Was this aimed at ASR?

[mocenigo]

AFAIK, there aren't Ayn Rand cultists on the AudioXpress staff, or if there are, they're pretty quiet about it.

Ok I admit I do not understand the reference to Ayn Rand cultists.

 

[samsa]

Ok I admit I do not understand the reference to Ayn Rand cultists.

Randians call their philosophy "objectivism" and themselves "objectivists."

 

[Tks]

Oh this is rich..

Jim Austin:

I am a scientist myself, a physicist with a PhD., a few peer-reviewed articles published in respectable journals, and an edited book. I was employed for 14 years by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. I'm married to a professor of chemistry who holds an honorary endowed chair. Science is big in my life.


My only regret about ASR--this appears to be more true of its most zealous community members than of the proprietor--is the narrowness of their perspective. Many refuse to acknowledge, first, that, as I have written before, when it comes to the communication of emotion through music, science does not have primacy, let alone hegemony. And second, that other people's values--the way they make decisions about, for example, what audio equipment to buy--is up to them, not you. This is a perspective that I have come to, from a background based in science.


Despite the email quote above, which insists otherwise, ASR seems to have a calling, a moral cause, at least in the minds of its most zealous participants. Stereophile's only cause is promoting the enjoyment of music in the home, at the highest level.

The worst part about postings like this, aren't the 'zealotry' comments or the unfortunate demonstration of how PhD's can't buy common sense or basic literary comprehension skills. The worst part is actually something both sides (though subjectivists are far more guilty of), is the inability to see they're addressing strawman positions.

What Jim's left (or right) brain hemisphere can't compute is.. no one here is attempting "communication of emotion through music". The worst part about this strawman delusion is the fact that neither is Stereophile, otherwise they'd be making music themselves and publishing it in some form. The second comment about "the way they make decisions about, for example, what audio equipment to buy--is up to them, not you", is likewise a critique that can be leveled against Stereophile, as both sites give recommendations, but neither are taking control of a person's autonomy. That second statement was just throwaway meaningless garbage, it's as if he thought people here are of the mind to infringe on people's purchase ability or something.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The last portion of this post states users here are of a certain moral calling-kind. While Stereophile is only the promotion of enjoyment of music at the highest level at home.

First off, this isn't necessarily a good thing for Stereophile, simply because it is yet another throw away statement that doesn't mean much of anything.. "promotion of highest enjoyment of music at home", that's pretty funny when the devices that sometimes get glowing praise would be best served as methods of getting you thrown out your home, or, throwing out your actual home in an effort to buy these things you won't have a home now to even listen in.

Second, and on a more serious note, while some members here could be operating under some moral predilection, why is this used as a pejorative? Not seeing what's wrong with people warning folks to stay away from things with no objective backing for their statements about performance... Unlike Stereophile, people here aren't ready to call something "well perfoming" so haphazardly, and mostly avoid talking about how a random person's "enjoyment level" might be influenced with a certain device. Of which Stereophile will do both, while in some reviews coming with contradicting statements (recommendations for devices that clearly are sub par either by performance, value, or just feature-set).

You have to be on Cloud 9 levels of delusion to think zealotry of people cautioning others not to jump with both feet into a purchase while not knowing what you're getting is somehow "bad" seeing as how those people may be doing it due to some "moral calling". If anything those are the sorts of people I want to be around first and foremost. Not some mindless moron projecting their own subjective experience possibly under the influence of some drinks about how great his listening experience at his own home (especially problematic once speakers are involved due to room differences). Why would this even be something I'd want to even hear about in the first place especially if not backed by objective standards that somewhat purport to the reality of such experience?

Just insane.

One part earlier in that message he posted in the comments section of the article, he prefaced all of these comments with:

Yes, I'm aware of ASR although I do not visit it often.

If anything holds some weight of sense, is this statement's truth value. OF COURSE everything I just commented on, and everything Jim said, would be something a person who has no idea what he's talking about would say. The same tired strawman about "the zealot objective cultists who will never understand measurements can't relay the emotional enjoyment of music" is only possible from someone who just has an imagination about the sorts of people that come by here.

PhD, and a life of science? My ass, he should probably go back to school and listen a bit closer to the part about how -observation- is involved in science. Maybe then he would be able to construct a better picture of who he think's he's talking about seeing as how he's only addressing a nonsense caricature of someone who cares how a product performs objectively.

If nothing, since I don't have an account on that site. Can someone please explain the basic notion to this man, of how the power rating of an amplifier has no relation to the methods of emotion expression through music.

 

[KeithPhantom]

Perhaps some speakers or headphone indeed are tuned to have certain frequency preference in mind.

Zu speakers come to my mind when I think about "design by ear".

 

[win]

So when I hear a speaker that strikes me with characteristics like "bright/steely upper frequencies that make me want to turn the sound down, recessed midrange, and somewhat bloated bass response"...and then later on I read a review in which the reviewer described hearing those same charcteristics in the speaker....how do you figure in the "placebo" response there as a better explanation than that the speaker likely had those characteristics that we both identified?

this is called the Barnum effect.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect

if I gave everyone in this thread a personalized personality assessment with positive traits, they'd be likely to believe it was correct. Even if I gave everyone the same one.

