that I should have performed further
blind tests to "prove" that my dissatisfaction was illusory? Ecept
that I imagine that would have produced the same result as before, in
which case I would still be stuck with a sound that dissatisfied.
Only a fool or someone in the throes of religious zeal would regard
that as rational behavior, I respectfully suggest.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
you can't possibly understand your own preferences! Actually, I know why you didn't like the Quad in the end. It was the heatsinks on the front. That's it. I'll bet you don't like any amplifiers that have heatsinks on the front. It's that simple. ;)
Nice try, Did you forget that you asked that selfsame question a few posts back or you are just being malicious?
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Such involves the use of the question mark. Don't you know that?Malicious? Heavens, no. Just thoroughly amused. :)
How does your rhetorical questionC'mon, John you can't possibly understand your own preferences!
follow from this
"We are incapable of determining our own preferences and opinions? "
No, biases reliably.
Or are you simply being deliberately obtuse?
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Taken in the context of E-stat's entire post, it would fall far from being malicious, and instead fall into the category of leg-pulling humor.
At least someone understands my humor and the smiley/winky faces!
Now get back to Propheads where you belong.
> I'll bet you don't like any amplifiers that have heatsinks on the front. It's that simple. ;) <Or that start with the letter 'Q'.
Or maybe John equates it with the quadrophonic sound that was such a disaster.
Or maybe 4 is an unlucky number!
The possibilities are endless. :)
> In your opinion. I assure you that my dissatisfaction was real. I find it amazing that you now claim to be a mind reader in order to be able to wriggle out from the implications of my experience.Those are the facts with respect to biases, you might not like them and try and claim that they do not apply to your particular situation, but then you will not be different many other audiophiles who believe that some basic laws of human behaviour do not apply to them.
> Only a fool or someone in the throes of religious zeal would regard that as rational behavior, I respectfully suggest.
You are defending a position that is totally at odds with generally accepted behavioural science on this well-trodden subject with absolutely nothing except a piece of anecdotal evidence. Now that is irrational behaviour, on the otherhand a fool or someone in the throes of religious zeal may also regard it as rational behavior, I respectfully suggest.
Given the tone of last post, I take it you have nothing else worthwhile to say on the matter.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
> > In your opinion. I assure you that my dissatisfaction was real. I
> > find it amazing that you now claim to be a mind reader in order to
> > be able to wriggle out from the implications of my experience.
>
> Those are the facts with respect to biases, you might not like them
> and try and claim that they do not apply to your particular
> situation...
Again, you seem to be addressing a different point. My dissatisfaction
with the sound of the solid-state amplifier was indeed real. Why would
I lie about it, either to you now or to myself back then? All I was
concerned about at the time -- and remember that, as described in the
essay, I was not a reviewer at the end of the 1970s but a hard-line
"objectivist -- was buying an amplifier for use in my own system for
as little cash as I needed pay for the amount of power available. I
did what "objectivists" to this day recommend to audiophiles, which
is to choose a well-designed amplifier on the basis of cost, features,
and power, because in a formal blind test, the amplifier I wanted to
purchase had been shown not to sound any different from more exotic,
more expensive designs. As I said, for you now to claim that you know
more about my state of mind at that time than I did then is both
ridiculous and arrogant.
I have been forthright about the biases and belief I had at that time.
All you are doing is postulating that there must have been other,
hitherto unsuspected biases at work. As I said: mindreading.
> but then you will not be different many other audiophiles who believe
> that some basic laws of human behaviour do not apply to them.
I see you like to patronize those whose points you can't argue with
otherwise?
> > Only a fool or someone in the throes of religious zeal would regard
> > that as rational behavior, I respectfully suggest.
>
> You are defending a position that is totally at odds with generally
> accepted behavioural science on this well-trodden subject with
> absolutely nothing except a piece of anecdotal evidence.
No, I am honestly reporting my _experience_, experience obtained
without pressure from anyone else, and experience that ran counter
to my biases and expectations. Such was the cognitive dissonance
engendered by this situation that I didn't recognize the problem
until I realized that listening to recorded music, my passion, had
increasingly become less and less of my life. The change in amplifier
had been the only significant factor. Occam's Razor suggested that
the amplifier was the root cause of my dissatisfaction.
And if that was the case, then either the blind test had misled me
or my biases and expectations had not outweighed the evidence of
my ears.
And to take your argument to its logical conclusion, you appear to be
suggesting that all human experience, if anecdotal and not supported
by scientific experiments, must be discarded as meaningless. I
hardly think that is the case.
Take my recording activities: I must make literally 100s of judgment
calls during the production of a project, some under extreme time
constraints, and I need to be correct on every one of those decisions.
Should I move this mike back 6"? Should I apply +0.5dB of boost at
100Hz to compensate for a cardioid's early rolloff or +1dB? Should
I record at 96kHz or save hard-drive space and file-handling time by
using 48kHz. The list is endless, yet according to you, without
formal blind testing of each of those situations, none of those
decisions can be justified because each will be affected by my
baggage of biases and preconceived notions.
In that case, why do any of us bother doing anything?
I take it, BTW, that all your own decisions regarding what products
you chose to buy and how you choose to use them have been made on
the basis of formal blind tests? Otherwise, you would add hypocrisy
to your religious belief in the efficacy of the blind test!> > Now that is irrational behaviour, on the otherhand a fool or
> > someone in the throes of religious zeal may also regard it as
> > rational behavior, I respectfully suggest.
>
> Given the tone of last post, I take it you have nothing else
> worthwhile to say on the matter.
I see. So while you appear to feel that it is okay for you to
patronize others, you wish to pick up your ball and leave when
some of that attitude reflects back on you. If you dish it out, you
can hardly complain when others respond to you in kind.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
JA stated:"And to take your argument to its logical conclusion, you appear to be suggesting that all human experience, if anecdotal and not supportedby scientific experiments, must be discarded as meaningless. I hardly think that is the case."
Of course, no one is saying anything of the kind. On the other hand, you seem to be saying something just as absurd. You seem to be basing your conclusions largely on this single, personal experience. (In which you decided, after extended listening, that you prefer the somewhat warm, mellow characteristics of "tube sound" over those of the SS amp). Of course, I'm sure there are lots and lots of other reasons, but you seem simply to love this one. Again, it's a single example (duhh..) without any follow-up. (As would certainly be expected if, indeed, such personal conclusions are an underlying basis for SF's policies.)In any event, why the "either-or" approach? Why the hard over, never, under any circumstances, "case-closed" policy conclusion? And why attack the underlying principle (the principle of using blind testing IN SOME FORM to minimize personal bias), rather than the methodology? (For example, short listening times are often criticised as being a major problem in blind testing. - Instead of criticising the short listening times, why not consider using somewhat more extended listening times, perhaps repeated on subsequent occasions?)
In view of the obvious interest in blind testing, even as evidenced by comments in this very discussion string, why not permit both testing modalities? If costs are a major factor, such testing could be limited to once or twice a year, perhaps with a slight increase in subscription rates.
Jim
We are incapable of determining our own preferences and opinions?
