The Absurdity of Some Recent Audio Reviews in Stereophile.

[Alan Sircom]

Secondly, I'm going to ask you 'how then can we reconcile these differences?'

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. Sometimes you just have to ride round Sweden on a train. Which is odd, given I live in London.

I'm also sorry, but I really don't have an answer, because I don't think there is an easy answer. Rationalist and empiricist thought have been contradictory since Descartes and Locke. People have spent entire lives laboring down thought-mines trying to dig out even the smallest chunk of rapprochement, but with no success.

An empiricist investigates the nature of things. A rationalist ponders the nature of things. Most people are somewhere on the continuum between rational and empirical. It's a question of 'where'. Of course, a few of the most hard-core rationalists end up holding some highly irrational ideas as a result.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Ethan is obviously correct. All that matters in terms of soundstage width is the subtended angle as viewed from the listening spot. In the near field, your listening room acoustics are less audible. In the far field, unless your speakers really beam (think flat panel electrostatic with the back wave killed somehow, or cardioid dispersion like the Gradient Revolution or Helsinki 1.5), most of the "space" you hear is the listening room's reverberation, rather than the recorded space actually on the recording.

Now, as you get closer to the speakers systems, the drivers of some or even most speakers will begin to be audible as separate sound sources. The distance at which this occurs varies widely from speaker to speaker. Some begin to lose inter-driver coherence when listened to closer than eight or even ten feet away. Others, like my Harbeth M40.1s, still sound like a single driver even from two feet away.

Agreed on all counts. I knew almost as soon as I said it that I wasn't getting across what I was attempting. I'll try again some day.

P

 

[Stereoeditor]

the lack of conclusion from a review of a $80 K speaker whose tweeter necessitated the reviewer himself to insert a 600 ohm resistor is a sin ... unless we squarely admit that Performance is no longer part of High End Audio. . .

I only just found out about this thread. It would seem that those discussing my Violonocello review were going by "Marty's" paraphrase rather than the review itself. As I explain in the review and further explore in the October issue of Stereophile, the voicing of this speaker was optimized for a room larger than mine, where the limited dispersion of the tweeter would work against the on-axis boost in its output to give a flat perceived balance. In my smaller room, there is too much energy in the tweeter region, but as the tweeter is self-powered, simple resistive padding provided a simple fix.

For those prone to jump to false conclusions, neither the manufacturer nor the US distributor advertises in Stereophile.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

[Ron Party]

Hi John. Welcome to the forum!

 

[Stereoeditor]

Years ago I contributed to a non-audio magazine that never printed a negative review. When I asked the editor why they never say bad things, the answer I got was reasonable and made sense. He told me there are so many good products that deserve praise and exposure, their policy is simply to not review bad products! And if a product looks cool at first but they discover it's a POS when they get it, they will not do the review as planned.

Now, John Atkinson once told me that Stereophile does not work that way. He said that once they commit to a review they go ahead and publish their findings regardless. However, I'm quite sure this is not true. I can post a link to a pathetic tedious thread as proof if anyone cares.

Ethan is referring to the Synergistic ART bowls. We have never received a set of these for review. If we did, the review would proceed, as is our policy.

I did ask a consulting engineer to investigate these controversial devices, but after a good deal of time had gone by and before they received any samples, they backed out.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

[Stereoeditor]

Hi John. Welcome to the forum!

Thank you. The Acappella review that triggered this thread will be posted in the archives at www.stereophile.com on 10 days or so, along with my further thoughts from the October issue, BTW.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

[FrantzM]

John

Welcome to the forum...
Wanted to clarify a few points.

the voicing of this speaker was optimized for a room larger than mine, where the limited dispersion of the tweeter would work against the on-axis boost in its output to give a flat perceived balance

In what way the limited dispersion and a larger room would compensate for such elevated on-axis in the treble?
Also since you knew that the speaker was "voiced" for larger room why was the review conducted in a room that proved ultimately to be unsuitable for the speakers?

 

[RBFC]

John,

Welcome to the forum! We appreciate you taking the time to discuss controversial and interesting issues with us. I look forward to seeing more of your comments. I believe we were briefly introduced at CES in Chicago in the early 90's!

Lee

 

[Stereoeditor]

John

Welcome to the forum...
Wanted to clarify a few points.

In what way the limited dispersion and a larger room would compensate for such elevated on-axis in the treble?
Also since you knew that the speaker was "voiced" for larger room why was the review conducted in a room that proved ultimately to be unsuitable for the speakers?

Thank you.

