Stereophiles editor Jim Austin publicly disagreeing with Kal Rubinson

[Vacceo]

I believe if you know and understand your personal bias in sound reproduction, measurements can be extremely useful in guiding you to a speaker you will like. Also design types, (direct radiator, panel, horn, radiation pattern, etc) can help immensely.
But the bottom line depends on your personal understanding of the details presented. You do need to have a lot of education in the different areas to read them correctly, otherwise they are of no use at all.

Or the willingness to ask the guys around here and read when you don't understand something.

Man, you have given me great insights for Audyssey!

 

[Blumlein 88]

But what I think should be kept in mind, for balance, lest one fall in to an unreasonable and unjustified level of cynicism, is that we can't just ignore the vast majority
of people who are actually producing the content for these networks (and also for magazines).

I work in the TV/Film industry and I know very well that the creatives put one hell of a lot of sincere effort in to creating product they see as good, and that they hope to be proud of. I'm working my ass off every day doing this, no matter what show I work on. And in meeting after meeting, in all the gatherings of writers, producers, directors and much other talent, it's clear most people have earnest intentions in creating the content.
Advertising RARELY (if ever) comes up when we are nit-picking our way through the creative decisions for a show.

So, sure there can be justifiable cynicism directed at those involved in the advertising aspect, in running networks (or magazines). But that does NOT mean that the actual content comprises of people bought-and-sold, simply paying obesence to advertisers, or that advertising is the motivation for people producing the content.

Same for audio magazines. The fact that someone running a magazine has to grapple with the exigencies of advertising to keep things going doesn't automatically mean the work you are reading is produced with some cynical eye on the advertising. As I've said plenty of times, I've known many who work in the audio review business, and have yet to meet one person who is writing "just for the advertisers" and isn't earnest and passionate about their subject.

(Not saying such people don't exist, only that people's cynicism here often seems too broad-stroked and overblown).

I believe you for the content creators. Even for audio reviewers (or mostly as some with their own websites now are creators and the whole ball of wax with an obvious eye to ads). But those running the distribution system and places like Stereophile do appear to function as if the real customers are advertisers. The people they manage to put eyes on content is the real product. The gear or stories are just the way they "recruit" product which can be sold.

I understand nothing is really free, and business has to work like business or they go broke. Some businesses that had a passion for the content slowly morph into being about money and happen to have experience in some niche business to make it pay off. Not the same thing. The Playlist short series on Netflix tells a story that is a good example of that in the music business.

TAS is a good audio magazine example. It originally did not have ads. Subscription rates were rather high, but the reader was the customer for the content. Then they took ads, but it still seemed to be handled as the reader being the customer. It never made enough money in those ways. In time it became about the ads and advertisers are the real customers. Stereophile took a similar path as well. They made more money than when it was the other way. One of those places where the eventual economic success killed what was really the value of the product. It is hard tight rope to stay on for very long for most business.

 

[617]

If one is not careful, there is a conundrum produced if you derive a too-extreme stance based on the blinded research. (And I'm specifically
concerned in this case with speakers - where we know the differences are audible).

By "not careful" I mean believing things like "sighted/uncontrolled impressions of speakers are wholly useless, uninformative, worthless" etc.

(Here I'll be using "sighted" impressions to mean non-blinded/not under scientific-level controls).

So here's the conundrum:

1. If sighted bias so reliably distorts our perception of the sound of speakers, then the blind tests seem to have little relevance to the real world conditions in choosing and listening to speakers, which will be done sighted. Our biases will distort the sound so who cares what it sounds like under blinded conditions?

BUT...

2. IF the blind tests for sonic quality are to have any relevance to our normal listening situation, you'd have to make the case that THE SOUND somehow predicts some level of listening satisfaction, that it carries over to sighted listening. So, somehow the specific pleasing sonic characteristics perceived under blind conditions will also be recognized under sighted conditions!

But to make the case for the relevance of blind tests in #2, you've just accepted *some* level of accuracy for sighted listening!

