So did you use it. An what where you findings.
Problem is that most of the time he is judging by his eyes, price and looks of gear than the sound.
You gotta pay the bills!came over this video, to my shock Atkinson believes in ethernet cables
14:30
"We could probably go on for hours describing problems we can't actually hear"You gotta pay the bills!
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.came over this video, to my shock Atkinson believes in ethernet cables
14:30
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.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.
Translation: Keep to the middle, don't commit, measure with one hand and cast doubt with the other, and stay in healthy business.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...
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.
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 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.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.
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..."
It would be better if the graphs were legible.The service JA /Stereophile provides is the provision of the raw data which I can't generate myself.
Very good indeed. Cadmium is no longer my friendThe 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.
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?
The bromine article as wellThe 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.
I don't know about you, but I would rather decreaae the amount of BS around than rely on people to see through it. .
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.