The Absurdity of Some Recent Audio Reviews in Stereophile.
- Thread starter marty
- Start date
Oh wow, now look what I did.
My partner hates that I write about audio matters that offend some people. In my utopian naivety I keep hoping my explanations will be compelling enough to change a few minds. Audio is no different than any other belief system, and no amount of logic will sway some people. I do post out of integrity to my own "beliefs," if you will. I could just as easily sell replacement AC outlet covers for $100, and maybe I'd earn a better living. I know all the lines such vendors use, and I'm sure I'd be convincing. But I could never bring myself to sell something I don't believe in. Which indeed is why I continue to maintain my personal web site with DIY acoustic treatment plans, and continue to post acoustic advice for people who will never be a customer. I believe in the value of acoustic treatment so much that I'd rather see someone DIY, or even buy from a competitor, than go without.
From a business perspective I probably should hide behind a screen name when posting about non-acoustic stuff. But it's way too late for that. In forums other than here at What's Best I disable my sig when posting about audio unrelated to acoustics. At one forum I use either my "Truth Justice and Science" sig or my RealTraps sig, as appropriate. But everyone knows who I am. I don't mind people disagreeing with my opinions, as long as they can offer an explanation better than "Ahem (Throat clearing)." I don't even mind mild rudeness. But I do get PO'd when people who dislike what I say about the science of audio go out of their way to insult my company. Or post "You're a moron and I'll tell everyone not to buy your products" etc. As with my Stereophile Forum comment above, that's not just stupid, it's mean.
I try very hard not to insult people! But some people are offended anyway. Placebo effect and expectation bias are well known, and I've experienced that myself many times. So I don't understand why some people are so adamant that it can't happen to them. They read my gentle explanations as to why they might think they heard a change after demagnetizing their LP records, and take that as a personal attack.
As skeptics often say, just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we know nothing. And this is surely the case with audio measurement and perception. I've been touting "only four parameters" for a few years now. It's common for someone to say that's crazy. But every single time I ask what more there might be, nobody ever has an answer. Further, as I always explain, a null test will reveal all differences between a device's input and output. If there were more to audio fidelity than those four parameters, it would have been revealed in a null test long ago.
No kidding. I'm constantly amazed by hi-fi type reviewers who go on endlessly about this speaker or that's imaging, but when you look at their equipment list you see cable elevators and "resonance control" devices, and boutique wires, with not one item that affects acoustics. Without absorption at the reflection points, these people have no clue as to what good imaging even sounds like. Oops, I did it again.
Finally, I do not write so much to change the minds of believers, but to help those who genuinely want to know the truth. Too often someone who's unhappy with their system will ask in a forum what they should do or buy next. These are the people I mostly write for.
--Ethan
To the contrary, I think that a majority of us [reviewers] use some sort of room treatment. I've tried the DIY approach based on suggestions in Audio Amateur years ago, ASC tube traps, Room Tunes and a few more products. Maybe not enough Rx, but for me, room treatment is like taking drugs. Just because a little bit is good, doesn't mean more is better. And I've been to way too many rooms where the owners killed the sound of their system with room treatment
For me, in my experimentation, I found that the cure was often worse than the disease. But I do use the Cathedral Sound panels and some Room tunes at nodes in the room plus other little tricks here and there.
What were those four parameters again, Ethan?
I must admit that my room treatment is informal at best. My bass traps are a big recliner in one corner and the huge stacks of paper and cardboard boxes under my wife's desk. And, of course, behind me is the ubiquitous "wall full of books," one of the most time-tested treatment methods. Not ideal, but given that the speakers are towed in and just 3 - 4 feet from my ears, it seems to do the job fairly well.
I think I need to go read your posts and see if I can tweak...
P
I must admit that my room treatment is informal at best. My bass traps are a big recliner in one corner and the huge stacks of paper and cardboard boxes under my wife's desk. And, of course, behind me is the ubiquitous "wall full of books," one of the most time-tested treatment methods. Not ideal, but given that the speakers are towed in and just 3 - 4 feet from my ears, it seems to do the job fairly well.
I think I need to go read your posts and see if I can tweak...
P
in some countires I think the word is 'respec'.
Thanks ethan for your non 'selfishness' with diy plans.
Mr. Winer,
Your business partner is absolutely correct. As a business consultant, I see the most effective business executives and leaders occupy different roles that vary with their constituency. They may speak one way to a group of workers on the factory floor regarding production issues. A few minutes later, they may speak completely differently about the direction of the organization in the board room. They taylor their speech based on what is appropriate for each audience. This type of flexibility allows them to be more effective leaders.
It's a free country, of course, but frankly, I am surprised you don't do the same.
Hi Terry,
As I mentioned several times, I am a big believer in room treatments. In fact I can assure you I have more room treatments than some of the star reviewers (I know this from seeing occasional pictures of Jonathan Valin's room on the avguide site or pictures of Michael Fremer's room in some online audio magazine a while ago).
As a young man, I earned a Masters Degree in engineering. I lost interest in hard science and engineering a while back. I find many of the "measurement debate" posts quite dull. I am just not interested in measurements. I listen to equipment and I trust my ears. It's my money, and I spend it the way I choose to spend it.
As I have grown older, I am finding philosophy and social sciences such as sociology, psychology, and economics much more interesting. From a philosophical perspecitive, if we don't try to understand how and why things work, we are in deep doo doo. If Galileo did not challenge the status quo, our civilization would not be as far along as it is. Ever watch a blind man cross a busy street in a major city? We have a lot to learn about human hearing. So if we pretend that measurements tell all, God help us.
