The Absurdity of Some Recent Audio Reviews in Stereophile.

[FrantzM]

Hi

One understands that the Reviewers and by extension their magazines are not to be made deities. I do however question this line of defense of the magazine as "entertainment". While I did enjoy the early TAS, I learned a lot from the publication. Both in music and in equipment and in some ways they shaped my audiophile philosophy. It could be seen that there was an almost Utopian premise to follow an ethical path

Audio magazines do not label themselves entertainment. They do want (and maybe need) to be taken seriously and go to great lengths to at least project the impression anyway. Some were from the start about that, entertainment, vide the (defunct?) "Audio Video Interiors" which was all about the glitz of where and what and somewhat the systems owners. Magazines have a responsibility, whatever medium they choose (print, internet, etc) , the convenience of listing the difficulties they have to encounter does not change to the implicit promise and requirement to be truthful.

 

[Stereoeditor]

What percentage of gear sent to Stereophile for review does not function properly out of the box, or measures so poorly that something is obviously wrong?

Too high a proportion of samples arrives with a fault or breaks during the testing, as you will see from reading the reviews. (The magazine's poiicy is to report such failures.) Merely measuring badly is not sufficient in itself as some categories - SET amps, for example - that is to be expected. Whether or not to request another sample therefore becomes a judgment call on my part.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

[Kal Rubinson]

John,

What percentage of gear sent to Stereophile for review does not function properly out of the box, or measures so poorly that something is obviously wrong?

Lee

Hmmm. I am not sure that this is the right question. I have had a number of obviously faulty or damaged pieces of equipment delivered for review and, since they are patently unacceptable (as they would be to any purchaser), they are returned for replacement before the review process proceeds. Of course, the entire experience is described in the review.

The issue is should, rather, be the products that have no dangling parts and that do function but at an unacceptable level. Editorial policy requires that they be reviewed as received (as they would be by any purchaser) and all aspects reported. Fortunately, there really are few of these, in distinction from those that are somewhat disappointing, merely ordinary or just over-priced.

 

[Orb]

Hi

One understands that the Reviewers and by extension their magazines are not to be made deities. I do however question this line of defense of the magazine as "entertainment". While I did enjoy the early TAS, I learned a lot from the publication. Both in music and in equipment and in some ways they shaped my audiophile philosophy. It could be seen that there was an almost Utopian premise to follow an ethical path

Audio magazines do not label themselves entertainment. They do want (and maybe need) to be taken seriously and go to great lengths to at least project the impression anyway. Some were from the start about that, entertainment, vide the (defunct?) "Audio Video Interiors" which was all about the glitz of where and what and somewhat the systems owners. Magazines have a responsibility, whatever medium they choose (print, internet, etc) , the convenience of listing the difficulties they have to encounter does not change to the implicit promise and requirement to be truthful.

Frantz,
quick question how many audio publications do you subscribe to?
If the magazine is NOT entertaining/interesting, then the majority of the public would not purchase or subscribe.
This is not like news journalism (even this is debatable these days as news publications have to include something that the reader-watcher enjoys or entertains them)/peer review paper-site/etc.
Entertainment does not necessarily mean "home entertainment", it also means reading something for relaxation-fun-while on the loo-to pass the time-etc, hobby related without necessarily being engineering/research level of detail.

Otherwise by your ascertion then magazines should provide thorough information and whitepaper level details on the workings of PCM, negative feedbacks,ICs,etc, as part of a peer review process that restricts flexibility in use of words and subjectivity.
If you did that I would place a million pounds your reader base would disappear overnight.....

I am really curious how many who feel strongly about current audio publications in a negative way still subscribe or when they last did.

BTW as I mentioned there are points that do stand for criticism, and others that raise interesting discussion points.
Case in point; I used the pro/audiophile review of Bryston and Chord Electronics as an example where the review by MF was suggesting these two products were poor in terms of satisfaction.
The debate here IMO is that I feel MF preference overrode aspects of the subjective side of these two reviews, these two products are far from comparable to his reference system and would come across at a minimum leaner and cooler (subjective sound perception I mean) in presentation.
The Totem in a similar way was offered as a follow-up, so here we have the potential that some products bypass the filtering technique on how an item is selected for review by a specific reviewer.