"We are incapable of determining our own preferences and opinions? "No, biases reliably.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
JA said:
> You continue to miss the point I was making, "audiohobby." There are
2 incontrovertible facts involved in my parable:1) The solid-state amplifier could not be identified in the formal
blind test.2) The solid-state amplifier did not satisfy me in long-term
listening, despite all the non-audio factors working in its favor.And two articles of belief among so-called objectivists:
1) That blind tests, merely by being blind, are an effective means of
detecting audible differences.2) Sighted listening tests are inherently unreliable, due to the
presence of non-audio factors.If the facts behind my parable are true, then these two latter
beliefs are mutally incompatible. Either the blind test was
ineffective or the non-audio factors don't actually affect the
listener's reaction to any significant degree. You can't continue to
insist that both are correct.>
that's why I don't give much creedence to the individual product reviews here on the asylum. Most of them are by the owner of the item where one can reasonably expect some bias. I think that TAH doesn' understand that reviewers get all sorts of products where such bias just isn't there. Here are six $30k amps. Which one do you like best?I spent a few days in Seacliff the week before last. Currently, he's got a quad of those hideously expensive Western Electric WE-97A amps running the Nolas. Initial reaction? Naturally, I should like them because:
1. They're expensive. Are they $85k per pair or each?
2. They're 100 watt SETs (actually, they were the first SETs I've heard)
3. HP likes them.
4. They're well built and have tasteful backlighting of the stylized Western Electric brand through the faceplate.
5. HP didn't ask me to rebias them (as I have done for VTLs, ASLs, and Joule Electras
I've heard half a dozen different amps in that system (and seen half a dozen others sitting aside) over the years and these are NOT my favorite. In every case, these came from manufacturers where I had zero experience or prior exposure to them in order to form an opinion other than over the aesthetics. In that respect, I clearly prefer the Edge Signature monoblocks or the big Joule Electra amps with sixteen 6C33 outputs. Ever seen the Edge in person? They are positively gorgeous. There's not a hard angle on the unit. They engraved the Edge logo on the top cover. The heat sinks are shaped in a stylized "S" along with that shape being engraved into the front panel. The cabinet was fashioned from aluminum billet with countersunk machine hex nuts. There is a soft red glow emanating from the front panel. They have bi-wiring friendly posts with handles on them. In operation, they run fairly cool with a laser based bias tracking. They win the fashion show hands down. Especially when compared to...
While they are superb amps, my choice was the ugly duckling of the bunch (with an identical price tag): the VTL Wotans. Cosmetically, they are Roseanne Barr to the Edge's Kristanna Loken. I would characterize them as frumpy looking. Definitely NOT cool. They use exposed sheet metal screws. No lights other than an LED. Biasing forty-eight 6550s is a chore. And yet, they produced the most lifelike artifice of natural music reproduction I had ever heard. Brings tears-to-the-eyes good. It was only after that experience that I sold my beloved Audio Research amp and bought a pair of MB-450s. Five years later, I'm still in love with their ability to reproduce music.
> Cosmetically, they are Roseanne Barr to the Edge's Kristanna Loken <Maybe you're biased in favor of Roseanne Barr! LOL!
My experience with the Edge amplifier is that it's the best solid state unit I've ever heard. It doesn't give up as much to the best tube amps that most SS amps do.
And Valhalla all around - now THAT brings tears to my eyes! I never will be able to afford them. (sigh)
er, I mean the Edge is a fine amplifier.
And Valhalla all around - now THAT brings tears to my eyes!
Just wait - there's another Norse god on the loose!
Q. What chance does the average guy have of owning Nordost Valhalla or Ms. Loken.
I'm so naive I don't understand why any of this makes a difference. Do you not listen to gear before purchase?Because your readers have been exposed to SF anti-blind-test propaganda over the years, I doubt that these discussions/letters/surveys are very significant. Sales figures (reflecting newstand purchases by non-subscribers unfamiliar with the issue) don't seem very significant.
What do you want - a double blind test that compares results of sighted reviews with double blind test reviews both written so no methodological descriptions intrude?
""Our own staff. But shouldn't you be the one answering these
questions? For example, when you stated that you "think that most
readers would like to see at least some reports of blind testing...,"John, get a grip on yourself. - This happens to be an online discussion group, and, in fact, it's the "Critics Corner" secion of AA in which various opinions, questions, and viewpoints are supposedly welcomed. From the comments about my initial note, there does seem to be quite a lot of interest in these issues. Regarding blind testing, there obvioiusly are differences of opinion. But I'm certainly not the only one with such views."
JA is absolutely right. Why does he have to provide you with back-up when you don't do the same?? This is, indeed, Critics' Corner, but it isn't " Make the Editors Play By Rules That We Don't Have to Follow."He gave his answers. My guess is he's not terribly interested in the type of "improvements" you suggest.
nt
Folks, I appreciate the apparent interest in my initial note and the thoughtful comments posted by several AA's. I do enjoy a good, lively discussion such as this one. However, I have some work that has to be completed this week, and I need to give it my full attention. - So, I'm requesting that I be permitted to break from the discussion and return to it next week if it's still active.
I also hope to get back to my Maggie 3.6R's and Maggie surround sytem next week.
best of luck getting stuff done...and don't wait too long to warm up those maggies!!
> ...good system, should be conveniently available at affordable prices to all.>They are affordable much more today than ever before because of the 'trickle-down' of technology and computer-modeling.
You can buy a decent 2 channel starter system for say, $3000 today. People pay more than that for flat screen TVs.
> ...a truly consumer-oriented audio publication would, in my view take a very different approach.>
Unless it was entertaining, it would not survive just covering audio equipment, regardless of its approach. There isn't a big enough market. Which is why Consumer Reports covers so many different items.
> A. ...I suggest including at least some reviews (and frank comparisons) of components of the same general type or "family.">
I agree - that's very useful and I don't know why it isn't done more often. Probably the closest is Bob Reina's inexpensive speaker reviews in Stereophile where he does extensive comparisons.
> C. As in wine reviews (which are as subjective and difficult as audio, or more so) information regarding the availability of a particular component and the history and reputation of the manufacturer would be helpful.>You get this info about the audio manufacturers by reading reviews over the period of a few years.
I don't know where you read wine reviews that contain this info but my Wine Spectator only lists the number of cases produced.
> D. ...it would be helpful if there were a clear summary of the review at the beginning of such long-winded discussions.>
Just skip to the end - 'conclusions' section.
> E. If the mag were truly "consumer oriented", I think that more articles suggesting ways to improve and upgrade our audio systems would be appreciated.>
Some of these thing are interesting to a limited number of audiophiles which is why they appear in the magazines from time to time but not on a regular basis.
> F. Lastly, get off the "either or" - "you're for us or against us" syndrome regarding blind testing.>
Blind ABX-type testing is useless for equipment reviews. Its purpose is to determine if there is a 'difference' between two components - not to determine what the difference is. And many think they are unvalidated and useless for even that purpose.
One feature I would like to see is comments on a review by other reviewers. TAS used to do that and both magazine do it on a limited basis or in a follow-up, but reading a second opinion would really be useful for the consumer.
You are not the only one who thinks reviews have more weight when there is more than one reviewer involved. Most speakers and some amps are being reviewed by up to 4 reviewers. Several manufacturers and distributors have expressed the same sentiment. The aspect that is very appealing to me is that it takes, to a large extent, the politics out of reviewing. It is pretty hard for 3 or more independent people to have the same influences cast upon them that one individual might. I will confess that it is easier to say something good about a product that is represented by a person I like than it is about product from a person I do not personally care for. It's something I have to watch carefully and not succomb to. And that has nothing to do with ad revenue or anything else of the sort. That is much easier for me to ignore. That is just something I have developed over the past 50 years.The panel review also removes another important aspect, imho, and that is that it gets around the "reviewer as diva" syndrome. Panel reviews seem to focus more on the product than on the reviewer.