In order to hue to an extreme view against the worth of sighted listening, it seems you either throw out the relevance of blind testing (for audibly different devices like speakers!) to our actual listening conditions. OR you say the blind tests allow us to discern qualities identifiable under sighted conditions too, in which case portraying sighted conditions as utterly unreliable or worthless is incoherent.

These problems don't attend a viewpoint that isn't extreme, where one isn't throwing up a false dichotomy of "Reliable" (scientific controls) or "Totally Unreliable/worthless" (no scientific controls), but rather take the more nuanced stance More Reliable (scientific controls) vs Less Reliable (uncontrolled listening).

It's totally rational for anyone to want "More Reliable" data, and if they want to look to blind testing for such info. What's not rational is to think that "less reliable" conditions equate to "useless/of no worth/completely unreliable." Don't go extreme, and no conundrums arise.

This is a very important observation, but I would say one thing. Audio equipment simply isn't that beautiful in 99% of the case for it to have enduring value as a piece of decor (I don't consider any hifi equipment to reach the level of art). If people were making speakers that were truly beautiful - or perhaps it would be better to say, engaging, the way music is engaging, I might feel differently. There are 'nice' looking speakers but they are 'nice' in the way a really nice couch is nice, or even a beautiful vintage sports car. They are not engaging the way music or literature is engaging, like 'I listened to Hendrix and I dropped out of law school' or 'I read Catcher in the Rye' and realized I was stuck in my head and needed to open my heart to people, or 'when I listen to Bruckner, time stops and I am a different man'.

Given the very limited aesthetic value of audio equipment, I personally look at it the way I look at a dishwasher. Does it function? Does it function the way I like? Is it made ethically? Does it look cheap or do I want to hide it? How is the dealership support?

It's simply an accident of interior decoration and real estate that freestanding speakers even exist. Soffit mounting and in-wall may not be a 100% superior option but the fact that 99% of speakers are boxes which are placed in rooms (invariably close to walls...even though they say not to do that...) should be a hint that maybe we shouldn't see them at all.

There are some subjective decisions to be made in loudspeaker engineering and industrial design, but I rarely see them discussed. I firmly believe radiation width is a personal choice, but to really ascertain that, you need to make the Spinorama measurements that Stereophile can't afford to do, maybe because they're broke, or maybe because their bosses told them not to.

 

[gnarly]

Many, many years ago a physics professor (Richard Feynman) I happened to audit for a class or two made some excellent points about how there is really no need to "dumb down" definitions for lay people, or young students in this case. He provided several examples of incorrect definitions in grade/high school texts and how to reword them to be correct without needing a college degree. It was enlightening and pretty funny. I think he was trying to get a local school board to use good texts instead of the dumbed-down junk they had; not sure he managed to pull that off.

Man, what i would give to have taken a few of his classes. Good for you !!!!

 

[krabapple]

See the comments section https://www.stereophile.com/content/primare-a358-8-channel-power-amplifier-measurements

Am glad that "our" appreciated @Kal Rubinson doesn't give up fighting with the typical audiophile myths, but let's see for how long...

Ugh.

'Member JHL' wins the bloviation contest there, hands down, while 'Jack L' is just doggedly clueless, and Editor 'Jim Austin' knows better than to bite the feeding hand.

Bravo to skeptiKal, though, for threading the needle.

 

[krabapple]

Ok I didn't read the article. But I do agree with him to a certain extend that science has little relevance on music enjoyment.

Why I say that is because I believe enjoyment of music is largely dependent on the music itself and preferences of the listener. Jist citing an example... Let's say you love Michael Jackson songs but your friend hates it. Even the best audio equipment is unlikely make your friend change his mind. What's worse is that when you ask why, he simply tells you that he just hate his songs.... I think we have heard people saying things like "I just hate it and I can't explain why".

Whatever. Just don't blame it on the gear, OK?

 

[krabapple]

Subjective listening impressions are still useful data.

Depends on the circumstances.

All blind listening tests are , of course, reports of subjective listening impressions.

So I hope you're not committing to a false choice/straw man fallacy here.....

This is difficult for applied scientists (“engineers”) to appreciate, since you can’t measure subjective listening impressions with an oscilloscope.

....uh oh...

