Measurements questions

[Alexanderc]

I have been following this forum for a few months. I've learned some things for sure, and I'm grateful to all of you willing to share your expertise! This is my first post.

Last night I read the Stereophile measurements of the Mark Levinson 5805 integrated amp, which JA concludes with: "Overall, Mark Levinson's No. 5805 offers excellent measured performance." https://www.stereophile.com/content/mark-levinson-no5805-integrated-amplifier-measurements

I got to thinking, the Anthem STR integrated measurements I read a few months ago looked better to me, but received this response: "Anthem's STR is a well-engineered amplifier offering high power and respectable measured performance." https://www.stereophile.com/content/anthem-electronics-str-da-integrated-amplifier-measurements

Now, I don't have a dog in this fight; I won't be purchasing either of these in the foreseeable future, I'm just trying to understand the measurements. It looks to me like the Anthem measures better in most of the tests (or at least they're close enough to be basically identical), but Mr. Atkinson appears to be more enthusiastic about the Mark Levinson. Am I reading something wrong or misinterpreting some graphs?

Thanks!

 

[Daverz]

This has already been discussed here:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-measures-the-ml-no-5805-integrated-amp.7865/

No, you aren't reading anything wrong. You'd think JA would look back thru his older measurements to square his comments with similar measuring gear, as any of his readers can and do. A deliberate thumb on the scales or simply a lack of self-awareness? I don't know.

 

[DonH56]

JA provides a great service in providing measurements. Expecting him to remember verbiage across products measured over months or years is fruitless IMO. Unless he says something is very bad or very good I don't really pay attention and maybe not then. Yes, there have been some eye-brow raising comments now and then, but the real meat is in the data and not the comments. Just compare actual measurements, bearing in mind methodology and test equipment has changed over the years (decades).

IMO - Don

 

[svart-hvitt]

JA provides a great service in providing measurements. Expecting him to remember verbiage across products measured over months or years is fruitless IMO. Unless he says something is very bad or very good I don't really pay attention and maybe not then. Yes, there have been some eye-brow raising comments now and then, but the real meat is in the data and not the comments. Just compare actual measurements, bearing in mind methodology and test equipment has changed over the years (decades).

IMO - Don

Is it too big a task to remember, or look up, what you wrote about products on previous occasions, really? You get the impression, Harman must be a big advertiser.

I think the OP has a point.

 

[DonH56]

Is it too big a task to remember, or look up, what you wrote about products on previous occasions, really?

Yes. I can well imagine he's a busy guy and going back to read previous reviews every time he writes a new one seems a waste. How far back should he go, how many should he read, what sort of metric should he establish for what range of adjectives? The comments are subjective and I treat them as such.

You get the impression, Harman must be a big advertiser.

I do not think advertising has anything to do with it. There may be bias, probably unintentional, based on personal impressions and experience. Or could just be how he feels on the day he writes the conclusions. I do not know JA, have had no interaction with the man, but the online rancor he seems to attract (more so elsewhere than here) seems way out of line to me.

 

[Thomas savage]

Definitely there's bias , he's human.. that's why ones best advised to look at the data provided.

However I'm sure many 'skip' through that knowing they don't fully understand it and relay on JA's comments at the end to affirm the devices objective performance . I'm also fairly certain he knows that.

 

[Dogen]

In the audiophile press, more expensive equipment earns higher praise, all else being equal. Has a cheaper unit ever been declared totally superior to a more expensive unit in the established audiophile press? That’s a real question - would love to see examples. They have to maintain the illusion that spending more gets you something.

 

[Thomas savage]

In the audiophile press, more expensive equipment earns higher praise, all else being equal. Has a cheaper unit ever been declared totally superior to a more expensive unit in the established audiophile press? That’s a real question - would love to see examples. They have to maintain the illusion that spending more gets you something.

There's more too it, theres often pressure from the manufacturer and or distributor. That can be just social pressure it's a small world and there is a kind of community to it but it also can be quite a aggressive demanding kind of pressure to not give bad reviews then you have distributors paying to get things reviewed so they want a good review. There's a horrible accepted norm in the hifi world that no one be too critical of one anothers products. It really is an industry where the people making the gear and the people reviewing the gear are a gang bound by vested interests and knee deep in protectionism. Meanwhile Joe public gets lead up the garden path. Everybody who works in audio knows this they just don't have the basic level of honesty to admit it.

You just can't come out and say something is not very good or even just not to your liking. If you read the reviews you will often see true feelings are expressed in a subverted way leaving the reader to have to read in between the lines to gain some truth.

