I was speaking mostly to your claim in which you were divining Doug’s/Soundstage’s “intent.”
“The intent is not to provide reliable information to buyers but be an advocate for companies and advertisers.”
I think ascribing that intent is dubious - it certainly is not born out by any conversation I’ve ever had with Doug behind the scenes, nor generally speaking from the content I read on soundstage.
Where I'm going with this is that I've established these contacts before we started measuring and EVERY ONE of those good designers that warned me up front NOT to try to glean too much from the measurements not because of a lack of knowledge about them, but because interpreting and translating those measurements into what we hear is difficult with even the best designers -- and even they don't get it rt. So what you're stepping into is exactly what I was warned to avoid and, 20+ years later, am glad I did avoid it."
You agree with what I bolded?
From my perspective, I would say that perhaps the language in these particular quotes comes off as a bit exaggerated, but they nonetheless expressed something Doug has said for years: that, while measurements can be informative, it can be very difficult to predict precisely all the subjective effects of the many different ways loudspeakers can measure. While you might find some loudspeaker designers who will claim they can perfectly predict the sound of every loudspeaker from a suite of measurements, from what I’ve seen that’s quite a rare claim. Doug has talked to a great many designers who say that even after they’ve carefully designed a speaker and measured there can still be surprises in the subjective assessment. And I’ve seen many loudspeaker designers in interviews saying that over the years.
And in fact, in some of your speaker reviews have noted the occasional bit of surprise yourself given the measurements “ didn’t sound as bad as I was expecting” and that kind of thing.
So I don’t really see how at least a charitable reading of Doug’s main point is particularly controversial. And I say “charitable reading”because I don’t think it’s helpful to play
“ gotcha” by focussing on certain statements that can be read in one way, rather than taking a wider view of what somebody has generally done and advocated.
"My point is simple: interpreting is very, very, very hard and manageable by only a handful of people in the world, IMO. And even then, they'd likely turn and say, "Well, why do you just go and listen and tell me what it sounds like instead."
So we should just go and listen as we are not those few people in the world. Now you agree that he puts little value on measurements? Why do they post any if only those handful can understand them?
I agree that you
could read those bolded parts in the almost measurement-nihilistic way you’ve interpreted them.
But I don’t believe that interpretation reflects the wider context of how Doug and Soundstage have viewed and promoted measurements. They clearly viewed them as important and informative, which is why they long ago went through the trouble of bringing speakers to the NRC to begin with. I’m not going to reveal private conversations except to say that Doug has very clearly appealed to and placed importance on measurements when we’ve been discussing certain gear.
Doug has in interviews said that he doesn’t think somebody evaluating a loudspeaker should see the measurements first because of how they can bias the expectations. That’s why none of the reviewers see the measure measurements before hand.
And he has said, for instance, in his conversation with the speaker designer for axiom speakers - where they discuss the importance of measurements, etc. And blind testing - that he views the listening to the product is important, as well as the measurements, and his own view is to take both into consideration in terms of getting information from the review.
Further, not only has soundstage been producing and advocating for speaker measurements long before ASR or Erin came along, Doug has also been defending the relevance of blind testing for many years.
He was telling people about Toole and Harman et al long before this website showed up.
An example, from one of his articles on blind testing:
“I’m biased toward blind listening tests because I know they work. I’ve participated in blind listening tests at the NRC, as well as at some of the manufacturers mentioned above. I and some reviewers have also set up blind experiments in my listening room to help us assess the performance of certain products. I find blind listening actually easier than sighted listening because I don’t have to concern myself with anything about the product other than its sound. Blind listening allows me to better focus on that sound. What’s more, there’s rarely a case where I can’t hear differences with the sound, which runs counter to Harley’s argument that blind testing distorts the listening process.”
Doug ends that article by pointing out:
“The downside: Although I believe in blind testing and the good it can bring, it’s not always practical to do, which is why you don’t see much of it in SoundStage! Network reviews. Next month, I’ll talk about the challenges involved in actually conducting blind tests, and what we’re attempting to do to overcome those challenges so that we can institute more such tests for future GoodSound! reviews”
The follow up article on blind testing here:
Now it may have ultimately transpired that they couldn’t make a significant amount of blind testing practical or viable for soundstage (especially given the number of writers they employ).
But that can hardly be a major strike against them: virtually NOBODY is doing blind testing, especially for loudspeakers, in audio reviews at this point. That includes Erin. that includes ASR. Doug is right that there are clearly real challenges to overcome, especially in regards to blind testing loudspeakers.
So what I’m trying to say with all this is to bring some perspective. Can you find some things Doug has said in order to put them in your “Black Hats” category? Sure if that’s what you’re looking for.
But in the big picture, we are talking about somebody who has been advocating for the relevance of measurements and even blind testing for decades, and well before ASR was a glint in anybody’s eye.
And taking the stance that his position is “the anthesis” of what ASR is about, is to me edging into the
narcissism of small differences.
It starts to look like purity testing, in-group out-group attitudes, and even acquires the whiff of personal/professional competition/turf protection. (See how delving in to motivation rarely seems to go in a good direction?)
Even if Doug or soundstage doesn’t tick every single box the way an ASR member would do things, I think maintaining perspective shows that it’s silly to cast Doug as one of the “bad guys” in high end audio.