Whereas, this is easily appreciated by natural/research scientists, who are accustomed to experimental research involving human subjects. Unfortunately, natural/research scientists also happen to be vastly underrepresented in this forum.

what percentage should it be?

 

[krabapple]

But a natural/research scientist would say, no, maybe there's some merit to the fact that in our sample, 90% of food critics reported the same subjective concern about food cooked on Stove A. And a natural/research scientists would ask WHY. And would generate a hypothesis that explains all observations (i.e. both the subjective food critic responses AND the thermocouple readings) - and then would test that hypothesis.

Leaving aside how ridiculous your stove example is...

wtf are you talking about?

I'm a biologist. None of my colleagues refer to themselves as 'natural/research' scientists.

And we all require *controls* in research such as you describe above.

As do psychoacousticians. As do 'applied scientists' like Drs. Floyd Toole and Sean Olive who've studied *subjective impressions*.

Reams have been written here, and elsewhere, about connecting measurements to subjective impressions.

So what are you on about? The idea that all science starts with an observation?

 

[Doodski]

Of course selling to engineers is immensely frustrating for the typical salesman

When I did sell home audio stuff in the 80s and 90s many years ago before I went back to study electronics I had a few engineers helping different customers and coaching them through the sale. A couple of the engineers where pretty stern sorts but the others where pretty forgiving and even teaching me as we went along. Bringing a coach along for a technical sale is a good idea but it does create some additional stress for the sales person in that they cannot be expected to be on the same level of education as a fully qualified engineer.

 

[MattHooper]

This is a very important observation, but I would say one thing. Audio equipment simply isn't that beautiful in 99% of the case for it to have enduring value as a piece of decor

That's certainly fair as a personal aesthetic judgement. I don't know that I go that far (if I'm keeping this to high end equipment that often seeks some aesthetic zing, vs "black box store reams of black ash" cheap stuff), but I am certainly very picky about how things look.

Personally I love it when a piece of audio equipment combines form and function in a way that I find aesthetically (and conceptually) pleasing. My speakers are a continued source of satisfaction - I get more satisfaction even from just how they look than almost anything else in my house, and then add the fact they produce luxurious sound! Same goes for my over-priced turntable. Aesthetically/conceptually it continues to produce great satisfaction. I still look at it and go "wow!"
Same, for that matter, with my tube amps. Whereas my Benchmark gear (DAC 2L and LA4 preamp) strike me as strictly utilitarian and doesn't give me that added aesthetic pleasure.

 

[preload]

Leaving aside how ridiculous your stove example is...

I didn't come up with it.

wtf are you talking about?

Is that really an appropriate way to engage other professionals?

 

[617]

That's certainly fair as a personal aesthetic judgement. I don't know that I go that far (if I'm keeping this to high end equipment that often seeks some aesthetic zing, vs "black box store reams of black ash" cheap stuff), but I am certainly very picky about how things look.

Personally I love it when a piece of audio equipment combines form and function in a way that I find aesthetically (and conceptually) pleasing. My speakers are a continued source of satisfaction - I get more satisfaction even from just how they look than almost anything else in my house, and then add the fact they produce luxurious sound! Same goes for my over-priced turntable. Aesthetically/conceptually it continues to produce great satisfaction. I still look at it and go "wow!"
Same, for that matter, with my tube amps. Whereas my Benchmark gear (DAC 2L and LA4 preamp) strike me as strictly utilitarian and doesn't give me that added aesthetic pleasure.

Right, and this is a legitimate way to evaluate gear. I wouldn't begrudge anyone who chose the better looking speaker over the ugly one. Look at those Danley monstrosities that just came out:

They should sell an acoustically transparent set of paper bags for these - one for the speakers and one for you in case the ones on the speaker fall off.

It's just interesting to me that in all these audio reviews which are full of subjective nonsense, the level of discourse on the subject of the design and decor-function of the speakers is so bad. Maybe I'm biased as a design professional, but most of the commentary I see about appearance of gear basically says 'it looks cheap' or 'it looks expensive'. Ironically, a room full of random expensive gear doesn't look expensive, it looks cheap.