From my understanding in many cases a filtering mechanism does exist to weed out bad or undesirable products as the reviewer usually is active in selecting what products they want to review due to an adhoc listen somewhere or their experience to certain manufacturer's hardware.
So in this case and some with some of the follow-ups that filtering mechanism is bypassed that can relate to a reviewer's preference.
The question is should a reviewer be encouraged to review products they liked from an adhoc listen, or should their preference be bypassed that may result in a different subjective report, or should the editor do more to balance a subjective report that may be affected by a reviewer's preference?
Of those questions I am not sure what is the most productive approach that benefits the publications subscribers - and that is critical as it needs to be aimed at the subscribers and of course enticing new readers.

Just my take on it, and yeah there are many examples IMO elsewhere of cringe worthy audio journalism - I saw an aspect of this in a publication last month I subscribe to and I feel the editor should had stepped in as it stands the article causes more problems in the audiophile world than benefits.
Article in question relates to hard drive Sata cables and their audio benefits, this would be ok IF the article outlined future articles-focus on investigating why the change was positive in terms of audio quality instead of taking the change as gospel.
This can involve both engineering testing and possibly blind longer term preference testing.

Cheers
Orb

 

[Doc B.]

Merely measuring badly is not sufficient in itself as some categories - SET amps, for example - that is to be expected.

Thanks for the chuckle, John. Makes me think of the old spoof of Consumer Reports done in Car and Driver, wherein a championship Formula One car was rated "poor" for lack of a sun visor.

 

[silviajulieta]

Dear Stereoeditor: Nice that you be here.

This is what I posted in other thread about Stereophile reviews subject:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ """

In the past I trust and respect J. Atkinson measures and his comments about, this was true for me till last week when I read the Vitus phono stage measures and the JA statement that IMHO is a kind of corrupted statement that I never imagine could comes from a person like the editor in chief of STP J.Atkinson for whom I had a lot of respect like reviewer:

we can read and see the Vitus RIAA response where the Vitus has a RIAA deviation ( we have to remember here that a normal/standard high end phono stage RIAA deviation is: 0.1db from 20 hz to 20 khz ) of -1.5db!!! at 20hz ( for whatever reason. ), as a fact the Vitus has a very significant fall in the RIAA frequency response from 500 hz and down.

J.Atkinson states in his review: " the error in the preampliifer's RIAA correction was very low ( fig.1) ". JA is not an ignorant and he knows that that " error " was not not only " very low " but inadmissible by any circumstances/standards for any phono stage but that that happen in a 60K dedicated phono stage design like the Vitus : has no name!, for say the least. Why not disclose the true of those measures?, J. Atkinson could think we are " stupid " audiophiles?. IMHO he made more harm with his statements that if he said nothing. Maybe he thought to " protect " Vitus but that's not the way to do it: evidence/facts ( like those measures. ) has no protection.

M. Fremer review on that Vitus phono stage told us: " The MP-201's dynamic presentation at both ends of the scale was nothing short of ridiculous: ITS BASS EXTENSION, CONTROL AND WEIGHT WERE GRANITIC ".

How comes how is that with that Vitus severe midbass/low bass roll-off? . MF has a very nice system that there is no doubt can shows what is happening " down there " along that he is not an ignorant.
So why MF stated what he states in his review?. just incredible.

This was not the first time MF made that kind of reviews, he made the same when he reviewed the Dartzeel Phonolinepream ( that he own. ) that measures “ terrible “ ( +2.5db at 20hz and +1.8db at 20khz!!!! ) on that same RIAA subject and not only that in the Dartzeel is worst because both channels measures ( have errors/inaccuracies ) way different !!! and even that he " bought " it.

Dear friends, remember that each frequency RIAA error affect not only that single frequency but due that the RIAA is a curve each one of those errors affect almost three music octaves!!!!


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ""

and at the end of your comments you insist about: " and almost zero RIAA error ".

IMHO your statements ( in this Vitus case ) does not reflect the true. At least in the Dartzeel review your comments reflected what was happening.

If we take the Boulder 2008 review/measurements we can see how any RIAA eq. have to see it in a chart: within 0.1db. You know that this is almost the " norm/rule " for any SS phono stage and Vitus is not " any " phono stage but one with a retail price of 60K!, so it is inadmisible that RIAA degradation in his design and don't said it.

Why don't you states in that way? why not disclose what every STP reader is already seen? , in the other side MF here with the Vitus as with the Dartzeel and several other reviews heard " things " way different of what those critical measurements ( RIAA ) tell us.

