The Absurdity of Some Recent Audio Reviews in Stereophile.

[Phelonious Ponk]

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".

I don't think it's a question of semantics at all. The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post are journalism. Rush Limbagh and Keith Olberman are entertainers. If "entertainment" is what the audiophile press wants to be, we can't stop them. But we can stop taking them seriously if and when they do.

P

 

[Orb]

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.

Frantz sorry if I keep on about it, but do you still subscribe or when was the last time you subscribed to one or more audio magazines?
This may not seem relevent, but it is because this comes possibly down to our differentiation on what an audio publication provides; because if I subscribe to be entertained (pass the time while also gaining knowledge/info in an enjoyable way) and you do not as it is too "entertaining" or not serious enough then this would support more my idea of the magazines

You suggest in your wording in some cases should be "entertaining" meaning you feel they need to be more serious, and this comes back to my suggestion then you would have a peer review structured magazine with restricted use of language and subjectivism.
A magazine is there to sell, to be read in this instance for enjoyment that is entertaining, if it was not entertaining I could read white papers/RFC/engineering guidelines that still may be of interest but is like watching paint dry; this is not what I like to do in the majority of my leisure time - and yes I do read RFC/research papers/etc for interest and work related, but for most of my free time I want to chill out with....
Audio magazines

Bear in mind these magazines can be and are serious journalism as well, but done in a way to be fun - hence entertainment.... whitepapers and lectures are dull in comparison, to me anyway but I could be a bad student.

As a test along with seeing how many do actually subscribe to audio magazines, how many also subscribe to research peer review monthly publications for enjoyment outside the scope of their work?

Regarding lecture about ethics, err I did not say you did.
However I did pick up on ethics as you mentioned that as a part of your case (it seemed to me and by looks of it JA as well).
To quote you:

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

.

@P,
OK it looks like some are taking this rather too extreme.
Do you feel audio magazines for the general audio person should be enjoyable or not?
If they are not enjoyable or designed for leisure reading will they sell?
If a magazine does what you and Frantz want will it sell, and how about some examples that exist matching your criteria?
And that is the crux of it, Stereophile and other similar publications are not a specific and solely focused industry magazine, they are intended for the leisure reader and all types of people interested in audio.
To have that appeal it must be entertaining, this also means it can be serious as well, it is just their structure and language will not match that of a peer reviewed type article or journalism such as that of Reuters, which is fine as they are different focuses/intention.

Cheers
Orb

 

[Robh3606]

Did anyone look at the follow up in the October Issue for the speaker under discussion??

Rob

 

[Stereoeditor]

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

please don't lecture me about ethics.

I fail to see where I tried to "lecture you about ethics". I stated my opinion of what a magazine should do.

With respect, when you wrote "In my view they are journalists too and should uphold ethics," particularly in a thread devoted to reviews in Stereophile and where others are implying that Stereophile's review conclusions are altered for unethical reasons, surely it is a reasonable inference to take from your use of the word "should" that you feel Stereophile's writers and editors don't behave ethically. Context matters.

I didn't name or in any way, imply Stereophile.

Good.

My statement was general and it remains to me, correct.

Of course audio journalists in general should behave ethically. What evidence do you have that some don't?

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.

And I addressed those reservations, both the review and in this thread. I explained how and why the tweeter level had been decided upon by the manufacturer and how, given that the tweeter has its own amplifier, the problem could be readily resolved without modifying the speaker. Your reservations are thus rendered moot, I would have thought.

And did you read the review? Or were you just going by the paraphrase at the start of this thread?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

[Gregadd]

John as a long time audiophile I recall a debate about editors improving review samples. It may even have occurred in Stereophile. Many "unfinished" products were submitted for review. I think the consensus was not only was it a bad idea to "help them along", it was unfair to those who received no "assistance." I personally don't see it as a question of ethics, especially where all the cards are laid on the table.

 

[DonH50]

Comment: Little as I have followed this thread, I think it should be noted that it seems to have diverted rather early on from Stereophile to most any magazine/reviewer, despite the title... I would treat all comments as to the world at large, not just Stereophile.

 

[Stereoeditor]

John as a long time audiophile I recall a debate about editors improving review samples. It may even have occurred in Stereophile.

Before I joined Stereophile in 1986, the magazine published a review of a Meridian CD player where the reviewer had modified the review sample. (See http://www.stereophile.com/cdplayers/285meridian/index1.html .) I put a stop to that practice and other than the debate over "tube rolling" with review samples, there have not been any other instances since then.

Many "unfinished" products were submitted for review.

