Audiofools turned objectivists or vice-versa?

[Blaspheme]

I find it quite strange that a technical editor in charge of measurements does not advocate a pro-measurement approach to component evaluation.

Not my reading of the article. But I read a few more, so maybe context helps.

 

[jsrtheta]

This remembers me of an online discussion on the subject what defines an audiophile. It went to shit rapidly when consensus was that it's about price and exotic components.

Someone wrote in this thread that only men are like that. Ego + being well off + testosterone go a long way

Women compete with women and men compete with men in their respective areas. Both sexes can be equally vicious and brutal. But women generally don't compete with men at this level, nor do men compete with women.

 

[jsrtheta]

I think the amount of available low-cost technology has changed the audio world. A couple of decades ago you had to rely much more on the few main and many boutique suppliers to provide high-quality products, which had to be sold through local brick and mortar stereo/hi-fi specialty shops. The small audio companies had the design expertise, the focus and the passion to build quality equipment. The process was too clumsy and unit sales too low to make it worthwhile for most larger electronics companies, so they tended to put our cheaper and lesser performing stuff. The gulf between the two sectors was obvious. Today, with the ubiquity of ICs, computer chips, DACs, Op-amps; inexpensive robotic production (especially overseas) a company can make top-grade equipment and sell it via the internet, cut out the middle man and absorb the middle man's margin to make it work. The gap between companies has narrowed if not closed. Topping can put out a DAC at $300 that will have world class performance and a miniscule gap, if any, to boutique companies that charge far more. Good for the consumer. Maybe not good for U.S. audio producers. Such is the marketplace.

Well...yes and no. A lot of the small audio companies made some horribly designed junk, but the casings weighed a lot and there were gold plated RCAs and a nifty line of palaver, and oh yeah, a tame herd of "high end reviewers" who shifted a lot of units of crap.

Which is not to say there weren't, and aren't seriously good manufacturers. But a lot of very well-known makers borrow the Emperor's New Clothes. If you read some back issues of The Audio Critic from the '90s and '00s, you will find some bills of particulars.

Of course, with the better, cheaper stuff available, everyone's an expert...

 

[BluesDaddy]

'Into 8 ohms load' - now give it a speaker with impedance down to 2 ohms and see if it sounds identical to a Krell. It won't.

Then the former would NOT be being used within its design specs. The difference would be perfectly measurable at this point without the need to ascribe any magic properties to the Krell.

 

[ahofer]

I find it quite strange that a technical editor in charge of measurements does not advocate a pro-measurement approach to component evaluation.
I am sure JA knows better than that, he has been in the business for way too long and he has massive technical knowledge, but he needs to balance component reviews with advertising revenues, hence the more cautious approach.

I dunno. I use Harbeth speakers and, as seen in several places here, they don't seem to comport with the Harman-driven science on dispersion. Yet, when I move from my other systems with better measurements (KEF, Genelec, albeit more compact but with subwoofers), i find I enjoy the Harbeths much more. I believe measurements can tell you a lot (and with electronics, basically everything IMO) but they won't necessarily tell you what you'll like - especially including all the non-audible stuff that interferes. So I'd disagree with JA on amps, but in the bigger picture, less so.

 

[BluesDaddy]

I find it quite strange that a technical editor in charge of measurements does not advocate a pro-measurement approach to component evaluation.
I am sure JA knows better than that, he has been in the business for way too long and he has massive technical knowledge, but he needs to balance component reviews with advertising revenues, hence the more cautious approach.

Did his turn BACK to subjectivism happen to coincide with him becoming managing editor or the magazine (or whatever they call the position)? Or perhaps, its purchase by a new owner?

 

[gsp1971]

I dunno. I use Harbeth speakers and, as seen in several places here, they don't seem to comport with the Harman-driven science on dispersion. Yet, when I move from my other systems with better measurements (KEF, Genelec, albeit more compact but with subwoofers), i find I enjoy the Harbeths much more. I believe measurements can tell you a lot (and with electronics, basically everything IMO) but they won't necessarily tell you what you'll like - especially including all the non-audible stuff that interferes. So I'd disagree with JA on amps, but in the bigger picture, less so.