I agree than blind testing is not perfect, but niether is any other method of reviewing. We just completed a shootout of 14 different class D, T and gaincard amps. We used blind testing with a panel to accomplish that. Otherwise the logistics would have been horrendous. They already were. And our results will indicate not only that there was a difference, but what the difference was. I do not think such a comparison is worthless. Like any other review, it is just one snapshot, one morsel of info to help people decide.
when one actually buys the piece under test, that is the ultimate compliment that a reviewer can have about a component. Even though some have debated on this, I could care less if the guy (gal) gets a good deal in order to save return shipping, scratch and dent, at cost, whatever. Their buying the product is a statement that it is not only an excellent value, but that it made such a difference in their system that they had to keep it.
that reviewers cannot buy every product they review. I have a pair of speakers I'm reviewing right now that I would love to buy, but I can't.
First off they weigh about 400 lbs each - they are encased in granite. With the large stands filled with lead shot that makes them about 400 lbs per side. Do I want to move those around every time I review another speaker? No...also, they cost about $7k. But that means I could buy them for a lot less, right? No again. They are sold directly so they do not have a distributor's and retail markup. I MIGHT get 10% off. Same with the Halcros I just finished. Should I buy those, too? How about the 2 $10k tables I'm evaluating right now? Ouch. Bill Gates I am not.THe fact is, there are not many components that have been here that I would NOT love to buy, but I have not purchased one. THe funny thing is, the one thing I have purchased is cables - you know, the things that everyone has tons of laying around.
> Their buying the product is a statement that it is not only an
> excellent value, but that it made such a difference in their system
> that they had to keep it.Or they think the product is rubbish but will be able to sell it on at a profit if they give it a glowing review.
How can a consumer determine where a reviewer sits between these two extremes?
Yes, I know some publications have their own extra rules to tone down the extreme I put forward. Just substitute whatever the rules are and the question will still stand until the reviewer plays by the same rules as the consumer. Then your point would indeed be a very persuasive one.
The industry policy is that even if we do buy something, assuming there IS a significant discount which is not always the case (read my post above, we are require to hold onto it for a full year before we think about selling it. The average component depreciates about 40 to 50% in a year, so where is the killing? Ads on Ebay and Agon are not free, either.The time it takes to advertise it, answer questions, negotiate if on Agon or not selling on Ebay, pack it, ship it....all that takes time. Not worth a hundred bucks to me to do on regular basis. I own I financial advisory firm. I can think of many ways to tie up money for a year that will give me much better returns....
(nt)
OK. I take it back. Apparently all you are interested in is needless personal attacks and unwarranted criticism - even when someone agrees with you. And it's not even witty. It's hard to agree with someone who is terminally disagreeable.Have fun. I won't waste my time reading your posts in the future. Too many great people here who are actually involved in writing and publishing whose opinion actually matters.
"Blind ABX-type testing is useless for equipment reviews. Its purpose is to determine if there is a 'difference' between two components - not to determine what the difference is. And many think they are unvalidated and useless for even that purpose."I addressed most of your points in other notes. I would point out that I never suggested (or even mentioned) the use of ABX-type testing. What I am recommended is some form of blind testing, knowing that any will be a compromise. (I'm willing to leave the choice to Stereophile, since any other selection would be immediately attacked.) In any event, please don't put words in my mouth.
but I do have a couple of questions/points:
Firstly, your entire post seems to make the assumption (or the acknowledgement in your case) in your criticism of current mags that the purpose of the reviews, and by extension the purpose of reading the reviews, is to provide information for helping to make an informed decision about purchasing equipment. I have a different take, which I acknowledge may be mine alone: I read the reviews because I enjoy it. Essentially it's the same reason why I read reviews of a new Ferrari or a Saleen: I'll (probably) never be in a position to buy one, but I get a kick out of reading about the experience of driving one, and about how it's made, and the technological issues behind it. Same for audio: I have a system that I have no intention of changing for the forseeable future, but I subscribe to several of the mags, and read them religiously, not because I'm shopping, but because I enjoy it. I believe a lot of audiophiles read the mags for the same reason. And that's what enthusiast magazines are all about.Secondly, you make the following statement: "And at least partially due to the policies of Sterephile, TAS, etc. (along with a number of other factors, of course), market forces are essentially inoperative in the quality audio field." Following from my previous point about being enthusiast magazines, I find this a somewhat specious comment. Marketing forces aren't inoperative because of the policies of the mags AT ALL. After all, Automobile magazine doesn't affect the quality or quantity of econocars or mid-sizers because they prefer to review the new Audi R8 rather than the Chevy Cupholder ES. I believe that the review policies of Stereophile, TAS, etc., have absolutely nothing to do with the shrinking high-end: the problem, if there is one, lies in the decrease in importance of music and its reproduction in the mind of the general populace. Fewer and fewer people go to live music, fewer and fewer people actively listen to recordings (as opposed to sticking earbuds in while exercising or doing the laundry), and fewer and fewer people learn to play an instrument or study any type of music history or theory in schools. You should look there for the underlying reasons why our hobby is shrinking, not to the review policies of a few enthusiast magazines.
Beyond that, the desire to have a valued reference to assist with purchasing decisions is a good one, and I support most of your points quite strongly. But until the issues that I believe are at the heart of the problem with the high-end, an alternative type of mag won't have much hope of survival. The existence of the information can't produce the desire: it is the desire needing the info that will make the enterprise successful...
manufacturers/dealers spend their $$ on ads (which keep the mags afloat) and send the review samples you enjoy reading about for one purpose only....SALES. I don't read car mags, but I doubt Audi or any other car maker provides cars for review purposes and/or ad $$ to car mags just so people who will never buy their cars can enjoy reading about them. Of course I'm sure both the editors of mags and manufacturers want the reviews (ads/columns/industry news as well) to be entertaining in order to attract readers, who in turn are the potential customers of the advertisers.While I understand your point about i-pods and the like, other than casual observations what can you site to back up the idea that the hi-end is shrinking (hmm, you did say "if there's a problem")? There seems to be an ever increasing number of companies making/selling a greatly increased number of hifi products when compared to, say, 15 years ago. Maybe JA could tell us definitively, but what I've seen at four S'phile shows certainly doesn't indicate diminishing attendance. AFAIK S'phile readership ain't in decline. Dunno about TAS and other mags, but just in the last few years a number of audio e-zines have sprung up and seem to be flourishing. It seems that for every hifi B&M retailer that fails or concentrates on HT a web hifi outlet opens.
I think you're wrong about fewer people learning to play instruments and/or taking music courses. Yes, maybe fewer amateurs than many moons ago before recordings were ubiquitous and people played/sung for entertainment in their homes. But I doubt there's less amateurs since 20-30 years ago, and I definitely don't believe there are less pros. I know first hand that Manhattan School of Music in NYC is packed with students, as is Julliard and quite a few other conservatories. Jazz programs have sprung up in colleges all across the U.S. where there had been no such program 20 years ago. When I finished my studies at Berklee (1971) there was a total of 300 students at the school, now they have over 3,000. I do agree that the work scene for musicians is worsening, but despite this young talented players (classical, jazz, and rock) are still streaming into NYC from all over the world every year.
I'll stand corrected if you can show me I'm wrong, but your view that "The existence of the information can't produce the desire: it is the desire needing the info that will make the enterprise successful..." seems to stand the whole concept of advertising on its head. Nobody is born with a desire to purchase 140 wpc tube amps, re-conditioned/re-plinthed idler wheel tt's, $7,000 cdp's, or even "budget" $2,000 systems (let alone Shun Mook, Shakti, the IC, Nespa, $5,000 racks, $2,000 power chords etc.). Reviews and ads create and spur the desire to get 'em. If it wasn't working mags like S'phile wouldn't exist.