I can only think of 2 examples in Stereophile: a Fried speaker and a Carver speaker. In both cases, it was the manufacturer who wanted to use the magazine's facilities to finish the design during the review process. It was that experience 20 years ago that made me implement our policy that we review samples as received, with no further samples from the manufacturer unless something is obviously broken. (See http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/307awsi/)

I think the consensus was not only was it a bad idea to "help them along", it was unfair to those who received no "assistance."

I completely agree.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

[Gregadd]

John- when I said "unfinished" I did not mean incomplete. I meant it was a good effort or promising design. Just not quite there yet.

 

[Gregadd]

Now that we are in agreement, how do you square the magazines policy of reviewing samples "as delivered" and adding a resistor to make the speaker better?

 

[silviajulieta]

I don't think it's a question of semantics at all. The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post are journalism. Rush Limbagh and Keith Olberman are entertainers. If "entertainment" is what the audiophile press wants to be, we can't stop them. But we can stop taking them seriously if and when they do.

P

Dear Phelonious Ponk: No we can't stop them. It is only enterntaiment with almost nothing to learn.

You can see/read the attitude of Stereoeditor to my questions on the Vitus subject, it is not only that he diminish almost all but " justified " ( almost everything. ) what in a 60K unit is not justified in any way: what the Vitus design shows for whatever reason is just wrong, period.

What can an analog " newbie " person learn through the Vitus ( and many others like the Dartzeel one. ) Stereophile review/measurements?. IMHO that A RIAA deviation over 0.1db ( that's is the " norm/rule ". ) is not only not important but acceptable and that he does not to be worried about because the reviewer said it that and because the other reviewer said: the unit has " granitic bass response....... ".

The old times when we really learned through Stereophile are unfortunately all passed many years ago and that's why today the magazyne is only enterntaiment: pity.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

 

[Stereoeditor]

John- when I said "unfinished" I did not mean incomplete. I meant it was a good effort or promising design. Just not quite there yet.

In which case, there have been no examples of this happening at Stereophile. I believe you must be thinking of another magazine.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

[Stereoeditor]

how do you square the magazines policy of reviewing samples "as delivered" and adding a resistor to make the speaker better?

It's a good point. The justification is that there is already a resistive pad in series with the tweeter amplifier. I felt, therefore that adding another series resistor - which doesn't involve any physical modification of the speaker itself - doesn't alter the speaker's design other than by extending the attenuation range of the existing pad.

I assume you read the actual review rather than going by the misleading paraphrase posted in this thread? In which case, you will note that I both auditioned and measured the speaker to reach my review conclusions with it as set up by the distributor. The experiment with the series resistor in the tweeter feed was mentioned only in the "measurements" sidebar, on p.76 of the September issue, though I did return to the subject and conduct further measurements on why the speaker sounded better balanced with the tubed Audio Research amp rather than the solid-state Classe in the October issue (p.165).

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Hi John,

I have been a fan of yours, Michael Fremer and Gerard Resjkind for some time, and I was wondering how you deal with or address your reviews that are reviewed/concluded differently in other magazines? If you give Amp -X a wonderful review, but Gerard is lukewarm or indifferent about it...how does that impact you...or does it?

John

 

[Gregadd]

OOPS! My face is red. I did not read the review. I was referring to the general policy. Let me also take this opportunity to thank you for making Stereophile the easiest stereo magazine to research online. Just about everything you say is instantaneously verifiable online.
In my mind you made a modification that resulted in a different sound and you reported on it. As I said earlier I don't think that has anything to do with ethics. It was completely above board. It does however, at least on its face, appear to be inconsistent with your stated policy. For example suppose the reader read the main review and decided he was not interested. Then read the sidebar and decided he is interested. Your modification had a potential effect on his decision. I don't see that as any major problem.

Now, Let's see where did I put my September and October issue of Stereophile?

 

[tmallin]

It's a good point. The justification is that there is already a resistive pad in series with the tweeter amplifier. I felt, therefore that adding another series resistor - which doesn't involve any physical modification of the speaker itself - doesn't alter the speaker's design other than by extending the attenuation range of the existing pad.

I assume you read the actual review rather than going by the misleading paraphrase posted in this thread? In which case, you will note that I both auditioned and measured the speaker to reach my review conclusions with it as set up by the distributor. The experiment with the series resistor in the tweeter feed was mentioned only in the "measurements" sidebar, on p.76 of the September issue, though I did return to the subject and conduct further measurements on why the speaker sounded better balanced with the tubed Audio Research amp rather than the solid-state Classe in the October issue (p.165).