In any room, the balance the listener perceives will be a mix of the direct sound from the speaker and the reverberant field, which will depend on the speaker's power response. That mix will depend on the size of the room, the absorptivity of its furnishings, and how far away the listener sits. Because the Violinocello's tweeter has limited dispersion, the speaker's power response will lack energy. So, in a large room, unless the listener sits very close, the excess of on-axis top-octave energy in the direct sound will tend to be balanced by the lack of top-octave energy in the power response.

As to why I reviewed the speaker in my listening room, the distributor, having seen photos and having been sent the room's dimensions felt the speaker would be good match. Which it was, other than the top octave. Did you read the review? The Acapella's performance is discussed in considerable detail in order to support my conclusion.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

John, what exactly are you referring to as "power response?"

P

 

[Stereoeditor]

John, what exactly are you referring to as "power response?"

The speaker's output integrated over a 360-degree solid angle in both planes. It used to be believed that you could only measure this in a completely reverberant room, but recent research by Jan Abildgaard Pedersen of B&O when he was at Lyngdorf (can't recall the AES paper right now) indicates that you can measure this in a normal room by sampling and averaging the response at 9 (I think) truly randomly chosen points in the room.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

[terryj]

The speaker's output integrated over a 360-degree solid angle in both planes. It used to be believed that you could only measure this in a completely reverberant room, but recent research by Jan Abildgaard Pedersen of B&O when he was at Lyngdorf (can't recall the AES paper right now) indicates that you can measure this in a normal room by sampling and averaging the response at 9 (I think) truly randomly chosen points in the room.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Ooh, when you do remember please post it! Sounds interesting (tho if an aes paper prob not available to the public??)

 

[Stereoeditor]

Ooh, when you do remember please post it! Sounds interesting (tho if an aes paper prob not available to the public??)

It's "Sampling the Energy in a 3-D Sound Field," presented at the October 2007 AES Convention: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14319 .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

[Randy Bessinger]

November Stereophile and, I hope, without any absurdities.

Hmmm,

 

[FrantzM]

Stereoeditor

I would have thought that the reduced directivity would be an advantage in a small room, since the power response in the treble would have been similarly reduced ...
FWIW I heard the big brother of this speaker the Sphaedron and was mightily impressed ... The highs while well integrated are amongst the best I have heard .. The price was as lofty as the treble too ... about 1/2 a million

 

[audioguy]

The price was as lofty as the treble too ... about 1/2 a million

For a pair of speakers ?????? Wow. Then a complete 7.x system would only cost $1.75 million + subs, plus electronics + .......

Talk about absurd reviews! What about absurd pricing !! Goodness gracious.

 

[Ethan Winer]

Ethan is referring to the Synergistic ART bowls. We have never received a set of these for review.

Thanks for finally saying this outright. So why have you never stated that publicly in your own forum? Those ART threads have been going on for two years now! You even kicked me out of your forum over that thread. If you simply posted that Ted Denney never sent you a set of bowls to review, David L and others would stop pestering you, and accept that Ted Denney is the one who backed out of the review. Which would show Ted's lack of confidence in his own products even though he promised scientific proof of performance very long ago. I can't see why you'd feel the need to protect Ted, but that's sure the way it looks to me.

--Ethan

 

[MylesBAstor]

Thanks for finally saying this outright. So why have you never stated that publicly in your own forum? Those ART threads have been going on for two years now! You even kicked me out of your forum over that thread. If you simply posted that Ted Denney never sent you a set of bowls to review, David L and others would stop pestering you, and accept that Ted Denney is the one who backed out of the review. Which would show Ted's lack of confidence in his own products even though he promised scientific proof of performance very long ago. I can't see why you'd feel the need to protect Ted, but that's sure the way it looks to me.

--Ethan

Actually Ted Denney rarely sends any of his products, cables or room Rx, out for review.

 

[Ethan Winer]

^^^ I can't imagine why.

So why were we jerked around for two years with the promise of a review?

--Ethan

 

[audioguy]

Slightly OT but I subscribed to HiFi+ for a long time (not sure why I quit but probably had to do with them not reminding me to re-subscribe). I thought ( and still do) they had the very best equipment photographs of any audio periodical, including the manufacturers own marketing material.

I read TAS and Stereophile for amusement only and have been a subscriber to both since the mid 70's. For me, they both lost credibility long, long ago, so would never use them as a decision making tool for purchasing equipment (but would and do for music). I was a fan of the original TAS for the really cool front and rear covers and a fan of the original Gordon Holt publication of Stereophile. . Those were the days that SP would actually publish negative reviews of products.

I think part of the image problem with both of these magazines is that neither will bad mouth a product --- so all products are various degrees of wonderful. If, for example, a speaker has a bright/harsh/aggressive tweeter, the review would say something like, "the top end may be a bit more accentuated than I prefer" as opposed to calling it like it is. Life is not like that and neither is audio equipment.