"manufacturers/dealers spend their $$ on ads (which keep the mags afloat) and send the review samples you enjoy reading about for one purpose only....SALES. I don't read car mags, but I doubt Audi or any other car maker provides cars for review purposes and/or ad $$ to car mags just so people who will never buy their cars can enjoy reading about them."Maybe you missed the point of the post: I see no need to turn an enthusiast magazine into a consumer buying guide. The comparison I posited is between AUDIENCES, not ADVERTISERS, though I believe there are valid comparisons there as well. My analogy continues to hold true even with your "doubt:" Audi loves having the R8 reviewed, because people really like to read about supercars. There are very few made, and they are priced out of the stratosphere. What does Audi gain?? Trickle-down effect. They sell more A4s and A6s because they have a Posche-beater on the market. Audi sure doesn't hit their profit goals with an exotic sports car. The hit it by using the extreme to help market the technologies available down through the line. Likewise, WAVAC doesn't make their $350,000 amps to increase their profits, but to market their exclusivity and sell more of their reasonably priced amps.
The long and short? The mags compare well because the are ENTHUSIAST mags, not Consumer Reports.
"While I understand your point about i-pods and the like, other than casual observations what can you site to back up the idea that the hi-end is shrinking (hmm, you did say "if there's a problem")? There seems to be an ever increasing number of companies making/selling a greatly increased number of hifi products when compared to, say, 15 years ago. Maybe JA could tell us definitively, but what I've seen at four S'phile shows certainly doesn't indicate diminishing attendance. AFAIK S'phile readership ain't in decline. Dunno about TAS and other mags, but just in the last few years a number of audio e-zines have sprung up and seem to be flourishing. It seems that for every hifi B&M retailer that fails or concentrates on HT a web hifi outlet opens."Umm, this time you got it right. I DON"T think there is a problem with the high-end. My point I tried to make was that IF there was any problem, it certainly wouldn't be because of editorial policy in a couple of enthusiast magazines. IF there is a problem, I would be looking to other sources, like the dropping of music education in public high schools....
"I think you're wrong about fewer people learning to play instruments and/or taking music courses. Yes, maybe fewer amateurs than many moons ago before recordings were ubiquitous and people played/sung for entertainment in their homes. But I doubt there's less amateurs since 20-30 years ago, and I definitely don't believe there are less pros. I know first hand that Manhattan School of Music in NYC is packed with students, as is Julliard and quite a few other conservatories. Jazz programs have sprung up in colleges all across the U.S. where there had been no such program 20 years ago. When I finished my studies at Berklee (1971) there was a total of 300 students at the school, now they have over 3,000. I do agree that the work scene for musicians is worsening, but despite this young talented players (classical, jazz, and rock) are still streaming into NYC from all over the world every year."Well, I'm from Manhattan too, and I'm a bit surprised at your examples. Not because I don't believe you (I design music venues, among other cultural institutions, and was the designer of Zankel Hall under Carnegie, for one, so I am lucky enough to deal with the professional musician world frequently), but because I'm surprised you would use what happens in New York as an example of what's happening in the rest of the country. That is rarely, if ever, the case. And Berklee is a special case anyway. My point wasn't about professional musicians nor about college students: I was talking about public High Schools. Now are you going to tell me that public High Schools, who still "educate" a vast majority of the high-school-age students in thiis country, haven't cut music education to the bone?? Without treating music ass a major part of our cultural heritage, it becomes valueless to the masses who would eventually buy equipment and read audio mags. (The problem of the pro's is very different: they are not the most likely group to care about high-end music reproduction. They live with the real thing all the time, so the near-reproduction of what they do just doesn't seem too important...)
"I'll stand corrected if you can show me I'm wrong, but your view that "The existence of the information can't produce the desire: it is the desire needing the info that will make the enterprise successful..." seems to stand the whole concept of advertising on its head. Nobody is born with a desire to purchase 140 wpc tube amps, re-conditioned/re-plinthed idler wheel tt's, $7,000 cdp's, or even "budget" $2,000 systems (let alone Shun Mook, Shakti, the IC, Nespa, $5,000 racks, $2,000 power chords etc.). Reviews and ads create and spur the desire to get 'em. If it wasn't working mags like S'phile wouldn't exist."Oh dear. My "view" was an opinion: You don't have to be "corrected," and I don't have to "prove" an opinion. And no, it doesn't stan advertising on its head at all: what it means is that for someone to want to own a 140 wpc (there's the "info") tube amp (to use your example), one has to love the music first (there's the "desire" part). "140 wpc" doesn't mean diddly all by itself, and I doubt that an advertiser just throws that fact out there without any regard to their target audience. The "target audience" already has the desire. That same target audience is the readership of the mags, and they read them not because there are 140 wpc tube amps advertised in them, but because the auddience is drawn to the equipment because they have the desire: they have a passion for the reproduction of music. Without that PASSION, the mags wouldn't exist.
I thought we were on to some interesting issues....Oh well. I feel uncomfortable pulling quotes from a post I have in my in-box but was deleted from the AA record, so suffice it to say to your topic, " Either its semantics or we just disagree," I'll say it's both...
"I see no need to turn an enthusiast magazine into a consumer buying guide."I think this is semantics. I see nothing indicating the original poster didn't want the content of S'phile to be entertaining, rather than more cut&dry listings a la CR. But it seems obvious that S'phile's (or another hifi mag's) "audience" is also seeking guidance regarding purchasing decisions. CR's audience ain't looking for entertainment when seeking help determining what the best buy in microwaves is. The original poster was merely suggesting ways to make a hifi mag more helpful regarding purchasing decisions.
Take a look at the list of advertisers in your copy of S'phile. Who else but enthusiasts is the market for companies like Halcro, Classe, JPS Labs, Lamm, Revel etc .? Just as it is with any publication dependent on ad $$ for its existence, if/when readers of mags like S'phile stop *buying* what advertisers in the mags are hawking the mag will die. Why take that *buying* out of the equation and just categorize the readership of hifi mags as enthusiasts? No publication dependent on ad $$ survives merely because its readership is enthusiastic about the subject matter.
The goal both Audi and Wavac share is sales, and to that end they submit products -- including hyper-expensive flagship models -- to enthusiast mags for reviews in order to influence their potential customers. Enthusiasts are the market, the reviews and ads serve as encouragement and enticement to buy, and enthusiasts sure *do* buy what is reviewed and advertised. If a review ain't meant to be a kind of buying guide, then what is it?
Believe me, I didn't seek and get reviews of my cd in "enthusiast magazines" like Jazz Times, Jazz Improv, Cadence, All About Jazz, Jazz Week etc. just to entertain their readers, nor do their subscribers read reviews just for entertainment. Like S'phile, these jazz enthusiast mags have articles on topics of interest to their readers. But the reviews are meant to be helpful and informative *buying guides*, as are the reviews in hifi mags.
Re: music ed/appreciation ..... The point is not that MSM, Julliard, New School etc. are located in NYC and NYC is not representative of the rest of the U.S. Its that every year a new crop of entrants comes here *from all over the country and the rest of the world*. These new students seem to have received at least as good a preparatory education in high school as my generation got, if not quite a bit better. The orchestras/chamber groups/opera at MSM was shockingly good when I was there. Likewise, the constant influx of young jazz/classical/rock players seeking to become pros arrives in NYC at least as well trained as my generation, and they come from all over. It ain't like all the new students and/or budding pros in NYC got their high scholl training in NYC - mecca for music- and therefore don't represent kids who received their high school in Boise.
How does one judge the quality of jr.&sr. high school music training anyway? Go by the level of ability possessed by a young pro in Duluth? Go by what's popular among the masses in the "hinterlands"? Was Frankie Avalon's popularity in 50's symbolic of better music ed than Brittney Spears' popularity now? Dianna Ross's popularity in the '60's/70's indicates better music appreciation than Mariah Carey's popularity now? Rap's popularity shows a lack of music ed compared to the popularity of the Dave Clark Five decades ago?