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John, I read the review and your measurement section in the September issue. I have not yet received October's issue. The way I read what you wrote in September, it seemed to me that even adding the extra series resistor left a peak of 2 to 3 dB in the mid-high frequency range around 3 kHz . Did you find a way around that problem in later experimentation with other resistors or amps? Thanks.

 

[RBFC]

It's a good point. The justification is that there is already a resistive pad in series with the tweeter amplifier. I felt, therefore that adding another series resistor - which doesn't involve any physical modification of the speaker itself - doesn't alter the speaker's design other than by extending the attenuation range of the existing pad.

I assume you read the actual review rather than going by the misleading paraphrase posted in this thread? In which case, you will note that I both auditioned and measured the speaker to reach my review conclusions with it as set up by the distributor. The experiment with the series resistor in the tweeter feed was mentioned only in the "measurements" sidebar, on p.76 of the September issue, though I did return to the subject and conduct further measurements on why the speaker sounded better balanced with the tubed Audio Research amp rather than the solid-state Classe in the October issue (p.165).

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Personally, I see nothing wrong with adding the resistor to achieve "proper" spectral balance PROVIDED there is full disclosure of what was done. Also, the body of the review and the measurements reflect the original condition of the product, not the modified performance.

If we, as a collective, are to help the high end survive, a collaborative effort between manufacturers, consumers, and the press/reviewers must be undertaken. Perhaps, in the case above, the manufacturer will offer a resistive pad with slightly greater range of adjustment in future models. Addressing the concerns of both listening and measurement, and providing a better product to the end users, is a win-win situation.

I would like to see reviews accurately reflect the performance of a product as submitted, as well as including subjective preference considerations. Further, a section in each review could offer explicit suggestions for improvement of that product. It does not serve the industry or the customers for manufacturers to write argumentative letters in response to poor/average reviews of their product (provided that the objective portion of the review was carried out in a responsible fashion). Rather, a collective approach to support the success of the industry should take precedence.

My psychiatrist tells me that these delusional ideas will pass.........

Lee

 

[DaveyF]

Getting back to the OP's original thought.How about “although the dynamics were impressive, the basic flaws for a speaker of this price ($80K) leads me to conclude that you can do a lot better for far less money elsewhere." A comment like this would seem to me to be far more appropriate, than what is now transpiring, wherein the editor of the magazine is seemingly trying to justify the speakers failing. I, for one, would be a little perturbed if I bought the speaker in question for $80K and after bringing the product home had to deal with a tweeter that burnt my ears off! Should I have listened to it first, sure, BUT I suspect that some of these speakers will be acquired without an audition in one's own system, based on publicity from the media.
Maybe a more telling question, would be why would a company that has any real quality control, release a product that clearly seems flawed, to their prospective customer base? The fact that this same company expects to receive $80K for this same product only tells me that they prescribe to the theory of 'there's one born every minute'; Which is seeming gaining popularity in many of the high-end manufacturers way of doing business. The bigger concern here is that the so-called watch dog-- the reviewer at one of the most popular high-end magazines in the US-- fails to call the company out and instead gives the standard 'glowing' review with a 'minor caveat' in the measurement section. BTW, I read the review when I received the magazine and my impression was the same as always, 'business as usual' at the magazines reviewing section...

 

[Orb]

Dear Phelonious Ponk: No we can't stop them. It is only enterntaiment with almost nothing to learn.


Raul.

Just curious,
I am seeing this a lot recently by a minority of posters and that is what I would say is a generic attack against an unknown 3rd party/category of audio listeners/hobbyists.
In this example it is pretty clear with "No we can't stop them".
Stop who?
Those who aggresively promote bowls or pebbles?
Because interestingly not one audio fan on this site has even attempted to justify them, so it seems the generic criticism has the affect of looking to castigate a common or wide band of audiophiles (assuming this is the intention), but lets be honest most of the criticism can only be directed towards a minority, and none that I have seen here in this context.

Anyway I am starting to really regret discussing the point relating to entertainment
And somehow my original point has been pulled into what I would call a caricature (I blame myself for that).
Looking back I originally stated (and should had left it at that instead of trying to discuss it):

Touching more in general, I think most need to realise that a reviewer has to walk a fine line between two different aspects; entertainment as the magazines need to sell every month and analytical review for those who are looking for specific type of information to assist with purchasing decisions.