 

[MattHooper]

this is called the Barnum effect.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect

if I gave everyone in this thread a personalized personality assessment with positive traits, they'd be likely to believe it was correct. Even if I gave everyone the same one.

You've posted an excellent example of the type of overreach I was flagging, the sliding too far along the continuum when trying to deny the validity of any sighted/subjective reports.

But before I bother showing how dubious your proposal is I should ask: Are you serious?

 

[win]

You've posted an excellent example of the type of overreach I was flagging, the sliding too far along the continuum when trying to deny the validity of any sighted/subjective reports.

But before I bother showing how dubious your proposal is I should ask: Are you serious?

dead serious. you keep posting symptoms of the placebo effect.

 

[March Audio]

Sure. I was just trying to clarify that "useless" to you is not "useless" in some general sense. And that "unreliable" for instance does not necessarily entail wholly unreliable, but can span between "more reliable vs less reliable, but still useful."

And what we find personally useless can be so due to our particular proclivities or goals. Some people find gardening "useful" for inducing relaxation and peace of mind while doing it; for me it's useless (and does the opposite).

r.

Well that depends on what your view is of the purpose of Stereophile. Is it to read prose or to find out how a product sounds. It fulfils the former with the subjective review, the second it fails miserably, the subjective review is useless.

The problem is because they use no controls you can never figure out how accurate the subjective comments are. Therefore you have to conclude they are all indeed unreliable and therefore useless.

 

[amirm]

... but, then again... Radio Shack sold myriad Mach Ones and Bowers & Wilkins has sold countless ear gougers.

Not hard. Well recorded music cuts through a lot of bad audio products. This is the reason the same few tracks are played at most audio suites at shows.

Had a rep come over once to Madrona to tell us how to sell their stuff. He said he used to run a hi-fi shop and his order to his sales people was: play Eagle's Hotel California no matter how much they were sick of it as it sold the hardware.

Also, speaker business is 80% marketing, 20% technical. Get the former right and the latter just makes no sense. Reminds me of Dr. Toole saying he met the designer of one of the speakers that did so poorly in his tests. He asked them why they kept designing them that way. Answer was that marketing department told them too! They knew how to create better sound but were not allowed.

So no, sales volume is no indication of good technical solution. It just means more business success.

 

[amirm]

Something about subjective speaker reviews. When I am testing speakers, I seek out what reviewers are saying about it. No matter how hard I try, I can't make any sense out of what they are saying. "It is not detail king but has plenty of highs." "The bass is not fast but it sounds really good." I don't think they know how these speakers sound. Knowing what to listen for is hard, hard, hard. I live it every other day as I test a new speaker. Expecting these people to get it right is same as thinking you can buy a single lottery ticket and get rich.

 

[pozz]

Not hard. Well recorded music cuts through a lot of bad audio products. This is the reason the same few tracks are played at most audio suites at shows.

Had a rep come over once to Madrona to tell us how to sell their stuff. He said he used to run a hi-fi shop and his order to his sales people was: play Eagle's Hotel California no matter how much they were sick of it as it sold the hardware.

This is a cognitive thing. A lot of people will call a speaker "good" if they recognize musical elements since they aren't really listening to tone and so forth. It's a different form of evaluation.

It's similar to adding reverb/echo to mono recordings. It mimics natural decays without having any of their directional characteristics, but is still heard as adding depth or distance.

This cognitive element is easier to manipulate and is probably more active in untrained or inexperienced listeners.

 

[Robin L]

Oh this is rich..

Jim Austin:



The worst part about postings like this, aren't the 'zealotry' comments or the unfortunate demonstration of how PhD's can't buy common sense or basic literary comprehension skills. The worst part is actually something both sides (though subjectivists are far more guilty of), is the inability to see they're addressing strawman positions.

What Jim's left (or right) brain hemisphere can't compute is.. no one here is attempting "communication of emotion through music". The worst part about this strawman delusion is the fact that neither is Stereophile, otherwise they'd be making music themselves and publishing it in some form. The second comment about "the way they make decisions about, for example, what audio equipment to buy--is up to them, not you", is likewise a critique that can be leveled against Stereophile, as both sites give recommendations, but neither are taking control of a person's autonomy. That second statement was just throwaway meaningless garbage, it's as if he thought people here are of the mind to infringe on people's purchase ability or something.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The last portion of this post states users here are of a certain moral calling-kind. While Stereophile is only the promotion of enjoyment of music at the highest level at home.

First off, this isn't necessarily a good thing for Stereophile, simply because it is yet another throw away statement that doesn't mean much of anything.. "promotion of highest enjoyment of music at home", that's pretty funny when the devices that sometimes get glowing praise would be best served as methods of getting you thrown out your home, or, throwing out your actual home in an effort to buy these things you won't have a home now to even listen in.