I'm 59. When I was a teenager I was listening to Duke Ellington, Jackie McClean, Eric Dolphy. My high school peers were listening to Louie, Louie. The only kids I knew who listened to classical music at all played in the high school orchestra. I suspect their interest waned when they grew up and became accountants. They're probably buying Kenny G cd's now.
Rick,Thanks for the refined reply. I still have some disagreements with both you and Avocat, but they are becoming better defined as we continue this discourse.
First, I believe you confuse advertising goals with editorial goals. Certainly advertisers aim to get purchasers. That's a no-brainer. However, just because a manufacturer advertises in a given magazine doesn't mean that magazines editorial policy is PRIMARILY about readers buying those things. The PRIME policy of enthusiast magazines is to keep up the enthusiasm. This by nature means that advertisers are attracted to the readership. I bet you'd find that advertisers prefer enthusiast publications to buyer's guides by a very wide margin. Enthusiastic readers buy things more readily than uninspired ones. One should also note that with the exception of CR, there aren't any mags I can think of that are strictly enthusiast or strictly buyer's guide-types. Stereophile already has a lot of the buyer's-guide in it, but the balance, in my opinion, is positively to the enthusiast side. My issue with Avocat is that I believe he is proposing to shift the balance of Stereophile away from being primarily an enthusiast mag to being much more of a buyer's guide. That is something I am personally not interested in, and so I let my opinion on it be heard.
Secondly, I think you are way off on a tangent from my point about music education. You seem to be focussing your comments on professional musicians, and those who would become professionals. I'm not talking about those people AT ALL. I'm talking about music theory and appreciation being taught in high schools to students who are not likely to become musicians. One isn't able to opt-out of basic physics because one doesn't plan on becoming a physicist. Students today don't take much music in high schools because very few schools offer any courses at all. Go ahead: look up the curriculum of New York City public high schools. Look up the curriculum in Boise. You'l find that music theory, music appreciation, music instruction are at all-time lows in public schools.
The professional world is independant from my comments, which were about searching for reasons why the high-end MAY seem troubled (again, I don't think it really is). Not caring very much about the QUALITY of music reproduction would be one problem (the new high-end may just be compressed mp3s). Not actively listening to music as a prime activity (as opposed to semi-listening as background to something else) may be another. Not knowing squat about music may be in there as well. This is the way the general public is now, and they aren't too interested in music, so why would they care about high-end equipment? Frankly, the reason it doesn't worry me that much is that the hi-end has never had a relationship with the general public: it is a niche specialist hobby. Avocat's position that it is the costly equipment reviews that have turned off the public is ludicrous: they have no problem dropping $4000 on a flat screen tv to watch brain anaesthesia, but the fact that they wouldn't spend $4000 on a really nice hifi says a lot more about the shifting priorities of the public than it does about the potentially flawed editorial policies of Stereophile.
"How does one judge the quality of jr.&sr. high school music training anyway? Go by the level of ability possessed by a young pro in Duluth? Go by what's popular among the masses in the "hinterlands"? Was Frankie Avalon's popularity in 50's symbolic of better music ed than Brittney Spears' popularity now? Dianna Ross's popularity in the '60's/70's indicates better music appreciation than Mariah Carey's popularity now? Rap's popularity shows a lack of music ed compared to the popularity of the Dave Clark Five decades ago?"
These are not meaningful questions, because there is a real lack of music education across the board, and poularity of music genres has nothing whatsoever to do with music knowledge.
I also grew up listening to DUke Ellington, Jackie McClean, Eric Dolphy, Brubek and Miles, and I still do...;)
The PRIME policy of enthusiast magazines is to keep up the enthusiasm."I still think some of this is semantics, and the chicken/egg thing I mentioned. Practically speaking, for a mag existing on ad $$ the degree of enthusiasm of its readers is measured by the amount of $$ they spend on advertisers' products. Krell is not gonna spend their advertising money on a mag whose readers are extremely enthusiastic if those readers ain't buying what Krell sells. One method hifi mags employ to "keep up the enthusiasm" is to review almost everything in glowing terms. Another is to emphasize small sonic differences between for ex. a $2,000 preamp and a $7,000 pre as if they were huge - in particular when attempting to either justify or avoid discussing the major price difference. They do sometimes lay the "diminishing returns" rap on us, but refuse to call a spade a spade and virtually never use their clout in a manner which could alter manufacturers'/advertisers' diminishing returns pricing for the betterment of the consumer -- their readership. Instead they say it ain't their job to make value judgements. You may agree with them, but that turns me off rather than keeping my enthusiasm up.
This is all kind of irrelavent anyway. It was a pleasant surprise when PF made a change in their listing of reviewers' equipment after a suggestion here. But generally speaking editors of successful audio publications ain't gonna change their policies due to the suggestions/complaints of a few AA inmates, and apparently the overwhelming majority of readers are relatively satisfied, including you. JA is no doubt correct that neither I nor Avocat represent his average reader.
I went to high school in the early-mid '60's. I lived in Montgomery County in Maryland. It was a fairly well off county with a good school system, and way above average spending on music. NONE of the band/orchestra/music classes were mandatory. There were approx. 2,000 kids enrolled in my high school. Including kids who took music appreciation classes, band, jazz band, and orchestra, the total represented considerably less than 10% of the enrollment because some of us did double/triple duty.
Robert, you rejected: what I said about the music education/training the new students at MSM/Julliard etc. received in their homes all over the U.S.; what I said about the training budding pros coming to NYC apparently received in their homes all over the U.S.; what I said about judging what's popular today vs. what was popular 50 years ago. What leads you to believe things have gotten worse? The general public's music education and taste has always sucked.
"Frankly, the reason it doesn't worry me that much is that the hi-end has never had a relationship with the general public: it is a niche specialist hobby."
Exactly, so stop rapping as if lack of interest in quality music reproduction (and/or what you or I define as good music) is due to the decline of music ed/appreciation classes in high schools. There never was much music ed/appreciation; to my knowledge what classes may have been offered weren't mandatory; plenty of people (if not most) who took such classes still prefer to buy and listen to crap thru their i-pod or boombox over Mozart or Sonny Rollins.
"Avocat's position that it is the costly equipment reviews that have turned off the public is ludicrous: they have no problem dropping $4000 on a flat screen tv to watch brain anaesthesia, but the fact that they wouldn't spend $4000 on a really nice hifi says a lot more about the shifting priorities of the public than it does about the potentially flawed editorial policies of Stereophile."
What shifting priorities? The public never had hifi or great music as a priority. The only person I knew when I was a kid who was into hifi was one uncle. As you say, its a niche market.
IMO the hifi industry (certainly dealers) is generally speaking much more interested in selling mega-buck gear to loaded and gullible stock brokers who don't know an oboe from an English horn than in actually getting the Circuit City boombox public interested in "budget" hifi as an entry point for future greater interest. NON-audiophile niche TV, radio, print mags and e-zines have plenty of ads for HT and expensive flat screen TV's. How many ads for relatively inexpensive Rega/Creek/MF/Jolida/ etc. (or expensive Lamm/Ayre/CJ/VPI/Teres/Dcs etc. for that matter) have you seen in media the general public reads/watches/listens to? How many non-audiophiles do you know that have ever even heard of Sonus Faber/Rowland/EMM Labs/Supratek/Morch etc.?
From my vantage point hifi is doing fine, and I'm sure as hell not worried that new products won't be continuously appearing in the marketplace. Nor do I doubt that a tiny segment of society will continue to be interested in hifi/hi-end. But I have no illusions that the general publics' taste/interest in either sound or music will ever be radically uplifted.
