Was this aimed at ASR?

[CDMC]

I've been active on different forums for more than 15 years and I believe Stereophile has nothing to worry about. Most audiophiles steer away from science as they want to follow their own journey. They don't want anyone to tell them what they should prefer. They don't want to be treated as part of some statistics, they want to feel unique. They won't accept they can't trust their own ears, nor will they accept they are untrained listereners and lack certain skills. And most of them don't understand how science and statistics work, so they won't except scientific standpoints on a matter they believe to be completely personal an subjective.

Hifi is being sold as a livestyle. Experience and entertainment over rational. And if there's one thing people don't mind spending money on, it's livestyle!

I call it the Prarie Home Companion effect: “where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.”

 

[John Atkinson]

Atkinson was trained in science too (though not at the graduate level).

Just to clarify, my bachelor's degree was in physic and chemistry, my post-graduate qualification was in teaching those subjects at the high-school level - see the introduction at https://www.stereophile.com/content...ial-lecture-where-did-negative-frequencies-go . I have been a full member of the AES for 40 years and an associate member of the IEEE for 25 years.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

[SimpleTheater]

by definition, if they like everything then nothing is bad

While the "Recommended" list isn't perfect, if a product isn't on that list I assume the product, no matter how glowing the subjective review, isn't a product worthy of a second look.

 

[win]

While the "Recommended" list isn't perfect, if a product isn't on that list I assume the product, no matter how glowing the subjective review, isn't a product worthy of a second look.

but these products are prohibitively expensive to acquire and test. It's not like reviewing your favorite skittles flavors. They only get so many products to review. If they bash them, they don't get sent them again.
Besides that, how would they know before reviewing if they are going to like something or not?

 

[thefsb]

When I needed some new equipment late last year I found the Stereophile website quite useful since its information is quite well organized and there's a lot there. But the descriptions of the subjective listening were useless – I simply couldn't understand them. It was as though an expansive and sophisticated jargon had developed to talk about things that I could not hear.

I think there is and should be room for personal preference in how we listen to music and what it should sound like (I have tried unsuccessfully to argue that it's inevitable) but I don't think significantly non-linear or colored speakers are very useful in a home audio system. But even if for the sake of argument we assume they were, there's no way the subjective language I read on the Stereophile website would help me choose equipment.

 

[krabapple]

That is my preference too. Rooms that are too live (like in a house) I find confusing because the reflected sound is such a part of the overall soundfield. I would not trust the speakers I like to listen to for work, though they come close.


Well now you've confused me.

Previously you seemed to say that for audio production, you prefer what the average (non audio production) listener prefers. As opposed to what the average audio production pro prefers.

Now you're saying the opposite?

 

[Kal Rubinson]

but these products are prohibitively expensive to acquire and test. It's not like reviewing your favorite skittles flavors. They only get so many products to review. If they bash them, they don't get sent them again.
Besides that, how would they know before reviewing if they are going to like something or not?

All asked and answered earlier in this thread. See:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/was-this-aimed-at-asr.14717/post-461312
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/was-this-aimed-at-asr.14717/post-463170
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/was-this-aimed-at-asr.14717/post-464202

 

[North_Sky]

I think the connection between ASR and Stereophile is happening ...

 

[SimpleTheater]

Besides that, how would they know before reviewing if they are going to like something or not?

The argument goes that quality manufacturers make products relatively well, therefore you get good reviews most (all) of the time. I disagree with that argument.

@amirm is to audio as Jeremy Clarkson is to cars. Clarkson spent 4 minutes from the 4:25 minute mark in this video, literally picking apart a BMW M4. At one point he says "How did BMW get this thing so wrong?" Audio has needed a Jeremy Clarkson for decades and now we have one. I say thank you ASR. Thank you very much.

 

[pozz]

Sorry I meant 8040c. I think they are just one size up from the 8030s Amir just reviewed.

They are paired with a Genelec sub and generate a huge, detailed sound field.

They are setup on stands symmetrically around a computer workstation. We do have a console but it’s setup sideways and away from being a source of first reflection. There are still a lot of challenges dealing with speaker placement and how sound is represented at computer work position.

My main complaint with the sound of studio monitors is that they sound kind of ‘uncanny’ which I think in part is caused by them being so dense and inert.

This makes the sound sort of “float” in the air. It’s not clear where it is coming from, and the imaging is less anchored. It‘s unnatural for sound to be generated like this (‘disembodied’).

Speakers that have just a bit of cabinet vibration make easier to identify the source of the sound.

With physical source of the sound localized, it allows your head to move around while being able to keep track of the source. Moving your head changes the sound a lot, and keeping track of the source, which is innate, allows your brain to “back out” the relationship of source to head, so you know that the sound hasn’t changed, you just changed the position of your head.

(Headphones have similar issues with sounding uncanny because the whole soundfield moves with your head!)

I think this effect is exacerbated in the studio control room because first reflections are damped, which are another way we can localize a sound source.

This is not ideal, and represents a trade off. With the sound field being this kind of cloud, it can make certain critical tasks like balance levels harder. The benefit is that you get a clear picture of what is actually in your signal, not what the speaker cabinets or room sound like, which are sounds not in the signal.

Listening for fun, I just want to have a nice experience, and don’t care about these specific concerns.

Toole complains about stereo being a poor means to create a 3D image of another space, which it is. That is moot to me, because speakers generate an actual, first generation, 3D sound field in the listening space.

If you are trying to create a virtual representation of, let’s say, a violin playing in a room with stereo speakers, it’s very fussy and the image is unstable (kind of what I was describing above). But for the vast majority of commercial music, there is no 3D space to recreate. Producers manipulate the recording to create a soundfield for the listener.

Speakers that are localizable generate a stable sound field that you can move around in. True, you don’t get the effect of having a violin playing in your room, but producers create content for speakers, not to create some kind of ‘hologram’.

This is a current working hypothesis. My studio partner shares many of the issues I do with the sound of studio monitors, but outside of him I haven‘t come across discussion of this.

I find this less of an issue with modern pop music. In part this might be because most music is made on these types of monitors. Also a lot of it is electronic (digital) and I dont have as many referents for how this type of music should sound. I’m not sure.

Do you mean the 8040B? There is no C version.

Just for reference.

I have yet to see detailed measurements of large mains monitors.

 

[MattHooper]

My main complaint with the sound of studio monitors is that they sound kind of ‘uncanny’ which I think in part is caused by them being so dense and inert.

Interesting. I've used Genelec for monitors before (and M&K and others). I'd spin music through them sometimes at the end of a shift, but only for background. I did not find them engaging to sit down and listen in the way I did many "hi-fi" systems like my own. They were good as clinical tools. (Again, not an absolute statement as plenty of people would enjoy music through them; it's just my own take).

That said, I think I may depart in exactly why you don't care for the pro monitors for music...

This makes the sound sort of “float” in the air. It’s not clear where it is coming from, and the imaging is less anchored. It‘s unnatural for sound to be generated like this (‘disembodied’).

Speakers that have just a bit of cabinet vibration make easier to identify the source of the sound.

With physical source of the sound localized, it allows your head to move around while being able to keep track of the source. Moving your head changes the sound a lot, and keeping track of the source, which is innate, allows your brain to “back out” the relationship of source to head, so you know that the sound hasn’t changed, you just changed the position of your head.

Do I read you right, that you don't like a speaker that, to use the audiophile vernacular, "disappears" as a sound source? The classic "I couldn't hear the speakers as sources of sound, instead the music just seemed to appear near, around/behind/between the speakers!"

Basically, speakers that image and soundstage really well turn you off?

Personally, while I can appreciate things about a speaker that resonates in a way to cue me that it's the source of the sound (one aspect of this is a density and palpable presence to the sound!), ultimately I prefer a speaker to disappear as a sound source. The trick is that, I find, speakers that really "disappear" can, to my ears, produce a more ghosty, ethereal sound - images, not guts and presence. The trick for me has been trying to find speakers that do as well as possible at disappearing, while providing really dense, palpable images - an analogy would be like a pair of speakers that produces an effect like it's suddenly become a bunch more speakers situated in my room, pumping out the music.

 

[MattHooper]

Speaking of that Stereophile article:

In the comments thread, here's an example of how NOT to promote ASR or a science-oriented approach:

https://www.stereophile.com/comment/595743#comment-595743

That kind of dismissive, imperious snobbery will only seem to justify the caricature many have of "objectivist-leaning" audiophiles and encourage prejudice against sites like this one. Projecting a closed mind isn't a good way of getting other minds to open.

(ETA: the discourse may be making some headway, which is nice...)

 

[Thomas savage]

Speaking of that Stereophile article:

In the comments thread, here's an example of how NOT to promote ASR or a science-oriented approach:

https://www.stereophile.com/comment/595743#comment-595743

That kind of dismissive, imperious snobbery will only seem to justify the caricature many have of "objectivist-leaning" audiophiles and encourage prejudice against sites like this one. Projecting a closed mind isn't a good way of getting other minds to open.

(ETA: the discourse may be making some headway, which is nice...)

We setup ASR to try and be as friendly and welcoming as possible while still respecting audio science and engineering ( not easy).

We could always do better but for the most part I'm content that in general all out active members are on board with this .

 

[BDWoody]

We setup ASR to try and be as friendly and welcoming as possible while still respecting audio

Following the Fawlty Towers model?

 

[Thomas savage]

Following the Fawlty Towers model?

I guess I'm manuel then or Sybil , what's worse lol , @amirm is a very convincing basil.

 

[q3cpma]

Speaking of that Stereophile article:

In the comments thread, here's an example of how NOT to promote ASR or a science-oriented approach:

https://www.stereophile.com/comment/595743#comment-595743

That kind of dismissive, imperious snobbery will only seem to justify the caricature many have of "objectivist-leaning" audiophiles and encourage prejudice against sites like this one. Projecting a closed mind isn't a good way of getting other minds to open.

(ETA: the discourse may be making some headway, which is nice...)

Why do you project your (quite naïve, I may add, without wanting to sound belittling) wanting to change the mind of people that can be rightfully qualified of psychotic on this chap who probably just want to laugh at them? The method would indeed be wrong if the goal you ascribed to him was real, but I doubt it.

"Overpriced trinkets for sad fantasists" doesn't sound more rabid than true to me. Better truth in a harsh tone than sweet bullshit, I don't know about you, but I'm totally fine with that image and not having to live with the Stereophile readership. I'll also say that when you're overwhelmingly wrong and deep down, you know it, it's very easy to use fallacious arguments about tone like "close-mindedness"; I'm sure that the people who think that 2+2=5 will find that the world is full of "close-minded" people, too.

PS: I'm not trying to start a flame war or something, but wanting everyone here to get a professional and sterile image just to try to reform people who can't think for themselves (which means that "reforming" is just changing their mind masters) seems a bit Don Quixote-esque to me. Not that mockery can't go too far into the obsession, obviously.

 

[amirm]

Wow, what a low standard for truth-telling:

No one is harmed by spending $20K on an amp because of the poetry written in said "review?" Did that money grow on trees and could not have been put toward a more legitimate use?

It is amazing how low of a burden he carries in recommending gear to audiophiles. No wonder he doesn't care whether his assessments are correct.

 

[sq225917]

People are want to enjoy all types of distortion and spend their money as they see fit. While hifi might mean high fidelity for most of us on the forum for by far the majority of people it just means the device they happily parted with cash for that plays music in a way they like. Additionally it might fit their requirements for impressing their mates, appeasing their wife and whatever other psychological needs anything they own needs to fulfil.

Neither view is more right than another, one man's hifi is another man's pipe and slippers. Its the owners money and fulfilling their personal set of qualification criteria is all that counts. Anyone who thinks otherwise isn't hifi woke, they're just narrow minded and exclusionist.

Oh, hi John, nice to see you here.

 

[Robin L]

Wow, what a low standard for truth-telling:

View attachment 75007

No one is harmed by spending $20K on an amp because of the poetry written in said "review?" Did that money grow on trees and could not have been put toward a more legitimate use?

It is amazing how low of a burden he carries in recommending gear to audiophiles. No wonder he doesn't care whether his assessments are correct.

I dunno. I recall a guy in Marin County, had a hell of a lot of money. Happened to have a minature railroad, was obssesed with military gear, had a tank. Also built a room for an organ, with a proper acoustic, so it was a site for recording. That's how I knew about it

You think about how much the Sun King blew on sets and scenery at Versailles, but he also paid a lot a musicians, including François Couperin and Marin Marais. I guess if it's the difference between a $700 and a $20,000 DAC, both performing at the same level, or with the cheaper one performing better, pointing out that info serves a public service. But if they're already into tubes and turntables, best to write it off as a lost cause. I never saw the value of that minature reailroad, but that guy spent a lot more money on that [had tracks for miles] than on the music room with the pipe organ. Somebody who's already commited to spending too much money on records and tubes isn't about to listen to someone like me. They'l probably listen to someone like Jim Austin or Jeff Dorgay. A lot of this is selling "High-End Audio" as lifestyle, where measurements don't count.

 

[LDKTA]

Wow, what a low standard for truth-telling:

View attachment 75007

No one is harmed by spending $20K on an amp because of the poetry written in said "review?" Did that money grow on trees and could not have been put toward a more legitimate use?

It is amazing how low of a burden he carries in recommending gear to audiophiles. No wonder he doesn't care whether his assessments are correct.

In other words, Jim Austin is well aware of the audience his fallacious rhetoric resonates with and because they have the choice, will and readiness to spend their money on "X, Y, or Z" then it is ok to lie (as long as he gets his cut for being complicit in pushing the lies) -- or as he would likely call it, "stretch the truth" considering that not "every aspect of" his rhetoric is a lie and somehow it is "harmless" because "no children or animals are involved--only consenting adults, and no one's health is at risk."

We know first hand how harmful misinformation and disinformation is, and how harmful it can be. Just look at the antiscientific rhetoric being disseminated in the US of A... during a pandemic. As you've stated, in this case, the harm being done is money lost. Money does not grow on trees and money can certainly be put toward more legitimate use -- even for those individuals that are *dare I say, lucky* and, or fortunate enough to have a superfluous discretionary and disposable income. It is harmful and intellectually dishonest. People lose money. People become ignorant to audio science (whether it is basic or complex) and *inadvertently* they often choose to make their peers ignorant. People often remain ignorant due to the nature of this hobby and the psychoacoustic phenomena we all experience as human beings -- questioning/challenging the fallibility of human perception *generally* leads to circular arguments amongst audiophiles. These people may have families, so children just may be involved -- along with animals (not to be anthropomorphic -- but I will take it there simply because I've personally came across an individual that bragged to me about selling his expensive purebred dog to purchase an amplifier -- no BS). Because people are involved, their health is also involved and I reckon there are a lot of individuals suffering from mental health issues directly or indirectly related to the extremities of spending in consumer audio (Hi-Fi). I have come across numerous individuals facing divorce from spending too much money on audio equipment -- Many of those individuals have children as well -- obviously, those children are involved. Reviewers/independents and third parties who would rather spread factual information are involved -- hence why we are currently having this conversation here at ASR. I can go on and on but I understand that I am somewhat going off on a tangent.

The fact of the matter is, to say that misinforming/disinforming people (regardless of how or why you're doing it) is harmless is just another lie. It is not harmless. Anti-science is NOT the way. We know far more about anything and everything due to science. We enjoy our audio systems and home theaters due to science and we improve upon these systems due to science.