Here are some ways you can evaluate the speaker. Is it timeless, or will it look like a product of its time? Look at the Infinity IL-60, great speaker but it's as 2000's as Nick Carter's center parted hair. Look at the JBL HDI-whatevers. Is that 'pickled oak' finish going to look good in ten years? That's a very trendy finish right now. It looks like one of those driftwood 'Live Laugh love' signs to me. Is it imposing, like a pair of black Alexandrias? Or is it friendly, like a little egg shaped genelec. Does it look like furniture or like lab equipment? When people see it, will they assume you are a nerd, or overly obsessed with appearance? Etc.

 

[krabapple]

I didn't come up with it.

You seem to think it's germane.

Is that really an appropriate way to engage other professionals?

Is it appropriate for someone here since May 2020 -- long enough to know better -- to treat 'applied scientists' and fellow longtime readers here like they have never heard of the use of subjective reports in scientific discovery?

I daresay our host Amir has heard of it. I daresay many have watched his video on how subjective audio impressions are properly tested.

I daresay many here have also read Amir's own tests of things like, e.g., cables and are aware that some subjective claims -- I daresay *many* or even *most of* those that emanate from the audiophile realm of which Stereophile is a standard-bearer -- *really can be and should be dismissed outright*, because they are *extraordinary* in the face of known science, and have not been offered with extraordinary evidence to support them.

So really, what are you cautioning against *here*?

 

[MattHooper]

Right, and this is a legitimate way to evaluate gear. I wouldn't begrudge anyone who chose the better looking speaker over the ugly one. Look at those Danley monstrosities that just came out:

They should sell an acoustically transparent set of paper bags for these - one for the speakers and one for you in case the ones on the speaker fall off.

It's just interesting to me that in all these audio reviews which are full of subjective nonsense, the level of discourse on the subject of the design and decor-function of the speakers is so bad. Maybe I'm biased as a design professional, but most of the commentary I see about appearance of gear basically says 'it looks cheap' or 'it looks expensive'. Ironically, a room full of random expensive gear doesn't look expensive, it looks cheap.

Here are some ways you can evaluate the speaker. Is it timeless, or will it look like a product of its time? Look at the Infinity IL-60, great speaker but it's as 2000's as Nick Carter's center parted hair. Look at the JBL HDI-whatevers. Is that 'pickled oak' finish going to look good in ten years? That's a very trendy finish right now. It looks like one of those driftwood 'Live Laugh love' signs to me. Is it imposing, like a pair of black Alexandrias? Or is it friendly, like a little egg shaped genelec. Does it look like furniture or like lab equipment? When people see it, will they assume you are a nerd, or overly obsessed with appearance? Etc.

Yeah, I just couldn't deal with something that looks like that Danley monolith. I found even subwoofers to be aesthetically distasteful (and when I had them, did my best to hide them).

For my taste, I think my Thiel 2.7 speakers have a passes-the-test-of-time look. Introduced in 2013 they still look (to my eyes) contemporary, refined, beautifully finished etc. Photo from my room (which also combines my home theater):

 

[preload]

You seem to think it's germane.



Is it appropriate for someone here since May 2020 -- long enough to know better -- to treat 'applied scientists' and fellow longtime readers here like they have never heard of the use of subjective reports in scientific discovery?

I daresay our host Amir has heard of it. I daresay many have watched his video on how subjective audio impressions are properly tested.

I daresay many here have also read Amir's own tests of things like, e.g., cables and are aware that some subjective claims -- I daresay *many* or even *most of* those that emanate from the audiophile realm of which Stereophile is a standard-bearer -- *really can be and should be dismissed outright*, because they are *extraordinary* in the face of known science, and have not been offered with extraordinary evidence to support them.

So really, what are you cautioning against *here*?

Well, that was a little better, at least there's no profanity this time, but still not consistent with someone I would choose to converse with.

Matt Hooper summed up my viewpoint pretty well in an earlier post in this thread.

Stereophiles editor Jim Austin publicly disagreeing with Kal Rubinson

Jim Austin vs Kal Rubinson? No need to read the thread. I vote Kal

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[617]

Yeah, I just couldn't deal with something that looks like that Danley monolith. I found even subwoofers to be aesthetically distasteful (and when I had them, did my best to hide them).