Hey, we may disagree about all this stuff, but I'm glad to hear you're into jazz. Looks like you have a damn nice system too. Happy listening.
Good morning Rick!We may just have to accept that we disagree on a number of things, but that's ok. The world would be quite boring if we all saw things the same way...
"One method hifi mags employ to "keep up the enthusiasm" is to review almost everything in glowing terms. Another is to emphasize small sonic differences between for ex. a $2,000 preamp and a $7,000 pre as if they were huge - in particular when attempting to either justify or avoid discussing the major price difference."I've got a couple of issues here: first, "glowing terms" doesn't apply across the board. I read a lot of reviews that end with a series of caveats that would mean I probably wouldn't be too interested in the product. I've learned to interpret reviews based on my knowledge of the reviewer. It isn't that difficult to determine what a reviewer thinks is good and what is great. Now, where are the "bad" reviews?? Well, if I was a reviewer, I wouldn't waste my time on products that didn't interest me in some way. Generally, this means that given the limited time a reviewer has to do his job, there is a "pre-screening" of equipment that occurs. Nothing wrong there: I want to read about really good stuff, not bad stuff (this is where the "enthusiast" part comes in.) Secondly, I can speak from experience about the sonic difference that $5000 represents: I have an Air Tight preamp, one that has been very highly regarded, and I have a Nagra. The price difference was about $5000. The Nagra is significantly better, and worth every penny. If it wasn't, I would have returned it...no use wasting money I could spend on another toy!
"Robert, you rejected: what I said about the music education/training the new students at MSM/Julliard etc. received in their homes all over the U.S.; what I said about the training budding pros coming to NYC apparently received in their homes all over the U.S.; what I said about judging what's popular today vs. what was popular 50 years ago. What leads you to believe things have gotten worse? The general public's music education and taste has always sucked."I didn't reject ANY of your statements, Rick: I simply stated that they were irrelevant to my point. Again, it is that music education in public high schools is simply not there. The vast cuts in expenditures have caused this, and it is why MTV and VH1 have special "fundraisers" to assist in getting music education back in the schools (its really a marketing move to apear hip to the kids). The pro's don't matter: most likely the people who go on to serious music study after high school have had private tutors. They certainly didn't get it from band practice. Let me try another approach: do you acknowledge that there's a problem when more than half the high school seniors polled don't know the capitol of Utah? Or that 30% can't say who fought in the Civil War? Or that nearly half don't know that the First Amendment is part of the Constitution? These people go out into the world with a less-than-satisfactory education. It is highly unlikely that they will be active in local politics (unless they are wacko militia types, for whom education seems to be a problem anyway), as their base knowledge of our history and political system is completely lacking. They may not have become politicians, but they might have had a better chance of being active intelligently if they had been taught something. Music education is similar: without even the slightest bit of music theory taught even as an elective in most public high schools, what is the chance that these students will have even the slightest interest in music? (I'm not talking about iPod background here, or stuff to dance to, or something to upset one's parents: I'm talking about being really interested in music, and I don't care whether it's pop, rap, or classical). And with little interest in music, what would be the point of a high-end rig? Why are home theaters selling much faster than hi-fis? Because there are more people interested in movies than there are interested in music.
"Exactly, so stop rapping as if lack of interest in quality music reproduction (and/or what you or I define as good music) is due to the decline of music ed/appreciation classes in high schools. There never was much music ed/appreciation; to my knowledge what classes may have been offered weren't mandatory; plenty of people (if not most) who took such classes still prefer to buy and listen to crap thru their i-pod or boombox over Mozart or Sonny Rollins."Well, then you agree with my points, but why can't I disagree with Avocat's position?? "Stop rapping??" I was RESPONDING. That ought to be allowed, don't you think?
'"Avocat's position that it is the costly equipment reviews that have turned off the public is ludicrous: they have no problem dropping $4000 on a flat screen tv to watch brain anaesthesia, but the fact that they wouldn't spend $4000 on a really nice hifi says a lot more about the shifting priorities of the public than it does about the potentially flawed editorial policies of Stereophile."What shifting priorities? The public never had hifi or great music as a priority. The only person I knew when I was a kid who was into hifi was one uncle. As you say, its a niche market.'
What shifting priorities, you say?? Priorities shift all the time. And it doesn't have to have anything to do with buying expensive equipment. How the general public spends its disposable income represents its priorities at the time it spends it. Big screen TVs today, SUVs a couple of years ago. All that matters is that priorities shift. Music has NEVER been a general public priority, which was why I said that the costly equipment reviews didn't have any impact on the public: it just doesn't matter because they don't care. It is also why I said (and you noted this before) that I don't think there is a problem with the high-end. It has NEVER been on the general public's radar.
"IMO the hifi industry (certainly dealers) is generally speaking much more interested in selling mega-buck gear to loaded and gullible stock brokers who don't know an oboe from an English horn than in actually getting the Circuit City boombox public interested in "budget" hifi as an entry point for future greater interest. NON-audiophile niche TV, radio, print mags and e-zines have plenty of ads for HT and expensive flat screen TV's. How many ads for relatively inexpensive Rega/Creek/MF/Jolida/ etc. (or expensive Lamm/Ayre/CJ/VPI/Teres/Dcs etc. for that matter) have you seen in media the general public reads/watches/listens to? How many non-audiophiles do you know that have ever even heard of Sonus Faber/Rowland/EMM Labs/Supratek/Morch etc.?"I don't think the manufacturers of high-end rig care one way or the other. Lamm would only sell to a "loaded and gullible stock broker" if it had passed muster to survive in the marketplace, and a dealer demo'ed it for him. Lamm does ok because their products are great, not because they're expensive and a broker thinks they're cool. I was in the loft of one of those brokers last week, and he spent quite a bit of time telling me how great his Bose system was, that it was "the best." He certainly isn't going to learn the difference between an oboe and an English horn with Bose. Now, was he gullible to the high-end, or to marketing hype? He could have spent more money and gotten better product if he'd been gullible to Krell, and would learn the difference if he didn't previously, but that just doesn't seem to happen too often.
By the way, Sonus faber sells through Harvey. I know a lot of people who aren't audiophiles who have bought them because when they went to buy a TV, they heard them. Now two of them have bought nice turntables, and they're expanding their listening tremendously. ALso, Teres, Morch and EMM Labs don't advertise to ANYONE, never mind in the mainstream media. However, Martin-Logan IS taking a cue from Bose and is advertising all over the place...it will be interesting to see if it is successful.
"From my vantage point hifi is doing fine, and I'm sure as hell not worried that new products won't be continuously appearing in the marketplace. Nor do I doubt that a tiny segment of society will continue to be interested in hifi/hi-end. But I have no illusions that the general publics'
taste/interest in either sound or music will ever be radically uplifted."I think we agree. So why should we follow Avocat's lead and change Stereophile to a buyers' guide? I think a lot of audiophiles really enjoy reading about mega-buck equipment they may never own.
"Hey, we may disagree about all this stuff, but I'm glad to hear you're into jazz. Looks like you have a damn nice system too. Happy listening."Disagreeing is ok. There's no "correct" when we're debating ideas, interpretation and opinion...
Yes, I'm a jazz nut. Doesn't hurt living two blocks from the Village Vanguard!! Thanks for the comments on the system as well: it makes me very happy. The Teres/Schroeder/Allaerts combo into Nagra to Sonus faber is quite a bit of synergy. If only I could figure out how to deal with NYC dust....;)
"I've got a couple of issues here: first, "glowing terms" doesn't apply across the board. I read a lot of reviews that end with a series of caveats that would mean I probably wouldn't be too interested in the product. I've learned to interpret reviews based on my knowledge of the reviewer."Ok, I agree. Read reviews carefully and one can often detect clues and caveats that may give you pause. Your last sentence is basically what I was unsuccessfully trying to get to with Dr. S. Knowing what a reviewer spent his/her own $$ on is one of the clues that's helpful to interpret their reviews.