It is fine to like a particular sonic signature of a speaker or manufacturer, as long as you are aware that you prefer the specific sound coloration to flat on-axis response. I know of people who worship the sound of Sonus Faber speakers, even though they knnow that the specific manufacturer designs speaker in a very particular way, i.e. 2-4dB recess around the crossover region and then highly exposed treble. Like this:

The same can be said for people who like tube amps (high even-order distortion, pleasing to the ear but distortion nonetheless) over the transparency of most solid state amps.

 

[gsp1971]

Did his turn BACK to subjectivism happen to coincide with him becoming managing editor or the magazine (or whatever they call the position)? Or perhaps, its purchase by a new owner?

I think they were recently bought by MyTimeMedia, owners of UK magazines Hi-Fi News and Hi-Fi Choice. JA is now exclusively in charge of technical measurements, I think he stepped down from being Stereophile Editor.

 

[Mart68]

Then the former would NOT be being used within its design specs. The difference would be perfectly measurable at this point without the need to ascribe any magic properties to the Krell.

I agree, but how many other such caveats need to be added to the 'all amplifiers sound the same' statement?

 

[SIY]

I agree, but how many other such caveats need to be added to the 'all amplifiers sound the same' statement?

That statement invariably comes from people who are constructing a straw man. I have never ever seen or heard an actual rationalist say something that silly.

 

[rdenney]

I think they were recently bought by MyTimeMedia, owners of UK magazines Hi-Fi News and Hi-Fi Choice. JA is now exclusively in charge of technical measurements, I think he stepped down from being Stereophile Editor.

Jim Austin is now the Editor, and John is the Technical Editor, as of March 2019, according to their articles. I bet John is having more fun, whatever might have been behind the change.

Rick "less arguing with publishers, perhaps" Denney

 

[Roland]

I agree, but how many other such caveats need to be added to the 'all amplifiers sound the same' statement?

The belief that all adequately designed amps sound the same is entirely supported by “double blind tests” that nobody seems to have carried out.

 

[rdenney]

That statement invariably comes from people who are constructing a straw man. I have never ever seen or heard an actual rationalist say something that silly.

Yes.

But that said, I suspect amplifier tests of the past were tainted by excursions into nonlinear behavior to a greater extent than the testers and observers realized. Amir posted an article a few weeks ago about one such test, where they acknowledged that the amps were clipping up to 1% of the time, which to me may be enough for the (different) clipping behavior between amps to become apparent.

Rick "measurements of power versus THD+N at a range of frequencies, in particular, expose these differences" Denney

 

[rdenney]

The belief that all adequately designed amps sound the same is refuted by “double blind tests” that nobody seems to have carried out.

Rick "FIFY" Denney

 

[BluesDaddy]

I agree, but how many other such caveats need to be added to the 'all amplifiers sound the same' statement?

But that statement is a strawman created by subjectivists. The caveats are pretty much always part of the objectivist observations.

 

[BluesDaddy]

Jim Austin is now the Editor, and John is the Technical Editor, as of March 2019, according to their articles. I bet John is having more fun, whatever might have been behind the change.

Rick "less arguing with publishers, perhaps" Denney

I think they've been bought up about 4 times now since Holt's death, IIRC.

 

[ahofer]

That statement invariably comes from people who are constructing a straw man. I have never ever seen or heard an actual rationalist say something that silly.

And I'd add that the caveats are all easily revealed in measurements, so testing is easily replicable.

 

[MarkS]

'Into 8 ohms load' - now give it a speaker with impedance down to 2 ohms and see if it sounds identical to a Krell. It won't.

Do you have any evidence to back up your opinion?

Also, why would you want to use badly designed speakers?

 

[Mart68]

Do you have any evidence to back up your opinion?

Also, why would you want to use badly designed speakers?

I don't think it is in dispute that an amplifier may struggle with a low impedance load.

I don't agree that a speaker that dips low in impedance is necessarily badly designed. All loudspeakers have compromises or trade-offs, at least that one is straightforward to overcome.

 

[Blaspheme]

With respect to the original assertion regarding most receivers around that timeframe, the 1975 review states that one's measured distortion performance was unusually good, so perhaps atypical.

Did his turn BACK to subjectivism happen to coincide with him becoming managing editor or the magazine (or whatever they call the position)? Or perhaps, its purchase by a new owner?

If we are going to rule out straw men, then we should also discard correlation without causation (at best) or straight-up innuendo.