Hopefully new media and new platforms like this one will break that unhealthy relationship that ultimately does not serve the reader/potential customers for these devices. Unfortunately the more popular you get whether that be a forum or on YouTube, the more you need the manufacturer and or distributors to send you the latest kit and guess what they will want favorable reviews and you will want subscribers so..... It's kind of awkward but we hear at ASR have had similar situations and that's why it's best to get you guys to send in kit for review rather than manufacturers and distributors.

Anyway this is a bit off topic I guess..

 

[svart-hvitt]

Yes. I can well imagine he's a busy guy and going back to read previous reviews every time he writes a new one seems a waste. How far back should he go, how many should he read, what sort of metric should he establish for what range of adjectives? The comments are subjective and I treat them as such.



I do not think advertising has anything to do with it. There may be bias, probably unintentional, based on personal impressions and experience. Or could just be how he feels on the day he writes the conclusions. I do not know JA, have had no interaction with the man, but the online rancor he seems to attract (more so elsewhere than here) seems way out of line to me.

I always tell my colleagues, when we wrote something, be picky about adjectives. Better not use adjectives in many cases. And we keep a record of everything we wrote, easy in the digital era.

 

[Alexanderc]

I did not intended my original question to be one that pointed a finger at Mr. Atkinson or professional reviewers in general, although I see how it could easily be interpreted that way. In my case, I was questioning whether I made a mistake in reading the measurements of these two devices (apparently not). I’m no engineer, and just wanted to make sure I was drawing a correct conclusion. I do appreciate everyone’s willingness to respond. Thanks!

 

[svart-hvitt]

I did not intended my original question to be one that pointed a finger at Mr. Atkinson or professional reviewers in general, although I see how it could easily be interpreted that way. In my case, I was questioning whether I made a mistake in reading the measurements of these two devices (apparently not). I’m no engineer, and just wanted to make sure I was drawing a correct conclusion. I do appreciate everyone’s willingness to respond. Thanks!

A writer should guide, provide clarity where confusion was. Writing is an art, too. I have much to learn in that respect, still.

 

[Krunok]

JA provides a great service in providing measurements. Expecting him to remember verbiage across products measured over months or years is fruitless IMO. Unless he says something is very bad or very good I don't really pay attention and maybe not then. Yes, there have been some eye-brow raising comments now and then, but the real meat is in the data and not the comments. Just compare actual measurements, bearing in mind methodology and test equipment has changed over the years (decades).

IMO - Don

That sounds reasonable. However, I cannot help to wonder how would JA comment that same measurements if you present it to him in a blind test manner so he doesn't know to which amp they belong..

 

[dkfan9]

I get the impression, from reading a few talks he's given and also his measurement comments, that JA is much more engaged with measured performance of speakers than electronics, with the exception of absolute standout performant or seriously deficient electronics. I find that view entirely rational, since the differences in speakers are far greater and generally more significant, with the possible exceptions of high amplifier output impedances (which alter the frequency response) and electronic noise (which dulls everything just a tad when audible). And the measurement difficulties in speakers convolute the accuracy of the results, so the process itself requires more reflection and more precise commentary.

 

[jsrtheta]

JA provides a great service in providing measurements. Expecting him to remember verbiage across products measured over months or years is fruitless IMO. Unless he says something is very bad or very good I don't really pay attention and maybe not then. Yes, there have been some eye-brow raising comments now and then, but the real meat is in the data and not the comments. Just compare actual measurements, bearing in mind methodology and test equipment has changed over the years (decades).

IMO - Don

I think you may be letting him off the hook a bit too easily. I don't know the guy either, and I hesitate to say something unfair, but still.

Atkinson's measurements are very important, if only because a lot of audio sites/magazines don't provide them. (And their hostility to measurements is usually based on ideology and not science.) I have never heard anyone question the accuracy of his measurements, either. I am no expert at all on measuring gear, but I took to heart Peter Aczel's statement that, while he loathed Stereophile's promotion of subjective reviewing, he had no hesitation relying on Atkinson's measurements, and indeed did so in some of his own work, seeing no need to reinvent the wheel. And measurements were essential to Aczel's approach to audio reviewing.

That said, he often wondered about Atkinson. Unlike, say, his opinion and personal experiences with Michael Fremer, Aczel did not appear to have any personal animus toward Atkinson. But he was puzzled by him, because he thought Atkinson had been in the field long enough, and was otherwise smart enough, to know that a lot of the claims of certain Stereophile reviewers were pure tommyrot, yet he continued to publish them and promote the magazine's approach.