But coming back from the diversion, from a psychological point of view, I cannot understand how Mr. Winer, who claims to be "rational" when it comes to audio, act so "irrationally" when it comes to running his business.
Now I am going to crack a few brews and go and play some music...
While we don't want to stifle creative conversation, we would like to keep discussions that fall under a given title on topic. This thread is about Stereophile and the content of their reviews. If a member wishes to discuss Ethan Winer's business model and online conduct, then we have an appropriate forum already established to address Ethan. Please hold discussions in the forum and thread for which they are meant. This request is not merely to restrict someone from posting their opinions here, but to keep as much of the discussion of a certain topic in a place that others can find efficiently. If a great conversation about digital audio (for instance) takes place in the "Coffee Makers" forum, most folks will never see it. Help us out in keeping things a bit more organized, OK?
Thanks,
Lee
Thanks,
Lee
Hi Lee, fully get the point.
Can we follow this path a bit longer??
As I have grown older, I am finding philosophy and social sciences such as sociology, psychology, and economics much more interesting. From a philosophical perspecitive, if we don't try to understand how and why things work, we are in deep doo doo. If Galileo did not challenge the status quo, our civilization would not be as far along as it is. Ever watch a blind man cross a busy street in a major city? We have a lot to learn about human hearing. So if we pretend that measurements tell all, God help us.
On some sort of 'deep' level, I feel it quite relevant to reviews of any nature...ok maybe that IS stretching it a bit, but as far as audio goes it is worthy of pursuing haha.
Maybe a new thread eh??
Off ya go caesar, start that one and we can be gasbagging to out heart's content!!
Just like conversations at a dinner table or a bar, threads run their course and die. If someone with good conversation skills doesn't speak up to keep the conversation going, you have a bunch of people sitting around the table looking at each other awkwardly, stressing, thinking of what to say next.
But you are the boss, so I wil zip it (and yes, you and your fellow moderator (Party???? maybe Party Pooper) killed the conversation).
I think this quote is relevant...But I don't understand part of it. Galileo was an early adopter of the scientific method, made measurements and used them to inspire and retest revolutionary hypotheses that are now accepted in modern astronomy.
Most reviewers don't do this. They mainly provide opinions which are, at best, controversial...And controversy is no substitute for revolution.
In Galileo's time, many of our contemporary audiophile critics would have been Vatican priests.
P
Yes, but that's very different from audio fidelity. I'm always surprised when people don't understand the difference between perception and fidelity, or subjective preference and fidelity. A guy once replied to me in a forum that "you can't measure a symphony." Well, duh. But that totally misses the point.
--Ethan
you had me confused for a bit...I was not the one who made the quote, phew. But for some reason my name is attached to it. Ahh, it is the italics in my post which I 'quoted' from caeser.
There ya go caeser, that's TWO votes from myself and smokester for you to start the thread.
Think of it this way, rather than calling the mods party poopers, we ARE at that dinner table of yours and decide the rest of the people around the table are boring, talking about oh, I dunno, that latest bling bit of audio gear??? haha, so we take our glass of port and cigar and head off to the drawing room to sit around the fire and engage in a discussion about the deeper things in life.
Only ever punctuated by calls for more port!!
what say ye?
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
terryl. Yes, I didn't realize those weren't your words...Sorry.
For those saying that scientists were once heritics: Maybe one of us is missing the point. e.g. It is one thing to say "I think your system stinks." Is quite another to say "I think your system is oscillating and, if we fix that, it may sound better."
The first statement is unactionable and unprovable. The second one is actionable. Both may start out controversial.
For those saying that scientists were once heritics: Maybe one of us is missing the point. e.g. It is one thing to say "I think your system stinks." Is quite another to say "I think your system is oscillating and, if we fix that, it may sound better."
The first statement is unactionable and unprovable. The second one is actionable. Both may start out controversial.
Well, it kind of misses the point. The performance of an audio system can be measured, as can the efficacy of the human auditory system and whether an individual's hearing is somehow compromised. We can even measure brain activity in relation to audio signals being played, although this is still in its relative infancy. What we can't do is measure the quality of conscious experiences of music (we can only do this indirectly, by asking 'how did that make you feel?'). As audiophile epistemology calls on how such musical qualia might be altered by the equipment replaying the music itself, this is difficult to reconcile with an empirical viewpoint.
You seem to grasp it, but the average audiophile does not seem to.
They continually ask, or state, 'where are the missing measurements?'.
Firstly, they themselves do not have enough knowledge to interpret what we already have measurement wise. How then, from that ignorance, can they say with any authority that what we already have are not enough??
Secondly, I'm going to ask you 'how then can we reconcile these differences?'
Do you have any hunches, thoughts or theories??
I do, have mentioned it a few times on a few forums, it sinks without a trace. I don't think my theory is stupid, rather I think it explains a lot about these recurring debates, but what it does tell me (if my idea has any merit that is) is that it is an area few others are interested in.
But, I don't want to implant suggestions, which is why I have not mentioned it.
I'm interested in your take on this.
I enjoy your input even tho we seem to have very different takes on audio.
I respect science and measurements. Ethan says everything that matters in audio can and has ben measured. If you can adequtely describe what "stinks" Ethan says he can measure it.
,
I think my point was meant to be humorous just like Ponk.
Similar threads