Second, and on a more serious note, while some members here could be operating under some moral predilection, why is this used as a pejorative? Not seeing what's wrong with people warning folks to stay away from things with no objective backing for their statements about performance... Unlike Stereophile, people here aren't ready to call something "well perfoming" so haphazardly, and mostly avoid talking about how a random person's "enjoyment level" might be influenced with a certain device. Of which Stereophile will do both, while in some reviews coming with contradicting statements (recommendations for devices that clearly are sub par either by performance, value, or just feature-set).

You have to be on Cloud 9 levels of delusion to think zealotry of people cautioning others not to jump with both feet into a purchase while not knowing what you're getting is somehow "bad" seeing as how those people may be doing it due to some "moral calling". If anything those are the sorts of people I want to be around first and foremost. Not some mindless moron projecting their own subjective experience possibly under the influence of some drinks about how great his listening experience at his own home (especially problematic once speakers are involved due to room differences). Why would this even be something I'd want to even hear about in the first place especially if not backed by objective standards that somewhat purport to the reality of such experience?

Just insane.

One part earlier in that message he posted in the comments section of the article, he prefaced all of these comments with:



If anything holds some weight of sense, is this statement's truth value. OF COURSE everything I just commented on, and everything Jim said, would be something a person who has no idea what he's talking about would say. The same tired strawman about "the zealot objective cultists who will never understand measurements can't relay the emotional enjoyment of music" is only possible from someone who just has an imagination about the sorts of people that come by here.

PhD, and a life of science? My ass, he should probably go back to school and listen a bit closer to the part about how -observation- is involved in science. Maybe then he would be able to construct a better picture of who he think's he's talking about seeing as how he's only addressing a nonsense caricature of someone who cares how a product performs objectively.

If nothing, since I don't have an account on that site. Can someone please explain the basic notion to this man, of how the power rating of an amplifier has no relation to the methods of emotion expression through music.

I'm really not sure how to respond to Jim Austin's unusually long and confusing response. I would like to note that when I mentioned ASR I had two reasons that had little to do with promoting the site and a lot to do with the topic discussed. The first citation was to point out to Mr. Austin that all these people were talking about "Petard" at ASR, with a link to this discussion, now up to 250 posts. The other was to point out Amirm's history and qualifications for the job he does at this site. Having had my posts delayed didn't strike me as strange, I've had delays before on account of excessive editing of posts after initially posting. So I was surprised to find out it was held up because of the link to this site. Very strange, and very, very defensive.

Having an account at Stereophile only involves signing up for one, one doesn't need a subscription. I haven't had a subscription for over twenty years.

 

[amirm]

So I was surprised to find out it was held up because of the link to this site. Very strange, and very, very defensive.

This is why I made my first post. Folks are seeing us as serious competition instead of welcoming more people who are after data to help audiophiles make better decisions. The rivalry oozes in between the words.

 

[win]

No matter how hard I try, I can't make any sense out of what they are saying

now put a sheet over which speaker is which when listening, never look at price tags, and try to match up the reviews to the speakers.

 

[Robin L]

This is why I made my first post. Folks are seeing us as serious competition instead of welcoming more people who are after data to help audiophiles make better decisions. The rivalry oozes in between the words.

Worth noting, Jim Austin's "Petard" post came just before the Volti Audio Razz Speaker post, one where there was a very clear divide between the enthusiastic subjective review and measurements that appeared quite poor, perhaps poor enough to disqualify the speaker from serious consideration. The responses to that post included 13 posts from the manufacturer, defending his product.

 

[pkane]

So I was surprised to find out it was held up because of the link to this site. Very strange, and very, very defensive.

This seems to be a common allergic reaction to ASR Chris at AudiophileStyle implemented a "feature" that automatically breaks any links that point to ASR content as they get posted on that forum. Ostensibly to protect the innocent, defenseless audiophiles.

 

[KeithPhantom]

@amirm I would like to ask you a question regarding the Windows Audio Stack. Over Head-Fi there is a guy who's claiming the Windows resampler has "rising distortion" at 20 kHz and I told him I would ask you personally so he can learn something coming from the person who was in charge of this software. Is this even true?

 

[RayDunzl]

Windows Audio Stack

https://archimago.blogspot.com/2015/11/measurements-windows-10-audio-stack.html

 

[KeithPhantom]

https://archimago.blogspot.com/2015/11/measurements-windows-10-audio-stack.html

Weird, does a proper implementation of interpolation and digital filtering take that much CPU? I can even see a Pentium 4 doing digital audio correctly with the meager CPU performance it offers these days.

 

[amirm]

Reading through the comments there, I am struck by this paragraph from Jim Austin:

The first part is incredible to me as a person with a PhD. How often does Jim Austin tolerate let alone take a back seat to a layman over his knowledge of science? I trust never.

On the second part, the confusion is astounding. Music is art. It has nothing to do with the gear itself. So of course it has emotional connection and that is different for every person. We are not discussing music reviews. We are discussing audio gear. Audio gear has no art in it. It has no emotion embedded in it. It doesn't have soul. It has no memory. It doesn't care about anyone or any thing. It is just there as an object.

If audio gear were art, then we would hire artists to design them rather than engineers.

Remarkable that someone has to point out that making music is not same as reproducing it.

As to the final statement of whether science is on our side or not, I again ask him often he accepts that doubt in his line of business.