Aczel did know Atkinson and, without a doubt, would have gleefully shared any negative attitudes he may have had toward him, hence my inference that Aczel neither considered him a fool nor an outright con man. But he was very critical of Stereophile's reliance on high-end advertising, and commented more than once that it was impossible to reconcile the gushing praise in many reviews with the clear evidence of lousy engineering that Atkinson's measurements made plain. (Atkinson's measurements appeared in a lot of reviews that he himself didn't write, but did contribute the numbers for.) Aczel certainly saw a connection between the glowing nature of some reviews and the advertising presence of the manufacturer. So while I'm not in a position to condemn Atkinson, I also have to wonder. But then, I have a naturally suspicious mind.

 

[restorer-john]

Hopefully new media and will break that unhealthy relationship that ultimately does not serve the reader/potential customers for these devices.

New platforms like this one will break the unhealthy relationship, as long as there is complete ongoing transparency.

Anytime a product is submitted for review from a manufacturer and not required to be returned, this needs to be stated.
Anytime a product is gifted, this needs to be stated.
Where a product fails or is faulty on the test bench and a replacement is required to finish the review, this needs to be stated.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I think you may be letting him off the hook a bit too easily. I don't know the guy either, and I hesitate to say something unfair, but still.

Atkinson's measurements are very important, if only because a lot of audio sites/magazines don't provide them. (And their hostility to measurements is usually based on ideology and not science.) I have never heard anyone question the accuracy of his measurements, either. I am no expert at all on measuring gear, but I took to heart Peter Aczel's statement that, while he loathed Stereophile's promotion of subjective reviewing, he had no hesitation relying on Atkinson's measurements, and indeed did so in some of his own work, seeing no need to reinvent the wheel. And measurements were essential to Aczel's approach to audio reviewing.

That said, he often wondered about Atkinson. Unlike, say, his opinion and personal experiences with Michael Fremer, Aczel did not appear to have any personal animus toward Atkinson. But he was puzzled by him, because he thought Atkinson had been in the field long enough, and was otherwise smart enough, to know that a lot of the claims of certain Stereophile reviewers were pure tommyrot, yet he continued to publish them and promote the magazine's approach.

Aczel did know Atkinson and, without a doubt, would have gleefully shared any negative attitudes he may have had toward him, hence my inference that Aczel neither considered him a fool nor an outright con man. But he was very critical of Stereophile's reliance on high-end advertising, and commented more than once that it was impossible to reconcile the gushing praise in many reviews with the clear evidence of lousy engineering that Atkinson's measurements made plain. (Atkinson's measurements appeared in a lot of reviews that he himself didn't write, but did contribute the numbers for.) Aczel certainly saw a connection between the glowing nature of some reviews and the advertising presence of the manufacturer. So while I'm not in a position to condemn Atkinson, I also have to wonder. But then, I have a naturally suspicious mind.

I've had the same opinion of JA as Peter Aczel for the most part. And the same puzzlement. The easy explanation that fits is you don't kill the goose that laid the golden egg. He also seemed to allow the reviewer to have complete say in the review. He sometimes noted bad results, but would say it didn't seem to bother the reviewer. Stereophile was not just the first subjectivist magazine, it was the longest lived and most successful. I wonder if JGH had maintained control for a couple more decades how he might have altered course. There are hints in statements by Holt he regretted what Stereophile did to the audio world.

 

[PierreV]

That said, he often wondered about Atkinson. Unlike, say, his opinion and personal experiences with Michael Fremer, Aczel did not appear to have any personal animus toward Atkinson.

Spot the difference

 

[LTig]

New platforms like this one will break the unhealthy relationship, as long as there is complete ongoing transparency.

Anytime a product is submitted for review from a manufacturer and not required to be returned, this needs to be stated.
Anytime a product is gifted, this needs to be stated.
Where a product fails or is faulty on the test bench and a replacement is required to finish the review, this needs to be stated.

I second that, but AFAIK this is what stereophile usually does (they have a set of rules which I can agree with). JA even states when he measures a different unit than the subjective reviewer used, as he did in the current review of the ML.

 

[restorer-john]

The easy explanation that fits is you don't kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

Or simply not biting the hand that feeds you.

At least there are technical measurements, I wonder who, or if, anyone will step up when JA retires. Perhaps the magazine will have ceased to exist or it may simply become a completely subjectively driven publication.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Or simply not biting the hand that feeds you.

At least there are technical measurements, I wonder who, or if, anyone will step up when JA retires. Perhaps the magazine will have ceased to exist or it may simply become a completely subjectively driven publication.

I've wondered the same thing. Especially sad if they don't continue with speaker measurements. I suppose when JA's measurements of currently reviewed gear is out of the pipeline we'll find out.