For my taste, I think my Thiel 2.7 speakers have a passes-the-test-of-time look. Introduced in 2013 they still look (to my eyes) contemporary, refined, beautifully finished etc. Photo from my room (which also combines my home theater):

View attachment 242689

Oh I always loved those! Absolutely beautiful shape, even in black. I even like them with no grilles. I even like the boxier cs 3.5 models from the earlier days.

I like the vandersteen 5a's as well.

 

[Axo1989]

If one is not careful, there is a conundrum produced if you derive a too-extreme stance based on the blinded research. (And I'm specifically
concerned in this case with speakers - where we know the differences are audible).

By "not careful" I mean believing things like "sighted/uncontrolled impressions of speakers are wholly useless, uninformative, worthless" etc.

(Here I'll be using "sighted" impressions to mean non-blinded/not under scientific-level controls).

So here's the conundrum:

1. If sighted bias so reliably distorts our perception of the sound of speakers, then the blind tests seem to have little relevance to the real world conditions in choosing and listening to speakers, which will be done sighted. Our biases will distort the sound so who cares what it sounds like under blinded conditions?

BUT...

2. IF the blind tests for sonic quality are to have any relevance to our normal listening situation, you'd have to make the case that THE SOUND somehow predicts some level of listening satisfaction, that it carries over to sighted listening. So, somehow the specific pleasing sonic characteristics perceived under blind conditions will also be recognized under sighted conditions!

But to make the case for the relevance of blind tests in #2, you've just accepted *some* level of accuracy for sighted listening!

In order to hue to an extreme view against the worth of sighted listening, it seems you either throw out the relevance of blind testing (for audibly different devices like speakers!) to our actual listening conditions. OR you say the blind tests allow us to discern qualities identifiable under sighted conditions too, in which case portraying sighted conditions as utterly unreliable or worthless is incoherent.

These problems don't attend a viewpoint that isn't extreme, where one isn't throwing up a false dichotomy of "Reliable" (scientific controls) or "Totally Unreliable/worthless" (no scientific controls), but rather take the more nuanced stance More Reliable (scientific controls) vs Less Reliable (uncontrolled listening).

It's totally rational for anyone to want "More Reliable" data, and if they want to look to blind testing for such info. What's not rational is to think that "less reliable" conditions equate to "useless/of no worth/completely unreliable." Don't go extreme, and no conundrums arise.

That was well put. The baby/bathwater reflex sometimes kicks in too early in discussion here.

I read this thread before actually checking the Stereophile discussion: a bit of a letdown, drama-wise. A fairly polite exchange over difference of perspective between Rubinson and Austin in fact. I'm not a particular fan of Austin's writing myself (I find it somewhat convoluted and don't so much share his perspective on a number of things) but the initial pages of this thread hype it up a bit unrealistically.

 

[Timcognito]

the initial pages of this thread hype it up a bit unrealistically.

Yes there is a gag response when Stereophile, Absolute Sound, John Darko and others, or the suggestion of subjectivity is involved, and don't even mention tubes, cables or MQA.

 

[fpitas]

When I did sell home audio stuff in the 80s and 90s many years ago before I went back to study electronics I had a few engineers helping different customers and coaching them through the sale. A couple of the engineers where pretty stern sorts but the others where pretty forgiving and even teaching me as we went along. Bringing a coach along for a technical sale is a good idea but it does create some additional stress for the sales person in that they cannot be expected to be on the same level of education as a fully qualified engineer.

Some engineers enjoy sales. A lot of the reps we deal with at work were engineers at one point or another. Of course, selling to us is like selling to ASR: full data is demanded, all nits are picked etc. On the flip side manufacturers show us their stuff before it's released, just to get an idea what hills they're going to be climbing to sell it.

 

[tmtomh]

...but instead of just admitting they are incorrect and moving on, they double down.

Agree, John - and when it comes to Jim Austin, this excerpt I've quoted from your comment pretty much encapsulates his approach to any debate or discussion in audio.