An example was raised relating how entertainment does not apply to Wall Street Journal.
But if you look at their online site you can see it fits in with my quote and how general non-industry publications walk a fine line between informative/analytical approach and entertainment.
Wall Street Journal not only provides industry type structured reporting, it has other aspects to news journalism, opinions, cartoons, puzzles, Life and Culture, a magazine, and yes corrections in their journalism reported nearly everyday (hence errors as well).
One last attempt on clarifying my take on entertainment but if another word is applicable for you thats fine, for me it fits in exactly with thesaurus;
1.amusement
2.diversion, recreation - an activity that diverts or amuses or stimulates; "scuba diving is provided as a diversion for tourists"; "for recreation he wrote poetry and solved crossword puzzles"; "drug abuse is often regarded as a form of recreation"
3.beguilement, distraction - an entertainment that provokes pleased interest and distracts you from worries and vexations
4.edutainment - entertainment that is intended to be educational
5.extravaganza - any lavishly staged or spectacular entertainment

That aside.
If I could redo my quote it would be to expand beyond the reviewer and state it is the magazine's and also editors role.
However what is clear when I thought this through some more, is that there is not one type of reader as it is not a solely/specific industry focused publication, it is designed to appeal to many that includes passive readers that I would fall into this category and those who rely heavily upon reviews for a purchase could be deemed active readers.
This compounds the situation as an active reader may be a temporary customer and the subscriber being more passive could have different demands/criteria/approach while also being important for being a long term purchaser of the magazine affecting the business model.
This adds to the difficulty because we may find subscribers are passive readers (can take it or leave it as part of their judgement call) when it comes to reviews, but there are others out there that may be looking actively to replace an audio product and extensively use reviews and test measurements provided.
And even then active readers can be broken down to those who want a review to be more engineering/scientific structured and use of comparable vocabulary, while others want a more general high end descriptive review to assist them.

I remember reading a post by Alan Sircom in a different thread (I think possibly on this forum) where he states you cannot please everyone (or focus/intention of the journalism to appeal universally).
His example was the difference between some his reader base and that of DIYers (usually more engineering orientated) and the energetic emails he has received from both types.

There are cases I feel of stupid audio journalism and also at times inconsistencies (but this applies to most other categories of journalism as well where it is not peer reviewed) as Marty mentions, and also as I pointed out a couple of other areas of debate such as the filtering process on a reviewer selecting products based upon what they liked (possibly indicator of preference) and how reviews seem more neutral when a product is given to a reviewer instead of them selecting (Totem and Chord Electronic review, possibly also applicable to the Bryston review).

Anyway as a subscriber to over several magazines, I can say there are always bits of information one can and does learn.
But in the end we all have our own ideas on how an article and review should be presented that may not sit with the majority (usually the reader base).
And as I said before I expect the editor to safeguard and answer in the cases of fraudalent/blatant factual errors/justification made by a reviewer without it being emphasised as hypothesis on some technical products and what they feel they hear/etc type of journalism.
So far I feel we have seen both Alan and JA follow through and candidly answer as editors in this thread.

Maybe there should be a poll to see the state of play with existing forum members; vote for a) I do not subscribe and never will b) I would subscribe if structure and format of reviews and articles changed c) I do subscribe and will continue to d) I will be cancelling my subscription due to being disappointed.
Something like that anyway.
I think 25+ pages show just how complex and passionate this subject is with us.
With this all said and done, it would be great if some publications can be named that members feel is different to say Stereophile/Hfi+/Hifi News/etc, and why.
This would enable us to put this into perspective and context.

Cheers
Orb

 

[MylesBAstor]

Just curious,
I am seeing this a lot recently by a minority of posters and that is what I would say is a generic attack against an unknown 3rd party/category of audio listeners/hobbyists.
In this example it is pretty clear with "No we can't stop them".
Stop who?
Those who aggresively promote bowls or pebbles?
Because interestingly not one audio fan on this site has even attempted to justify them, so it seems the generic criticism has the affect of looking to castigate a common or wide band of audiophiles (assuming this is the intention), but lets be honest most of the criticism can only be directed towards a minority, and none that I have seen here in this context.