Robert, there are expensive products that are clearly worth the extra bucks over products considerably less expensive. But I have left the room shaking my head in amazement after hearing quite a few very expensive products which received rave reviews. IMO they weren't even close to being worth thousands more than much cheaper alternatives. True, this is subjective, and a reviewer may feel differently. But I could count on one hand the number of times I've seen anything like this in a review....."The Farquar mk.2 is an excellent sounding dac. But it has no more features than quite a few other dacs I've auditioned, and costs $4-5,000 more than the similar and equally good sounding dacs I compared it with in my review. Therefore I can not recommend it. I'd recommend auditioning the Jot-Jot, Zeus, Maz mk.3, and/or Goo dac instead. They're all the Farquar's equal and cost significantly less."
"....but why can't I disagree with Avocat's position??" You can, and I agree with you.
C'mon, I'd have to be an idiot not to also agree that many U.S. kids are getting a rotten excuse for an education. I attempted to point out that even in the '60's, in a well off county wherein parents and school board considered the arts important enough to adequately fund music departments, only a small % of students were interested and enriched. Of that small % an even smaller % grew up to appreciate what you and I would call great music, let alone great sound.
I was hooked on jazz at age 8, after hearing Ziggy Ellman's solo on a 45 of Benny Goodman's version of "And The Angels Sing". Why? I have no idea. It certainly wasn't because I was musically educated. Only one of the four women I've lived with in my adult life (she was a cellist) have gotten into either jazz or classical, despite being exposed to both almost daily. Judging from thousands of posts I've read on AA, I'd bet even amongst audiophiles a large % prefer music I'd call crap (no, I don't post to ridicule other inmates' musical taste). We just disagree. I do not believe lack of music ed/appreciation classes is the cause of the general public's disdain for jazz/classical, nor is/was it the cause of their love of groups like ACDC or Queen.
"What shifting priorities, you say?? Priorities shift all the time."
Yes, but they don't seem to ever shift towards great music or sound.
"I don't think the manufacturers of high-end rig care one way or the other. Lamm would only sell to a "loaded and gullible stock broker" if it had passed muster to survive in the marketplace, and a dealer demo'ed it for him."
Agreed. I was really relating my comments to lack of ads in mainstream media and how some dealers survive. I was in a well known NYC hifi store waiting to pay for what I'd just bought in the early '90's. I'd previously spent around $2,500 at that retailer. Being the novice I was, I asked if I could get some kind of discount on my new purchase due to being a repeat customer. The several salesmen around the counter laughed, and told me I'd have to spend $30-40,000 before I'd get a discount. I was kind of incredulous and asked how many customers they had like that, feeling that it sure as hell couldn't be many. They told me that most weeks a couple loaded businessmen/lawyers/doctors who couldn't hear the difference between Apogee and Bose spent that much at the store. According to them, without such customers the store couldn't exist.
Well, as you said, nuthin' wrong with disagreeing. On a lighter note, I have Sonus Faber spkrs. myself. Mine (discontinued Minuettos) are nowhere near yours, but I love 'em and think they were a pretty good deal at $1,500. Yeah, my place (West Side in the 70's) is a veritable dust factory too. Enjoy your Sunday music.
Nice post, Rick. I agree with your points right down the line.Love those Minuettos. They were one of the reasons I was so keen on first hearing, then buying, the Amati homages. The Sonus faber sound does it for me....
Good story about getting hooked on jazz. For me it was finding my dad's copy of Brubek's "Time Out" that did it. Fresh on the heels of burning out on Sex Pistols and Joy Division. Well, there's no acounting for taste. Now it's almost exclusively jazz. Duke Ellington "This One's for Blanton" spinning right now. What a recording....
Too bad Avocat himself can carry on a good disagreement without getting personal! Otherwise I'd really be enjoying myself right now....
Posted by robert young (A) on March 20, 2007 at 14:07:15 HTML tag not allowed
all I get is "HTML tag not allowed."
Looks like you are going to get knocked around for this post, but what you say makes sense, whether or not some mag pub can make $10 million (like LA is reported to have made) implementing it.
"We should be able to determine conveniently what's being reviewed, what's different or distinct about the component, the price (E.g., I may not want to spend lots of time wading through a review of a $50K amplifier.), and the gist of what the reviewer thought about the component. Also helpful would be what the good and less good features were, how the component compares to other possible choices in the same category, and what other alternatives may be available. Apparently, this suggestion has been considered and rejected by SF. To me, this suggests a truly snobbish attitude on the part of SF and a total disregard for the time and priorities of its readers."Rather than disregarding its readers, Stereophile's reviews generally include a labeled conclusory paragraph (from which you can easily get a quickie insight), comparisons with other components in the paragraphs just before that, a box on the first review page defining the physical details including price and another box listing the equipment used in the review for support and comparison.
As for your other issues, those are editorial policies that I do not determine (although I do not necessarily disagree with those policies).
"We should be able to determine conveniently what's being reviewed, what's different or distinct about the component, the price (E.g., I may not want to spend lots of time wading through a review of a $50K amplifier.), and the gist of what the reviewer thought about the component. Also helpful would be what the good and less good features were, how the component compares to other possible choices in the same category, and what other alternatives may be available.
.........................................Rather than disregarding its readers, Stereophile's reviews generally include a labeled conclusory paragraph (from which you can easily get a quickie insight), comparisons with other components in the paragraphs just before that, a box on the first review page defining the physical details including price and another box listing the equipment used in the review for support and comparison.
As for your other issues, those are editorial policies that I do not determine (although I do not necessarily disagree with those policies).
Kal
There are summary paragraphs and conclusionary paragraphs in the SF equipment reviews. - I was wrong to state otherwise, and was basing my comments on some of the other types of articles. However, for the most part, the summary paragraphs and conclusions don't include information that would be needed to make a rational decision regarding a given component. Such information would include the reviewers comments as to other choices available in the same category, and whether the reader could obtain a better value, e.g., with components A and B. - Again, this is a generalization, and I have seen exceptions to the above.I would add that my comments about "meandering" reviews doesn't really apply to yours. I have been impressed with the clarity and informative nature of nearly all of them. (Another exception to the above was the excellent review of the Wagner Ring recording that appeared several months ago. As others have commented, that was an impressive, informative, scholarly article.)
"However, for the most part, the summary paragraphs and conclusions don't include information that would be needed to make a rational decision regarding a given component." That's what the rest of the review is for. ;-)
"However, for the most part, the summary paragraphs and conclusions don't include information that would be needed to make a rational decision regarding a given component. - That's what the rest of the review is for"
Again, for the most part, the summary paragraphs and conclusions and the REST OF THE REVIEW don't include information that would be needed to make a rational decision regarding a given component. Such information would include the reviewers comments as to other choices available in the same category, and whether, in the reviewer's opinion, the reader could obtain a better value with equivalent performance with components A and B rather than with the component reviewed. - (Again, this is a generalization, and I have seen some
rare exceptions.)I suppose that the concept of providing comparisons and clear recommendations among several candidate components is so foreign to the usual politically correct approach that it somehow sounds heretical, unpatriotic, even treasonable. But, again, I'm speaking of a truly consumer-oriented publication.
True you are, but you have to acknowledge they do making some interesting comparisons. Have you ever noted how often the only comparison is to the earlier model? The new model cures all that that ailed there previous version. The highs are now extended, the mid-range enriched and lean bass is lean no more. However, when one goes back and finds the reviewer's article on the earlier model, none of these "known" weaknesses are even hinted at much less mentions.Then there are the comparisons which go: "the best I have heard . . . in my house", "in this system."
