 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.91.86.2
In Reply to: Re: not really fair to Stereophile, Andy posted by andy_c on April 27, 2006 at 20:18:52:
;-)Actually, you did . . . a civil thoughtful response, in an otherwise largely incivil, thoughtless thread.
many thanks.
To the merits: I agree with you that the rock-throwing between the DBT proponents and opponents gets tiresome and, for that reason, should be ended. I'm not sure who started it -- and rather believe that Stereophile did not -- but "who started it" is a 7th grade playground question that I'd just as soon not have answered.
That said, I think that, regardless of "who started it," the Stereophile guys' ire is roused by the only sometimes unstated subtext of the DBT argument which is that the Stereophile guys are making the whole thing up and are making it up to suit their pecuniary interests. And for that, I can't say that I blame them.
I also think that JA's dismissal of DBTs as a "parlor trick" is not so off-base. The parlor trick aspect of DBTs, so often relied on by their proponents in support of the argument above is, quite simply, "if people can't perceive a difference in a DBT, then there is no difference . . . and these guys are liars."
Well, as I said before, try a DBT with Coke and Pepsi and report back to me. I didn't respond to Regmac's point because it was so obvious. Of course lots of people are going to be able to distinguish between a white riesling and a burgundy. But what about distinguishing between burgundies? That's a little tougher for the average guy.;-0
Follow Ups:
"Well, as I said before, try a DBT with Coke and Pepsi and report back to me. I didn't respond to Regmac's point because it was so obvious. Of course lots of people are going to be able to distinguish between a white riesling and a burgundy. But what about distinguishing between burgundies? That's a little tougher for the average guy.”Just call me “Mr. Obvious.” :) But let's not forget that my example involved cabernet and pinot. Riesling/Burgundy is a more extreme example, the wines sharing even fewer commonalties than my example. But I suppose the same can be said for a 100 watt Krell “muscle amp,” and a 10-watt SET--they share little in common. Yet, with this example we wouldn’t expect to encounter such obvious differences via blind comparisons, as we would with Riesling and Burgundy. In fact, many so called audiophiles would no doubt be tripped up time and again attempting to differentiate between the two amps, given ideal conditions e.g., efficient speakers, light baroque music, etc.
Why? Because with Riesling and Burgundy the wine maker is seeking radically different ends, not so with audio design engineers or so I've been told. Mainstream audio engineers probably share a preconceived notion as to how recorded music should be rendered to the listener. Moreover, this notion probably doesn’t deviate much from one designer to the next. If this is indeed the case -- and not a few audio critics seem to support my view by pointing out that the sound of tubes and solid state has become harder to distinguish over the years -- then why do so many audiophiles insist there remains an enormous qualitative gulf between the two mediums? (Their passion in this area has been known to take on jihadic proportions. Anyone who doubts this need only visit the cable asylum.) One encounters the same debate with vinyl/digital. Is this merely a zeitgeist preference, more psychological and dogmatic than aural? I happen to think it is.
Mr. Atkinson insists that using music in DBTs (to distinguish audio gear) is more difficult than the “hardwired” approach of wine tasters. As to whether this is a pet theory of his, or one that is undergirded by something more substantive, I'll leave to the experts. But for now let’s stipulate that he is correct on this score. Wouldn’t the test tone approach get us close to the same hardwired point of departure as the wine critic enjoys, thereby allowing audio critics to more readily distinguish between different pieces of gear?
If so, why not perform such testing every few years and publish the results in Stereophile? Mr. Atkinson’s response would no doubt be that a majority of subscribers haven’t voiced a preference for such testing, but what about those in the minority? Surely he isn't suggesting *all* subscribers are marching lockstep on this issue? If so, such unanimity would be more suggestive of a cult than a mainstream magazine’s subscriber list. And should that turn out to be the case then score one for the objectivists.
Nor should one trust in the infallibility of wine critics. Amusing story: Last year there was a tasting and follow-up (the tastings were three months apart) wherein twenty “90 point” wines were re-tasted against twenty others that had scored an “89,” in the original tasting. The result was a near 60% reversal of scores i.e., twelve wines originally accorded “90” were given a score of “89” or lower, while eleven of the original wines scoring “89” were rated “90” or higher. Of course, wine being an evolving product and more perishable than audio gear, it’s possible that the critics were correct on each occasion.
Concerning sighted vs. DBT: we know there isn’t anyway to control for a reviewer’s fondness or animus regarding the product under review. No scientist would accept as a valid control measure the assertion (by a magazine’s staff) that they are beyond reproach when it comes to the integrity issue regarding such matters. So, sighted evaluations can never rise above the status of mere opinion, unlike the opinion of a medical doctor whose opinion, regarding treatment, is backed up by something more substantive than subjectivism. (To be fair, I don’t recall *any* audio magazine ever claiming their findings to be anything other than mere opinion. In this regard audio journals are no different than political journals.)
So, it would appear that Atkinson and his boys have a choice, continue trading barbs with the other side, or begin to offer something more substantive vis-à-vis their review process; otherwise this debate will never begin to get resolved. (I suspect the one truth in this thorny matter is that both sides prefer stalemate.) Whatever the case may be, I’m sure you’ll agree that the current situation has taken on an infantile character that casts a negative light on each party.
> Of course lots of people are going to be able to distinguish
> between a white riesling and a burgundy. But what about
> distinguishing between burgundies? That's a little tougher for the
> average guy.
Indeed. The "parlor trick" aspect of DBTs, BTW, comes from the
misuse of such tests to "prove" that no differences exists. I had
this demnsarted to me many years ago, when I took part in a blind
tasting tests of liquors. The organizer of the test wanted to show
that he could the test come out any way he desirted, eve though it s
blind. He "proved" to me that I could not distinguish between Scotch
and cognac under blind conditions!
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Well, JA, in the test in which you participated, the most important condition was: How many glasses of congnac (or Scotch) had you consumed before the DBT?You didn't tell us about that part!
Like the slogan in the cheap beer commercial: "When you're having more than one [you'll forget that our beer tastes like horse piss]."
;-0
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
