Stereophile and Absolute Sound Editorials

[jsrtheta]

Rich's description of the validity of the various topologies of circuit design at hand was a real asset to the competence of engineers involved and an objective correlation between reproduction accuracy and those methods. Poor methodology and favorable opinions still remained because… well, because.

One thing I liked about Aczel was when he contacted a designer, informed him of how poorly the product performed, and offered to forego the review.

The designer told him to go ahead and print it. And the review was unfavorable, to say the least. But Aczel showed some grace there that is rare, particularly in the internet age.

 

[pseudoid]

So .... don't drown your lifeguard.

This statement needs a wee- bit of historical perspective; else; this is exactly what we are doing.
Remembering an era bygone where the primary source of information related to audio was through periodicals.
I can't go as far back as "High Fidelity" magazine but besides word-of-mouth or the friendly record store, StereoReview, Audio, Stereophile (etc.) magazines were worth the ink they were all printed with.
Beyond just the editorials and reviews, they were fully educational and sometimes even stupid yet funny!

Does anyone remember what was the dealio with the "AudioCheapskate" disappearance?

 

[anmpr1]

A car can steer prefectly, but how do you measure the steering wheel feedback other than subjectively? What makes the BRZ better than a Miata or vice versa?

Certainly, because steering 'feel' is a feeling, it's subjective from the driver's standpoint. But it is a repeatable thing. Blindfolded (not that you would do it that way) any driver would be quite capable of reliably distinguishing the steering feel between, say, an MG Midget and a 1965 Dodge pickup truck (to cite two examples that I've owned). Just because something has a subjective component doesn't mean the resulting sensation is chimera, and therefore can't be reliably determined.

As to what makes one type of steering 'feel' better, or different? That is totally objective, traced in-line, starting with the type of tires (size and rubber formulation, tread pattern etc) via the type of suspension used (multi-link, rigid axle, double-wishbone et al), and finally up through the actual steering mech (power assisted, rack and pinion, variable ratio, recirculating ball and so forth).

In any case, the point is not that subjective stuff isn't important. The point is that the car guys don't make stuff up when it comes to handling and 'feel'. Audio Influencers simply make stuff up, and then expect you not to call them out over it.

Another important thing to notice with wholly 'subjective' reviews is that, at their core, they do not discuss the gear per se, but rather they go on and on about how the gear makes them 'feel', psychologically and emotionally. I get that. I'm sure a twenty thousand dollar Accuphase integrated amp in a rosewood sleeve inspires an heightened sense of pride of ownership, and looks better on one's equipment rack, than a three hundred and fifty dollar black plastic box from Malaysia.

And just one other point: while a reviewer at C/D might tell you that, subjectively, a Continental GT will make you feel like you are a millionaire (which you probably are, if you own one), he won't tell you that special floor mats woven from Tibetan Yak fur, or silver wire battery connects with special screw on terminals, or even the optional Bentley Breitling, will make the car faster, or corner better.

 

[steve59]

Thanks for taking my questions seriously and answering them. I don't have to agree with everything, but understanding the motivation helps. Often what happens when I ask a question on the forum i'll get answers that show me I didn't pose the question clearly enough that i'll get replies that pull the conversation further away from what I initially asked, it's on me to have the patience to stay on point and the better I get at it the less I think my questions will frustrate.

 

[dtaylo1066]

Very well. I apologize, and rescind the "troll" accusation. It seems that you are serious, and not simply trying to cause trouble.

Let me make an attempt to be clearer and more precise. I'll warn you ahead of time that it won't be easy. I'm not a clear and orderly thinker.

This matter does not involve "ragging on products clearly aimed at a different market". It also does not involve a "product not intended for members of this forum". Are we not allowed to purchase any of these products because we are involved in this forum? Does our membership here act as a restriction, labeling us as an illegitimate segment of the population? Would it be acceptable to refuse us entry to a high-end salon simply because we belonged to ASR? More specifically, can we (or anyone else) not criticize an object simply because it's beyond our purchasing power?

I don't think so. Notice that I am not saying that it is legitimate to criticize the very existence of some object simply because the price is steep. Not at all. CEOs have their jets, and rich young studs have their Veyrons.