I was surprised by your comments ( first time I read something like that from you. ) and not for the MF ones that are almost the " norm/rule " with him.


Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[FrantzM]

Orb

There is an important difference between "entertaining" and "entertainment". Of course the magazines must be entertaining, else what would would be the point for an hobbyist which implies a form of entertainment? I do not mean that they need to be serious and scholarly. I would surmise that their purpose (often stated) is to inform their public and when possible to educate. In my view they are journalists too and should uphold ethics. One of them is to try to tell the truth as hard and inconvenient this might be at times.

 

[Orb]

Orb

There is an important difference between "entertaining" and "entertainment". Of course the magazines must be entertaining, else what would would be the point for an hobbyist which implies a form of entertainment? I do not mean that they need to be serious and scholarly. I would surmise that their purpose (often stated) is to inform their public and when possible to educate. In my view they are journalists too and should uphold ethics. One of them is to try to tell the truth as hard and inconvenient this might be at times.

Then we will have to disagree but that is life in audio hehe
Because engineering RFCs/whitepapers/research papers are NOT entertaining and they are not meant to be.
News journalism can be entertaining, and also classified as entertainment.
Either you want your audio journalism to have no focus towards being entertaining or they are there to "sell" and be read by those interested in their spare time.
If read in spare time we are talking about entertaining and as it is a sustained monthly subscription it is entertainment for those who are subscribers.
Seems we are arguing over semantics combined with journalistic focus; where you feel audio publications should be comparable to peer review articles in terms of their seriousness, while I am just pointing out magazines are there to sell and provide a level of information and article presentation/focus designed to generate interest and leisure reading (entertainment) for a sustainable subscriber group.

BTW you still have not answered whether you subscribe to audio publications or the last time you did

Edit:
BTW I agree about ethics and that is also part of the job also relating to the editor, but in the general case of what we have discussed so far where has ethics been broken by audio journalists when providing a subjective review such as those by Stereophile?
Historically broken ethics relates to fraudalent reviews or possibly positive reviews in terms of subtle and non too subtle bribes, not excessive use of descriptive journalism and yeah some are definitely excessive .
Cheers
Orb

 

[DaveyF]

IMHO, I think that there maybe a point to having an 'entertaining' reviewer on staff if you want to sell magazines... Case in point, one of my a'phile friends feels this way about ST...He goes as far as to say: "Sam is about the most worthless reviewer of all time. He's not only deaf but corrupt: buy him a trip and ply with wine and you get great reviews. He is an entertaining writer though, just has zero credibility." Which i totally concur with. It is however hard to argue with ST's popularity.

 

[Stereoeditor]

Dear Stereoeditor: Nice that you be here.

Thank you.

This is what I posted in other thread about Stereophile reviews subject

What is this - open season on my writing?

And what other thread? This is the only one I was told about that discussed Stereophile's reviews.

we can read and see the Vitus RIAA response where the Vitus has a RIAA deviation ( we have to remember here that a normal/standard high end phono stage RIAA deviation is: 0.1db from 20 hz to 20 khz ) of -1.5db!!! at 20hz ( for whatever reason. )...

Yes. As I wrote in the review, "at low frequencies, the Vitus incorporates the IEC infrasonic rolloff, reaching -3dB at 13Hz."

as a fact the Vitus has a very significant fall in the RIAA frequency response from 500 hz and down.

I think you are overlooking the scale of the graph. The Vitus's response is down by just 0.1dB at 200Hz and -0.22dB at 100Hz and the trend is both smooth and very well-matched between channels. I don't feel this to be significant. Note the minuscule error in the midrange and treble.

Maybe he thought to " protect " Vitus but that's not the way to do it: evidence/facts ( like those measures. ) has no protection.

As I said, you are misreading the graph. The IEC modification of the RIAA curve is a legitimate design choice and does not represent a departure from accuracy per se.

M. Fremer review on that Vitus phono stage told us: " The MP-201's dynamic presentation at both ends of the scale was nothing short of ridiculous: ITS BASS EXTENSION, CONTROL AND WEIGHT WERE GRANITIC ".

How comes how is that with that Vitus severe midbass/low bass roll-off?

One, the rolloff is not severe. Two, response behavior of this type can often be preferred (depending on the system) and correlating with greater perceived control and definition.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

[Stereoeditor]

In my view they are journalists too and should uphold ethics.

We do. Please note that while there are documented examples of magazines behaving unethically, in that they offer their covers for sale (as Myles Astor noted earlier in this thread), and reviewers who behave unethically, these instances do not involve Stereophile or its writers.

Historically (ie, 20 years ago), I did have 2 cases of writers who behaved dishonestly, one who was selling review samples and the other who was allowing his listening room to be used by a manufacturer to sell product in return for a commission. In both cases, I fired the writer as soon as I found out.

One of them is to try to tell the truth as hard and inconvenient this might be at times.

This we do. So far this year, Stereophile has had 4 manufacturers cancel advertising over what we have written, at a 6-figure cost to the magazine's income. So please don't lecture me about ethics.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

One, the rolloff is not severe. Two, response behavior of this type can often be preferred (depending on the system) and correlating with greater perceived control and definition.

Yes, a bass rolloff can be incorrectly perceived as greater control and definition, just as a bit of a dip in the upper mids can sound like "clarity" compared to the harshness that may be there without the dip. It's the perception of bass extension and weight that are "gigantic," as a result of a bass roll-off that is the larger problem.

P

 

[silviajulieta]

Dear Stereoeditor: In this thread I bring the measurements subject on STP reviews because is almost the only source where we can find true/real/professional audio items measurements ( good for this! subjective and objective issues must be togetter. ):


http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?1388-Why-Some-Audiophiles-Fear-Measurements/page8




Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[garylkoh]

We do. Please note that while there are documented examples of magazines behaving unethically, in that they offer their covers for sale (as Myles Astor noted earlier in this thread), and reviewers who behave unethically, these instances do not involve Stereophile or its writers.

What a minefield....... but I'm jumping in anyway as a manufacturer who wasn't a big advertiser and yet got a cover in Stereophile - and got what I thought was a bad review at the same time (others thought that it was great).

I don't like it, but I will still stand by JA. He will write what he thinks is correct, and calls it as he sees it. Even if it means p*ssing off the designer and manufacturer.

Do we still advertise in ST? Nope. Why? Not because of the bad review, but the review killed the sales of the key volume product in our line and we didn't have the budget to do anymore advertising. Did JA care? No. And he should not.

However!!! We fixed the problems that JA found in that product, and now we have a far better product. But we also have a different loudspeaker designer now.

What we need to do is to find the way for the industry, consumers, and the magazines to support the High-end industry. I come from Singapore, where the pinnacle of desire used to be a Swiss watch, a German car, and an American hifi.

Unfortunately, that last, American hifi, seems to have fallen down by the wayside. It boils down to the credibility of the high-end industry if the consumers don't trust the industry and the magazines don't support the industry and consumers cannot or don't trust the magazines.

But supporting the industry means far more than just giving all products rave reviews. When someone buys a product purely from a rave review, and because of a lack of synergy in their system, or their room, or their ears don't like what they bought, they are never going to trust that manufacturer or magazine again. It might not be the fault of the magazine - the reviewer may very well have loved the product. But like me loving durian and you thinking that it smells like an open sewer in Summer, both are totally valid opinions.

Perhaps this is a topic for another thread - how the consumer, magazines and manufacturers can work together to develop yet again a viable high-end export industry for US-made hifi products.

Cheers
Gary

 

[Stereoeditor]

Dear Stereoeditor: In this thread I bring the measurements subject on STP reviews because is almost the only source where we can find true/real/professional audio items measurements ( good for this! subjective and objective issues must be togetter. ):

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?1388-Why-Some-Audiophiles-Fear-Measurements/page8

Thank you. But in both this and the other thread, you raised the issue of my ethics in connection with these measurements. Do you not have any comment on my response?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

[silviajulieta]

Dear Stereoeditor: ++++ I think you are overlooking the scale of the graph. The Vitus's response is down by just 0.1dB at 200Hz " +++++,

ok, I can accept that till this point is fine.


+++++ " -0.22dB at 100Hz and the trend is both smooth and very well-matched between channels. I don't feel this to be significant. " ++++++


Can I add that that trend goes beyond that -1.5db at 20hz?


When you posted: " I don't feel this to be significant " IMHO you are only diminish the real/true importance on the subject. When you say: " I feel..." then there is nothing to argue about because what is not important to you it is for me and almost any analog audiophile that wants to hear what's in the recording.


++++ " The IEC modification of the RIAA curve is a legitimate design choice and does not represent a departure from accuracy per se. " ++++, it is the same here: you diminish the fact and the fact is that with that IEC modification exist a departure from RIAA accuracy, if not what then is what we are looking in the chart?: accuracy?, certainly not.


It is obvious that you are entilted with your statenments it does not matters what other people has to say about. It is not rare your reviewer attitude with no single sign of humility.

Anyway, IMHO your statements are wrong trying to justify something different to facts, that you accept it or not does not change the fact of Vitus RIAA critical inaccuracies.


Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[Stereoeditor]

I think you are overlooking the scale of the graph. The Vitus's response is down by just 0.1dB at 200Hz

ok, I can accept that till this point is fine.

Thank you

-0.22dB at 100Hz and the trend is both smooth and very well-matched between channels. I don't feel this to be significant. "

Can I add that that trend goes beyond that -1.5db at 20hz?

Of course. As I noted, I said in the review, "at low frequencies, the Vitus incorporates the IEC infrasonic rolloff, reaching -3dB at 13Hz." I was not trying to hide anything.

When you posted: " I don't feel this to be significant " IMHO you are only diminish the real/true importance on the subject. When you say: " I feel..." then there is nothing to argue about because what is not important to you it is for me and almost any analog audiophile that wants to hear what's in the recording.

With respect, that is an over-reach. You are speaking for yourself, which I have no problem with. But to claim that you represent "almost any analog audiophile that wants to hear what's in the recording," sorry, no you don't.

The IEC modification of the RIAA curve is a legitimate design choice and does not represent a departure from accuracy per se.

it is the same here: you diminish the fact and the fact is that with that IEC modification exist a departure from RIAA accuracy, if not what then is what we are looking in the chart?: accuracy?, certainly not.

The IEC modification of the RIAA response is authorized. The Vitus conforms to that modification; it is thus accurate in that respect as I clearly said in the review. Why don't you comprehend that?

It is obvious that you are entllted with your statements it does not matters what other people has to say about. It is not rare your reviewer attitude with no single sign of humility.

But as I showed your statements were incorrect, why should I now adopt your opinion as my own? Do you not get that in this as in many areas of design, there are legitimate decisions to be made that will please some and annoy others. Personally, I would prefer that the IEC rolloff (and the so-called Neumann 4th Pole modification) be switchable. You might feel the IEC rolloff to be sub-optimal, but it doesn't mean that others who disagree with you are corrupt.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

[silviajulieta]

Thank you. But in both this and the other thread, you raised the issue of my ethics in connection with these measurements. Do you not have any comment on my response?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Dear Stereoeditor: If you are refering to the word " corrupted " please let me know you what that means here in México:

++++++++++++++++++++

corromper. (Del lat. corrump?re). tr. Alterar y trastrocar la forma de algo. U. t. c. prnl. ||
Microsoft® Encarta® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. Reservados todos los derechos.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

" Alterar " means: alter and " trastrocar " means: reverse/change round.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[silviajulieta]

Dear Stereoeditor: + " " sorry, no you don't. " ++++, you are right.

As Tomelex posted in that thread:

++++++++++++++++

Hi Raul,

You make a lot of well thought out points. But now maybe you have learned, the biggest point. Magazines are to sell products, and stereophile job is to sell advertising space because they send it to you for a dollar (or even less) per issue. Stereophile job is to make money. Your job is to read the magazine for entertainment and although they do run some measurements, you will observe that they are in no way the full complement of measurements that could be run and even when something measures badly, the subjective reviewer can always say it sounds marvelous!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Just an entertainment, thank you for your time.


Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[FrantzM]

Stereoeditor

I fail to see where I tried to "lecture you about ethics". I stated my opinion of what a magazine should do. I didn't name or in any way, imply Stereophile. My statement was general and it remains to me, correct. I do have the opinion however that such a hot tweeter that mandated the use of a series resistor does not belong in such an expensive product. I also have , stated in an earlier post, my reservations about the conclusion of the review.

Orb
As for the "semantics" reference it is not a simple case of playing with words. I would not equate journalism to entertainment, although it can and in some cases should be, "entertaining". RFC and white papers are likely not Audio information of interest to the vast majority of audiophiles. We expect that what we read in our magazines has some amount of information that would further our search and in that an "entertaining" writing style does have its merit and advantages.