Anyway I am starting to really regret discussing the point relating to entertainment
And somehow my original point has been pulled into what I would call a caricature (I blame myself for that).
Looking back I originally stated (and should had left it at that instead of trying to discuss it):


An example was raised relating how entertainment does not apply to Wall Street Journal.
But if you look at their online site you can see it fits in with my quote and how general non-industry publications walk a fine line between informative/analytical approach and entertainment.
Wall Street Journal not only provides industry type structured reporting, it has other aspects to news journalism, opinions, cartoons, puzzles, Life and Culture, a magazine, and yes corrections in their journalism reported nearly everyday (hence errors as well).
One last attempt on clarifying my take on entertainment but if another word is applicable for you thats fine, for me it fits in exactly with thesaurus;
1.amusement
2.diversion, recreation - an activity that diverts or amuses or stimulates; "scuba diving is provided as a diversion for tourists"; "for recreation he wrote poetry and solved crossword puzzles"; "drug abuse is often regarded as a form of recreation"
3.beguilement, distraction - an entertainment that provokes pleased interest and distracts you from worries and vexations
4.edutainment - entertainment that is intended to be educational
5.extravaganza - any lavishly staged or spectacular entertainment

That aside.
If I could redo my quote it would be to expand beyond the reviewer and state it is the magazine's and also editors role.
However what is clear when I thought this through some more, is that there is not one type of reader as it is not a solely/specific industry focused publication, it is designed to appeal to many that includes passive readers that I would fall into this category and those who rely heavily upon reviews for a purchase could be deemed active readers.
This adds to the difficulty because we may find subscribers are passive readers (can take it or leave it as part of their judgement call) when it comes to reviews, but there are others out there that may be looking actively to replace an audio product and extensively use reviews and test measurements provided.
And even then active readers can be broken down to those who want a review to be more engineering/scientific structured and use of comparable vocabulary, while others want a more general high end descriptive review to assist them.

I remember reading a post by Alan Sircom in a different thread (I think possibly on this forum) where he states you cannot please everyone (or focus/intention of the journalism to appeal universally).
His example was the difference between some his reader base and that of DIYers (usually more engineering orientated) and the energetic emails he has received from both types.

There are cases I feel of stupid audio journalism and also at times inconsistencies (but this applies to most other categories of journalism as well where it is not peer reviewed) as Marty mentions, and also as I pointed out a couple of other areas of debate such as the filtering process on a reviewer selecting products based upon what they liked (possibly indicator of preference) and how reviews seem more neutral when a product is given to a reviewer instead of them selecting (Totem and Chord Electronic review, possibly also applicable to the Bryston review).

Anyway as a subscriber to over several magazines, I can say there are always bits of information one can and does learn.
But in the end we all have our own ideas on how an article and review should be presented that may not sit with the majority (usually the reader base).
And as I said before I expect the editor to safeguard and answer in the cases of fraudalent/blatant factual errors/justification made by a reviewer without it being emphasised as hypothesis on some technical products and what they feel they hear/etc type of journalism.
So far I feel we have seen both Alan and JA follow through and candidly answer as editors in this thread.

Maybe there should be a poll to see the state of play with existing forum members; vote for a) I do not subscribe and never will b) I would subscribe if structure and format of reviews and articles changed c) I do subscribe and will continue to d) I will be cancelling my subscription due to being disappointed.
Something like that anyway.
I think 25+ pages show just how complex and passionate this subject is with us.
With this all said and done, it would be great if some publications can be named that members feel is different to say Stereophile/Hfi+/Hifi News/etc, and why.
This would enable us to put this into perspective and context.

Cheers
Orb

Orb:

I think the magazines have at least one other responsibilty. That is to try and protect the consumer from some fly by night operators-or the here today, gone tomorrow company--and unfortunately every area of business has them. Just ran into one myself through Audiogon last winter and almost lost my money. Another way of looking at the picture is that a good review for a small company might destroy them since they don't have the capability to meet demand or maintain quality (remember the BRB amplifier issue years ago in TAS?). Gone are the early days of high-end audio where the consumer was unfortunately the Beta tester. SP has some sort of protection built-in by requiring a company to have five dealers in order to get a review; I'm not sure what the other mag's policies are.

 

[Orb]

Marty

IMO as long as these guys need to sell ads in their magazine I would be hard pressed to see any bad reviews however polite they might be

This is not applicable to you Steve but when I see very hostile posts relating to audio magazines in many cases the justification given by the poster is that the manufacturers pay (bribe is their suggestion) magazine via ads.
But you know I have never seen anyone ask what I feel is a better question and shows possibly a more thorough analysis with;
Do the large dealers and distributors who take out an annual full page advert pay less than a manufacturer?

This would provide more of an insight and for me shows many may have a slight bias by not following through completely with their thoughts on the ad scenario.
Depending upon the response it would put more weight behind their accusation, or not if all charges are equal.

Just to stress this is not directed at you Steve but as you raised the ad aspect I thought I would throw it out there.
Maybe the situation is different over there with you guys, but here in UK/Europe I notice there are many full page ads by dealers and distributors for paperback based publications (not referring to online-internet only publications).

Cheers
Orb