However ..... any product on the market is subject to scrutiny by the whole population, not just the intended market. How many pharmacological products have received criticism and subsequent withdrawal from the market when the intended market was quite small and specific? How many automobiles - even very expensive ones - have been criticized for defective and outright dangerous characteristics when the intended market was very, very small? Are you implying that people who do not intend to ever fly cannot have any stake in the fiasco at Boeing?

Why is the interest legitimate? It is legitimate because the designers, the manufacturers and the purveyors will continue to churn out products that are unacceptable to other segments, if not brought to check. Neither the Ford Pinto nor the Chevrolet Cavalier were expensive niche products. However, to a certain number of purchasers, they were either defective or deadly.

You have said that we are "ragging on products". I admit that it appears that way ..... but really, it's not. The product is the effluent. The real problem is the sewer. IOW, we're not just ragging on the products, we're ragging on the unscrupulous people that push them as something they're not. In the case of the cars, it was a corporate mentality that put profit before either safety or suitability, and which initially denied culpability.

In the case of some hi-fi products, there is a distinct lack of transparency (to say the least!) regarding performance, not even addressing cost effectiveness. High-priced gear that could not be legitimized based on its performance is legitimized instead on intangibles. ("Oh, the air, the liquidity, the blackness between the notes!")
In your example of the Rolex, it has been pointed out that Rolex collectors do not believe that the Rolex is more accurate than a cheap Casio. It has not been purported to be so. Neither has it been reviewed and found to exhibit "air" and "liquidity", so to speak. If you wish to collect Rolexes, you may be in an exclusive club, but it's a legitimate club and is not based on deceptive drivel. In the same way, if you wish to collect audio products because they are "hi-fi jewelry", go right ahead.

But the gripe here at ASR is that purveyors of certain products imbue those products with characteristics that do not exist. Yes, in some cases it is the "air", the "liquidity" and the "blackness between notes". This sort of crap is not aimed at well-heeled aficionados, it is aimed at people looking for, quite simply, a legitimately better product. Have they been duped? Yes, indeed they have.

Now ....... in other instances the case is clearer; the product is being sold as possessing a level of performance that it simply DOES NOT HAVE. Notice that there have been both inexpensive as well as a few expensive item reviewed at ASR, and there has been frank assessment of each. Some just plainly do not perform. That's all there is to it. But there has also been a tendency to criticize products that are under-performing in relation to price. Why? It's simple; if you pay more, you expect more. (These products aren't collectors' items, they are products put to use by the purchaser.) Do you have the opinion that this higher expectation by customers is illegitimate?

To recap:

1) Disingenuous people are preying on customers in this area of commerce.
2) The customers most vulnerable are those who equate higher price with higher performance.
3) Disingenuous people, true to their nature, create a world of illusion in order to advance their purposes and avert valid criticism.
4) Any product that does not perform as advertised is a failure, whether cheap or expensive.
5) However, the higher the price, the greater the culpability.

Through all this mishmash, no one is denying you the right to purchase what you wish to purchase. It's just that the appearance of making apologies for an unsavory segment of the hi-fi business doesn't make for good tender here. If you expect that to not produce "outright hostility", then you've seriously misjudged the purposes of the people here. That, and your description of people here as "haters" didn't make for a smooth transition, either. Both of these are tactics of trolls, so you can understand why I thought that you were one. (It's not like we don't have a constant tide of them around here.) You (obviously) don't appreciate being denigrated, and (obviously) neither do the people here.

I'll repeat what I said before: we might turn out to be the best friends you'll ever have. I hope so. Jim

A downside and byproduct of capitalism, free markets and marketing is that disingenuous people prey on customers. And not all or disingenuous. Many audio companies are founded on the passion of their owners, not the competence of their design capabilities. You see this in many small industries. "I love audio, fly fishing, skiing, surfing, etc. so much that I can make a better amplifier, ski, surfboard etc. than anyone." I am not talking about producst that are a clear scam. But I do not believe that folks at some of the targets of mockery on this forum -- Schiit, PS Audio, etc. -- do not believe their products are of the highest quality.

 

[maltux]

As I told my wife I buy it on occasion for the pictures not the articles.

 

[pseudoid]

A downside and byproduct of capitalism, free markets and marketing is that disingenuous people prey on customers.

There used to be a Dallas clothier called Symms and their byline was "An educated consumer is our best customer". I dunno if they are still around.
Caveat Emptor goes a long way in being a wise consumer.
Posts blaming capitalism be damned!
There is nothing that stipulates that you can not be a hunter, if you play the game right.
But expecting others to do your bidding-war against disingenuous people is playing the victim-card.
There are disingenuous people both as sellers and buyers alike.
That's why ASR is such a great site, as it allows us (the ultimate consumeR of products) to make the educated purchases.

Example? I bought a pos Polk R350 and it was my OWN dumb*ss move to make but once-bitten-twice-shy tells me I will never entertain another Polk product. ymmv

 

[MaxBuck]

This hobby is about music and the reproduction thereof. I

So you say. is the rolex owner hobby to tell time, i can call bs also

I actually disagree that the major content of Stereophile and TAS are about "music and the reproduction thereof." With notable exceptions of Messrs. Rubinson and Atkinson, the writers at these publications are about "style," prestige and the perception of wealth conveyed by the products they review. No one who is truly concerned with music reproduction per se would get into the majority of the crap that appears in the pages of those publications.

 

[Robin L]

I actually disagree that the major content of Stereophile and TAS are about "music and the reproduction thereof." With notable exceptions of Messrs. Rubinson and Atkinson, the writers at these publications are about "style," prestige and the perception of wealth conveyed by the products they review. No one who is truly concerned with music reproduction per se would get into the majority of the crap that appears in the pages of those publications.

"Tone"'s gotta be the ultimate "Status-Back Baby" audio rag [or pixel dish, I suppose]. All status objects, all the time with matching advertisements. Free to anybody who desires the audio equivalent of "food porn":

TONEAudio MAGAZINE

www.tonepublications.com

 

[pablolie]

I did read the Absolute Fartsound editorial and was embarrassed for the writer. "Accelerating Returns" is a top candidate for the mental diarrhea award of the year. Ouch. I barely made it past the title line. It was like a prostitute promoting her pimp. It was painful. Sorry to be crude.

I decided on the spot my subscription will run out. When an editorial writer is so clearly a pawn for the $, come on. The fact yesterday's review declares something audiophile perfection yet tomorrow's review obsoletes it... that is what totally destroys any credibility in the audiophile hobby. But the Absolute Sound Info-editorial was totally over the top.

The Stereophile editorial wasn't quite as embarrassingly idiotic, but it contradicted itself. I do like Stereophile, because they are not unwilling to contradict themselves with measurements and subjective impressions, and at times I have agreed when listening to the product discussed.

Unlike Amir -who I don't think infallible- these publications seem to have stopped publishing any review that concludes the equipment is a piece of overpriced and under-performing trash unless it sets their place on fire or something. It seems the measurements provide some cautionary info for anyone that bothers to read them (they are smaller print), but the subjective conclusion is always a recommendation in some way ("I enjoyed my time listening to the XYZs and I'd recommend them to anyone that wants to bludgeon their mother in law with 50lbs of metal")... I do respect subjective reviews, but for them to be a trusted source they sometimes need to call stuff for what it is, not try to always find some obscure merit in anything they review even when it's smoldering with incompetence sprinkled on top of good intent.

 

[Robin L]

. . . ("I enjoyed my time listening to the XYZs and I'd recommend them to anyone that wants to bludgeon their mother in law with 50lbs of metal")... I do respect subjective reviews, but for them to be a trusted source they sometimes need to call stuff for what it is, not try to always find some obscure merit in anything they review even when it's smoldering with incompetence sprinkled on top of good intent.

". . . although stone deaf for the last 68 years, my grandmother noticed the enhanced midrange detail of the HDS 10,000 cable lifters from her apartment in Cleveland . . . "

 

[steve59]

I had hoped the subjective reviews with measurements would provide a way for average consumers to understand how measurements translate to sound. There was an old mag called audio that was more measurement based that would try to communicate that and some reviewers on stereophile do help me, by reading their reviews then reading the measurements what they personally prefer, JA of stereophile does. Now many reviewers measure before listening to either get the best sound, or not look stupid once measurements come out. Some of these guys are talented journalists with entertaining personalities, I forget Cory's last name.

I still think there's more work to be done to learn where measurements become inaudible, why speaker/ amp matching can be important with some and not others and on this forum a little p&t for the curious.

What keeps these magazines fun for me is the new music they introduce, the occasional diamond in the rough, and when they share their personal adventures with me.

 

[anmpr1]

"Tone"'s gotta be the ultimate "Status-Back Baby" audio rag [or pixel dish, I suppose]. All status objects, all the time with matching advertisements. Free to anybody who desires the audio equivalent of "food porn":

I'd really be interested in knowing about any compensation deals these sites have. Obviously there are the 'freebies', gear that influencers get to play with..., but freebies alone can't keep a magazine or Web presence solvent. The only way to explain it is what we know it to be: Stereophile and Absolute Sound and the others, are simply the advertising arm of the manufacturers. The irony is, that is what caused Gordon Holt to found Stereophile in the first place. To get away from manufacturer and advertiser influence.

When radio was king, payola was common. Eventually the practice was made illegal. Illegal payola consisted of direct payments from record companies to DJs. To get around it, money (and in-kind reimbursement) was circulated via third parties.

I follow some of the YT 'guitar channels', and it was so bad (re: dishonest) that four of five of the best known presenters got together to discuss how guitar companies were sending out gear, often gratis, in order to get their wares on the Tube, in exchange for a review. And some stated that if the review wasn't 100% positive, the free flow of goods stopped. Their solution was to challenge all like presenters to declare up front how they received the gear--purchase, gift, loan, discount, etc.

A few years ago there was a situation at Stereophile where one of the influencers was given an expensive Ortofon cartridge to 'review'. As I recall, the influencer lost it, or misplaced it, and forgot about it. Ortofon evidently never inquired about the item. Influencer discovered the cartridge in a closet, somewhere in his house, and a year later wrote up a belated review.

Let me pose a question: Does anyone imagine that Ortofon, or any company for that matter, would send you or me a multi-thousand dollar item for home audition, and then never ask for it back? That alone should raise some flags. And if you were 'given' a several thousand dollar item, how in the world could you 'forget about it'? How likely would that be? I guess it would be easy, if you had a dozen other expensive items being sent to you, to use for free.

 

[Daverich4]

Does anyone remember what was the dealio with the "AudioCheapskate" disappearance?

He left Stereophile in 2015 amid claims that freelance writers were not getting paid in a timely manner.

 

[pseudoid]

He left Stereophile in 2015 amid claims that freelance writers were not getting paid in a timely manner.

That sounds a lot better than the gossip that I had gotten about some accusations of sexual misconduct.
I prefer your answer much better because I actually liked his column, as I am a cheapskate when it comes to being a consumeR.
10q

 

[Hogues]

What I found interesting is that the TAS editorial seems to be a “repackaging” of an article from 2014:

From The Editor: The Law of Accelerating Returns - The Absolute Sound

From The Editor: The Law of Accelerating Returns -

www.theabsolutesound.com

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

What I found interesting is that the TAS editorial seems to be a “repackaging” of an article from 2014:

From The Editor: The Law of Accelerating Returns - The Absolute Sound

From The Editor: The Law of Accelerating Returns -

www.theabsolutesound.com

That article is such nonsense.

 

[rwortman]

What I found interesting is that the TAS editorial seems to be a “repackaging” of an article from 2014:

From The Editor: The Law of Accelerating Returns - The Absolute Sound

From The Editor: The Law of Accelerating Returns -

www.theabsolutesound.com

Interesting. These magazines are getting lazier every year. Every few months there is another ”recommended components” or “editors choice” issue that is mostly a reprint of the last one. There have been things still on the TAS list that hadn’t been manufactured for years.

 

[HammerSandwich]

If hifi spending does give accelerated returns, I guess I should quit the hobby. Wilson Chronosonics et al. will never be in my budget, so it would be wiser to invest in a hobby which can provide some value.

Great job promoting the industry, TAS.

 

[TimF]

All magazines are predominately advertising, both the obvious ads and the articles. You might as well be a hick walking through the carnival midway. Internet reviews are predominantly advertising. Advertising is advertising. Advertising copy is enticement. Anyone older than 15 years old ought to damn well know this.