When you think about it, perhaps we are better off without their comparisons.
And that's a field where comparisons are NOT odious, but required to make sense of it all.
Many of the CD reviews are much more forthright than the equipment reviews, IMO.
The "other issues" are the meat of his post.
"I find that many reviews consist of multiple pages of personal "meanderings", seeming attempts to write a novella or other literary work, expressions of personal philosophical views on various subjects, etc. This requires the reader to wade through several pages before he or she gets the gist of the report."I like these meanderings, since they tell me what the reviewer thinks, and what frame of mind he/she is in, and what particular philosophy they are bringing to bear when revieweing a component. Unlike reviewing one mixer/grinder with another, where differences are crude and can be objectively measured, high end audio is a very subjective business, and reading a subjective review without understanding the reviewer may not tell us very much. Consumer Report style, matter-of-fact reviews are useful for products where criteria are more objective and in a sense, more clear cut. THis is true for most consumer items. But not for the more subjective items, of which high end audio is a prime example. Another is wine/whiskey tasting...i really would like to understand where the reviewer is coming from when I read a subjective evaluation.
You apparently didn't read my note carefully. - I ACKNOWLEDGED that some readers may enjoy reading such long, meandering discussions. But for others of us who have priorities and limits on our time, a summary of the article would be helpful. - I'm not suggesting an "either or" approach (I wouldn't suggest eliminating the long, philisophical discussion), but rather, a "both and" approach using both formats. For example, if I see from the summary that we are talking about a $50K amp, which I'm not going to consider, I may wish to skim through the article quickly rather than perusing it in detail. If, on the other hand, I determine that it relates to a component that might be of interest, or, an expensive one that incorporates particular technical advances of interest, I have the option of reading the long article slowly and carefully.
Would it offend you in some way for there to be a summary of the reviewer's conclusions, written by the reviewer, in addition to the long, meandering discussion? Does that "cheapen" the publication in some way? You could, of course, skip the summary altogether and go directly to the long discussion.Jim
-------------------------------------------------------
(excerpt from original note)
I find that many reviews consist of multiple pages of personal "meanderings", seeming attempts to write a novella or other literary work, expressions of personal philosophical views on various subjects, etc. This requires the reader to wade through several pages before he or she gets the gist of the report. While some readers may enjoy such articles, for those of us who have some priorities and limits on our time, it would be helpful if there were a clear summary of the review at the beginning of such long-winded discussions
no matter how hard you try....In matters of art, - there is no right and wrong, - and no two people will agree on what makes a "good" component, or a "right" component.
There are far two many variables in tastes, environments, budgets, and preferences to ever come to any kind of "consensus," - ever.This is why blind testing remains relatively useless. More often, we can here differences without a blind test. "Goodness" and "badness" qualities that result from those tests will remain within a unique idiosyncratic, experiential, interpretation...
And finally, - the cost of high end audio equipment has only DECREASED! If you adjust for inflation, and "quality" of gear, - high quality, bang for the buck, gear has gotten cheaper. In the late 60s, - a really good High Fi costs as much as a really good family sedan....
The problem of leisure, what to do for pleasure. Ideal love a new purchase, a market of the senses. Dream of the perfect life.
In Reply to: Re: Understanding the reviewer posted by Avocat on March 20, 2007 at 11:24:20:
"no matter how hard you try....
In matters of art, - there is no right and wrong, - and no two people will agree on what makes a "good" component, or a "right" component. There are far two many variables in tastes, environments, budgets, and preferences to ever come to any kind of "consensus," - ever."
-- You seem to enjoy putting words in my mouth. - I didn't ask for a "right" or "wrong" decision, and I don't expect consensus. Instead, I'm merely asking that the reviewer give his honest opinion of the relative merits and cost/benefits of a reviewed component as it compares with others in the same category. - I'm not asking for or expecting an official SF judgement as to what's "best." I also suggested that reviews would be more helpful if they compared several components in the same category, rather than being devoted only to individual components as the are introduced. Incidentally, it's interesting that, as stated earlier, the music reviewers in SF manage to provide rather clear comparisons of the merits of several recordings of the same work, along with their opinions of how the recording under review compares with others. It's also interesting that most of the wine reviews I read manage to come up with comparative, even numerical ratings, wine tasting being at least as subjective as reviews of audio components. Also interesting that judges of beauty contests, dancers, skaters, and even dogs and cattle manage to come up with comparative ratings. In other words, you're repeating the usual mantra, but you're blowing smoke.
--------------------------------------------------------"This is why blind testing remains relatively useless. More often, we can here differences without a blind test. "Goodness" and "badness" qualities that result from those tests will remain within a unique idiosyncratic, experiential, interpretation..."
What you are missing regarding my comments on blind testing is the fact that if the results from a particular test procedure are mixed, vague, or indecisive, that in itself is information that can be of significance to a potential purchaser. - For example, even if one learns that a majority (55%)of experienced listeners (selected by SF of course) preferred component A, but a minority (45%) favored component B, that information would be of interest to audiophiles considering A and B. Further, if and component A sells for $20,000 whereas component B sells for $2,000, that information would be of interest to an audiophile with a limited budget. You are also conveniently ignoring my suggestion that there should be a combination of several forms of evaluation and testing, including blind testing in some form.
----------------------------------------------------
"And finally, - the cost of high end audio equipment has only DECREASED! If you adjust for inflation, and "quality" of gear, - high quality, bang for the buck, gear has gotten cheaper. In the late 60s, - a really good High Fi costs as much as a really good family sedan...."It't true that some modern components selling at reasonable prices can provide good response. But I consider most moderately priced systems to be lacking in either dynamic range, presence, accuracy, or the abilit to produce extended, flat bass at realistic volume levels. IMO, such "entry level" systems, for the most part, don't really provide the sense of excitement and satisfaction that one should expect from a truly "high fidelity" system.
Further, although some smaller systems are available at moderate prices, consider how a novice learns about the subject. For example, a novice picking up Sterephile, TAS, or the like would be shocked at the complexity and the prices. He picks up a copy of this month's Stereophile and learns that to purchase a stereo or surround system he has to choose six or seven components, and select speakers, amps, preamps, decks, even cables from any number of manufacturers. Further, he learns that decent (to him, "Class B or Class C") amps, speakers, decks, etc. sell for thousands of dollars, - (From a novice's perspective, who would want to waste his time and energy buying Class C or D components.) He then glances at the reviews, and again sees various esoteric components most offered at amazingly high prices. Finally, he learns that he can't listen to most of the recommended components at Best Buy or CC.
Again, my suggestion is that if SF or TAS were truly consumer-oriented, they could make some significant improvements.
(nt)
You suggest, in the last line of your post, that *if* SPh or TAS were truly consumer oriented, then there's room for significant improvements.I haven't seen an issue of TAS in a while... so I'll just comment on SPh. It's an audio enthusiasts' journal. They publish their recommended components list twice a year. The writing is top-notch. It's (usually) entertaining and informative. Their record reviews are right on the money.
I think that what you're asking for is Consumer Audio Reports... I don't think TAS or SPh will satisfy that need, but Consumer Reports does review audio equipment, don't they?
I don't try to change the format of Cosmopolitan magazine... I just don't read it!
Maybe he didn't have time to read your long meandering post and was skimming?Anyway SF reviews typically have a Conclusion section, and Soundstage reviews have a Review Summary sidebar, in both casaes what you're looking for it seems.
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
Nice try, but the post you refer to is anything but meandering.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: