• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

John Atkinson's of Stereophile Talks About Measurements

mslim

Active Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
144
Likes
120
Does anyone use the pink noise test as mentioned in the video? I just downloaded it to try.
 

Snarfie

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
1,169
Likes
926
Location
Netherlands
So did you use it. An what where you findings.
 

Billy Budapest

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Messages
1,812
Likes
2,683
Problem is that most of the time he is judging by his eyes, price and looks of gear than the sound.

That’s a problem of Steve Guttenberg, Fremer, and many others. They will deny it, and they probably think they go into reviews without taking into account the look or price of the gear, but their biases are really obvious (and predictable), unfortunately.
 

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,952
Likes
8,698
Location
New York City
You gotta pay the bills!
"We could probably go on for hours describing problems we can't actually hear"

I mean, look at these two. I bet they don't even hear their wives calling them for dinner. You gonna tell me they can hear ultra-high frequency noises at -120db?
 

Siwel

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 24, 2020
Messages
128
Likes
200
Location
Nashville
I imagine it's not easy to chose words that criticize one of your advertisers products, or a factory that you have a long relationship with? I never read any reviews without remembering there are people and relationships that one has to contend with and possibly filter for. That's reality in the business world. How do you critique a product without also insulting the people behind it?

Atkinson usually reserves disclaimers and real criticism for the very end of his written commentary, sometimes letting his real opinion play out in the very last few sentences of the review. I think he expects readers to make most of these conclusions on their own, based on the data as he collected it. It's there on open display and he presents it rather even handedly from that point of view but frequently without hard knocks per se.

I think he ( like me,) won't consider a product that doesn't measure up to my standards but then he makes an individual preference decision based on what it sounds like to him. I can sort through the specs and make a short list without having to listen to anything. He doesn't have that luxury and has to listen to and measure everything they test. A bit of a mix between objectivity and subjective rationalization (or cover your butt) is inevitable. But I think that's probably as good a way to go about it as any.

I look at the specs in his reviews first, then scan the text and read his his conclusions. Since most of us know how to interpret specs, and the meaning of what is being measured, a lot of the comments in the texts ("what they mean") generally don't require attention on my part. I appreciate the data, recognize why the words are there (they need them if only for bulk) and IMO, data is what to look at first, unlike in their review process where data comes in last. The commentary is a carefully filtered explanation for those who need it and an attempt to sweeten the data and present enough words so they can sell it as a book. JA fulfills the measurement role well (and values the information) so I let the subjective aspects of any review stand apart from those and use my own experience and priorities to parse the rest. It's a fine line to draw and frankly, the value of the high end press for me has become one of informing me what is new, not really what is good or bad.

Guttenburg would have been considered something between a nebish and a nerd when I was a mean person prone to making such distinctions. He seems a nice enough guy but with no more qualification for his job other than that he worked in the industry and seems to like what he does. I know a lot of guys like that. They have to make a living somehow. I don't think that describes Atkinson. He's science based but with a job that demands some tact in every written sentence. That's just business in the real world.

You get the data from him. If you are capable of understanding it, you decide. I think that's fair enough.
 
Last edited:

digicidal

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 6, 2019
Messages
1,981
Likes
4,838
Location
Sin City, NV
came over this video, to my shock Atkinson believes in ethernet cables
14:30
Well, I am a firm believer in ethernet cables myself... I often find they help the bits arrive at their destination better than wireless methods. I'd love to know how either of them came to the "conclusion" that they sound different however. I must have missed the part where they described the extensive ABX testing they used to prove there was not only a difference, but that they could reliably identify it as well.

Some other troubling bits from that section of discussion:
JA: "Routing packets is like black magic..."
PM: "The mysteries (of ethernet cable sound?) involved are amazing..."

If you really and truly believe that... how can you have any trust in your measuring or manufacturing equipment at all? It's not magic or mysteries... because in both cases it wouldn't then be repeatable or reliable. I feel like they both disqualified themselves from their respective careers in a matter of 4 minutes. :D

This is almost as disturbing as a pharmaceutical TV ad I once saw (forget which drug) which used the phrasing "we think it works like this..." :eek:
 

pozz

Слава Україні
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
4,036
Likes
6,827
I imagine it's not easy to chose words that criticize one of your advertisers products, or a factory that you have a long relationship with? I never read any reviews without remembering there are people and relationships that one has to contend with and possibly filter for. That's reality in the business world. How do you critique a product without also insulting the people behind it?

Atkinson usually reserves disclaimers and real criticism for the very end of his written commentary, sometimes letting his real opinion play out in the very last few sentences of the review. I think he expects readers to make most of these conclusions on their own, based on the data as he collected it. It's there on open display and he presents it rather even handedly from that point of view but frequently without hard knocks per se.

I think he ( like me,) won't consider a product that doesn't measure up to my standards but then he makes an individual preference decision based on what it sounds like to him. I can sort through the specs and make a short list without having to listen to anything. He doesn't have that luxury and has to listen to and measure everything they test. A bit of a mix between objectivity and subjective rationalization (or cover your butt) is inevitable. But I think that's probably as good a way to go about it as any.

I look at the specs in his reviews first, then scan the text and read his his conclusions. Since most of us know how to interpret specs, and the meaning of what is being measured, a lot of the comments in the texts ("what they mean") generally don't require attention on my part. I appreciate the data, recognize why the words are there (they need them if only for bulk) and IMO, data is what to look at first, unlike in their review process where data comes in last. The commentary is a carefully filtered explanation for those who need it and an attempt to sweeten the data and present enough words so they can sell it as a book. JA fulfills the measurement role well (and values the information) so I let the subjective aspects of any review stand apart from those and use my own experience and priorities to parse the rest. It's a fine line to draw and frankly, the value of the high end press for me has become one of informing me what is new, not really what is good or bad.
y
Guttenburg would have been considered something between a nebish and a nerd when I was a mean person prone to making such distinctions. He seems a nice enough guy but with no more qualification for his job other than that he worked in the industry and seems to like what he does. I know a lot of guys like that. They have to make a living somehow. I don't think that describes Atkinson. He's science based but with a job that demands some tact in every written sentence. That's just business in the real world.

You get the data from him. If you are capable of understanding it, you decide. I think that's fair enough.
That doesn't make sense to me. That's a lot of latitude given to a person who is willing to criticize so subtly and politely that it's hard to recognize it as such, and then in interviews gives, if not endorsements, then such large and sweeping generalizations that the entire issue and supporting rationale is fuzzy. He could argue any position either way depending on who he's speaking with. Which places him and Guttenberg in the same bucket, one leaning in a different direction than the other. They are "industry insiders" who have done a lot of work and have been recognized for it, but that's all.

Guttenberg in particular is a guy who has bought and sold a lot of gear, and so gives pretty good advice when it comes to understanding a purchase decision, clarifying personal intentions and so on (the caveat being, the advice is only good if you ignore all of his specific product recommendations). Atkinson's provided a lot of good data, done a bunch of good interviews, and has given commentary that seems to me in equal portions good, incomplete and terrible. Combine them both and you get a person of medium height, medium weight, gray hair and who tends to give a lot of contradictory, but fatherly, advice. Kind of like Polonius:
Give thy thoughts no tongue,
Nor any unproportioned thought his act.
Be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar.
Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,
Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel;
But do not dull thy palm with entertainment
Of each new-hatch’d, unfledged comrade. Beware
Of entrance to a quarrel, but being in,
Bear’t that the opposed may beware of thee.
Give every man thy ear, but few thy voice;
Take each man’s censure, but reserve thy judgment.
Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
But not express’d in fancy; rich, not gaudy...
Translation: Keep to the middle, don't commit, measure with one hand and cast doubt with the other, and stay in healthy business.
 
Last edited:

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,952
Likes
8,698
Location
New York City

Siwel

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 24, 2020
Messages
128
Likes
200
Location
Nashville
That doesn't make sense to me. That's a lot of latitude given to a person who is willing to criticize so subtly and politely that it's hard to recognize it as such, and then in interviews gives, if not endorsements, then such large and sweeping generalizations that the entire issue and supporting rationale is fuzzy. He could argue any position either way depending on who he's speaking with. Which places him and Guttenberg in the same bucket, one leaning in a different direction than the other. They are "industry insiders" who have done a lot of work and have been recognized for it, but that's all.

Guttenberg in particular is a guy who has bought and sold a lot of gear, and so gives pretty good advice when it comes to understanding a purchase decision, clarifying personal intentions and so on (the caveat being, the advice is only good if you ignore all of his specific product recommendations). Atkinson's provided a lot of good data, done a bunch of good interviews, and has given commentary that seems to me in equal portions good, incomplete and terrible. Combine them both and you get a person of medium height, medium weight, gray hair and who tends to give a lot of contradictory, but fatherly, advice. Kind of like Polonius:

Translation: Keep to the middle, don't commit, measure with one hand and cast doubt with the other, and stay in healthy business.

The service JA /Stereophile provides is the provision of the raw data which I can't generate myself. The words are filler to make a book. If there are technical objections, he usually points them out. I try to understand that he has a business to tend, so I grant a bit more shade than you do. Maybe that's because I worked in the biz for 45 years and know what it looks like when you tell somebody their baby is ugly.

Unfortunately most criticisms here and in the larger world must be inferred, especially when "they" damn with faint praise. It stands to reason a mag doesn't like to review products they don't recommend, so most of the time you get a repeat of "highly recommended" similar to the last review. If it's a rave, whoever does the review may go off in glowing prose about the beauty of the object. That's why I prefer to read the specs and whatever technical data supplied....which they give......and generally ignore the prose. Adult hobbyists should be equipped to identify that without too much trouble. This site is unique in the depth of measurements and the reliance on the science as the arbiter of quality but we still get opinions on looks, sound and feature sets. And they can vary between knowledgable people, who may have a reason for liking what they do.

You don't get ahead in the AES without being a relatively straight shooter. The cable thing? Yeah. It's hard to defend the crazy claims in that sector so I won't. There are other equally zany areas rife with potential for lalaland so don't rule out fluids, weights, footers, magic dots and whatever. I am a pro audio guy, so I try to think in terms of practical solutions. At least with Stereophile you get measurements. I find that a good start. The sciences of electronics, acoustics, the art meets science of electro-mechanics/electro-acoustics, maybe psycho-acoustics too plus a willingness to design for optimal purpose and use, is all there is and what makes sound production and reproduction possible. There is nothing else. JA gives you the important half. The rest is for you to figure out.

I don't know about Guttenburg's contributions. I stopped following him after a few videos when I decided he didn't have anything new to teach me. Mainly, I think he has no technical gravitas. To me, Atkinson does despite his occasional lapses into subjective audiophilia.

Disclaimers: I have no connection to JA (we are both AES members?) and don't get Christmas cards from Stereophile.
 
Last edited:

pozz

Слава Україні
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
4,036
Likes
6,827
The service JA /Stereophile provides is the provision of the raw data which I can't generate myself. The words are filler to make a book. If there are technical objections, he usually points them out. I try to understand that he has a business to tend, so I grant a bit more shade than you do. Maybe that's because I worked in the biz for 45 years and know what it looks like when you tell somebody their baby is ugly.

Unfortunately most criticisms here and in the larger world must be inferred, especially when "they" damn with faint praise. It stands to reason a mag doesn't like to review products they don't recommend, so most of the time you get a repeat of "highly recommended" similar to the last review. If it's a rave, whoever does the review may go off in glowing prose about the beauty of the object. That's why I prefer to read the specs and whatever technical data supplied....which they give......and generally ignore the prose. Adult hobbyists should be equipped to identify that without too much trouble. This site is unique in the depth of measurements and the reliance on the science as the arbiter of quality but we still get opinions on looks, sound and feature sets. And they can vary between knowledgable people, who may have a reason for liking what they do.

You don't get ahead in the AES without being a relatively straight shooter. The cable thing? Yeah. It's hard to defend the crazy claims in that sector so I won't. There are other equally zany areas rife with potential for lalaland so don't rule out fluids, weights, footers, magic dots and whatever. I am a pro audio guy, so I try to think in terms of practical solutions. At least with Stereophile you get measurements. I find that a good start. The sciences of electronics, acoustics, the art meets science of electro-mechanics/electro-acoustics, maybe psycho-acoustics too plus a willingness to design for optimal purpose and use, is all there is and what makes sound production and reproduction possible. There is nothing else. JA gives you the important half. The rest is for you to figure out.

I don't know about Guttenburg's contributions. I stopped following him after a few videos when I decided he didn't have anything new to teach me. Mainly, I think he has no technical gravitas. To me, Atkinson does despite his occasional lapses into subjective audiophilia.

Disclaimers: I have no connection to JA (we are both AES members?) and don't get Christmas cards from Stereophile.
The data he produces is good. No question about that. I've emailed Stereophile before about organizing their measurements in a seperate database (right now you have to search for individual reviews, and then check if measurements are attached or not). The response was lukewarm, so I conclude the data is not regarded with much priority internally.

I just can't excuse how much JA allows himself. My sense is that he will reserve his own opinion, and then voice conjectures that aim to please. It's an opportunistic use of confusion and strictly "private thought". Even in the PS Audio interview above he hedges his opinions. Same with the interview that started this thread.

I don't know about you, but I would rather decreaae the amount of BS around than rely on people to see through it. That's asking a lot of the ignore button we have in each of our brains, and also places the onus on us to pull and study all of the relevant materials individually.
 

chelgrian

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
333
Likes
363
This is almost as disturbing as a pharmaceutical TV ad I once saw (forget which drug) which used the phrasing "we think it works like this..." :eek:

The vast majority of small molecule drugs we don't know exactly why they work. Drug discovery is just that you try thousands of compounds a hand full make it to human trials and most of those trials fail. If you want ASR but for Drug Discovery then Derek Lowe's in the pipeline blog is the thing to read.

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/

If you know anything about chemistry I recommend the 'things I won't work with' entries. The one on dimethyl cadmium leaves me unable to breathe from laughter each time read it.
 

StefaanE

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
May 12, 2020
Messages
528
Likes
929
Location
Harlange, Luxembourg
The vast majority of small molecule drugs we don't know exactly why they work. Drug discovery is just that you try thousands of compounds a hand full make it to human trials and most of those trials fail. If you want ASR but for Drug Discovery then Derek Lowe's in the pipeline blog is the thing to read.

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/

If you know anything about chemistry I recommend the 'things I won't work with' entries. The one on dimethyl cadmium leaves me unable to breathe from laughter each time read it.
Very good indeed. Cadmium is no longer my friend ;)
 

Angsty

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 11, 2020
Messages
1,863
Likes
2,215
Location
North Carolina, U.S.
I loved the comment of liking something that’s wrong. I fear that I fall in that camp with my love of my primaluna tube amp and vinyl setup. I’ve been following these forums for a long time but I’m hesitant to take the plunge into the accuracy world. I love what I have and although it may be wrong, I still love it.. what if I get it right, but I still prefer what’s wrong?

“If loving you is wrong, I don't wanna be right”
Song by Luther Ingram

 

pozz

Слава Україні
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
4,036
Likes
6,827
The vast majority of small molecule drugs we don't know exactly why they work. Drug discovery is just that you try thousands of compounds a hand full make it to human trials and most of those trials fail. If you want ASR but for Drug Discovery then Derek Lowe's in the pipeline blog is the thing to read.

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/

If you know anything about chemistry I recommend the 'things I won't work with' entries. The one on dimethyl cadmium leaves me unable to breathe from laughter each time read it.
The bromine article as well:)
 

Siwel

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 24, 2020
Messages
128
Likes
200
Location
Nashville
I don't know about you, but I would rather decreaae the amount of BS around than rely on people to see through it. .

Sure, who can argue with that as a premise? But I don't find JA all that egregious, especially given the balance he has to maintain.

Once more: Atkinsion provides the measurements of the gear and useful, understandable explanations of what they mean. That's not a trivial contribution for those interested enough to take a deeper dive. I said that I give him more shade than you do because he has to do business in his environment every day. That's enough for me. I accept the measurements and tend to gloss over the rest. I know what I think....cables, schmables. People sufficiently experienced in this business should feel reasonably well served in general by taking that attitude. If one is not so experienced, one is, I suppose a possible mark.

I don't find his comments that egregious to be honest, more like head nodding and argument avoidance. The actual video Amir linked to in the OP is virtually without any particular commentary I find disagreeable. Did I miss something?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Wes

Cbdb2

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
1,530
Likes
1,485
Location
Vancouver
Atkinson made some interesting comments about instruments sounding pleasant, but not like the instruments that made them due to distortions from the chain and speakers.

I wonder if musicians have ever been used to make these 'live vs. memorex' type comparisons with instruments in some kind of organized, tabulated manner compared with the feeds on various speakers etc. My impression has always been that musicians are routinely dissatisfied by the sound of their instruments on ANY speakers/stereo systems.

Most Musicians dont hear there instruments the way they were meant to, in the audiance. Theres a huge difference in sound between the back of a trumpet and 10' in front of it. Maybe not as dramatic but this goes for every acoustic instrument. ( electric lets you pick your source position). So a trumpet player ( unless he listen to recordings) is the last guy to ask what a trumpet should sound like.
 
Top Bottom