BeeKay
Major Contributor
Depends on the paycheck, I guess. There easily could be 20.000 reasons make one consider that dignity isn’t all too important.
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Stereophile doubles down on the snake oil!
- Thread starter mcdn
- Start date
- Status
Look I can totally understand on being a shill, but at least have the dignity to grow some thick skin while doing it.
My suspicion is that writing for Stereophile attains more fame in our small community than remuneration.
And I suspect some come with their own means of living and are not depending on the magazine to put groceries in the fridge.
But I'll also bet that the full-timers with managerial responsibilities work on short commons in the hopes of keeping everything afloat. There was a time when Stereophile was a mimeographed newsletter published "at random" (as Peter Schickele would have said) and it may someday be little more than that again. I doubt Gordon Holt was making any money on it for most of its early years, even after it started attracting advertisers.
The issue is the same for all niche activities that are hobbies for the subscribers (if not for the providers). The wristwatch hobby is far more robust than the audio hobby, but the main magazines are no different--forced, as they see it, to act as shills for the advertisers who are their actual customers. Few trust them as a true journalistic source (though the ethics of journalism seem to be under attack on all fronts). I was in Switzerland about a decade back, and recall a conversation with the son of a watch company owner from back before the Quartz Crisis. He thought the magazines were all totally corrupt and could never be counted on to report the doings of the watch industry without bias and sanitation. Most expert collectors ignore the commercial magazines, though they might read the user-group magazines like the National Association of Watch and Clock Collectors rag.
But the old adage goes like this: Journalists get everything right except in those topics about which we, the readers, are expert.
Most of Stereophile, however, is editorial and not journalistic, and as long as the writing clearly distinguishes fact from opinion, which it admittedly often does not, I can live with it.
Rick "who has never seen good journalism in his area of expertise--not once" Denney
Last edited:
Stereophile disables article comments ~just before they publish the review for the Audio Note speaker recently referenced. Coincidence?
Out of curiosity, does Audio Note UK buy ads in Stereophile?
Out of curiosity, does Audio Note UK buy ads in Stereophile?
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2020
- Messages
- 195
- Likes
- 1,365
I described the suckout as "small" because while it is 5dB deep, it occupies a very narrow bandwidth. Not only will this make it relatively difficult to hear, fig.5 in the measurements sidebar shows that this suckout fills in more than 10° to the speaker's sides. This is relevant because the manufacturer strongly recommends that this speaker not be toed-in to the listening position. With the speaker positioned in a room corner, which is mandated by the manufacturer, and the microphone positioned beyond the Schroeder distance, the suckout is absent. This is shown in fig.7 in the measurements sidebar - see https://www.stereophile.com/content/audio-note-espx-ltd-field-coil-loudspeaker-measurements .
John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2020
- Messages
- 195
- Likes
- 1,365
MattHooper
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 10,949
- Likes
- 19,449
People here essentially asking Stereophile or John A to say “ this is a piece of crap” STILL don’t get it. It’s amazing.
It’s not simply some nefarious protection of advertisers.
It’s that Stereophile REALLY DOES have a different approach to reviewing gear than ASR.
A place like ASR takes a measurement/criteria-driven approach: whether it’s electronics or loudspeakers there’s a criteria held as “good measurements” against which all things are judged, and this criteria is used to judge equipment “ good or bad” or “ better or worse.”
Stereophile has a DIFFERENT approach, that they really believe in and adhere to:
Measurements don’t necessarily tell the whole story - what ultimately counts is “ how it sounds” to the listener or a reviewer, and subjective impressions are the ultimate arbiter. JA himself has numerous times indicated that he found some loudspeakers to still sound quite compelling, despite anomalies he has measured.
Loudspeakers are not evaluated ultimately on how they measure, but rather how they sound to the reviewer(s). Stereophile is not about saying “ we have a criteria by which we’re going to judge speakers great or crap” but rather “ there’s a great many different speaker designs out there, we are going to investigate them and tell you how they sound. If our descriptions are accurate enough, you can get an idea as to whether the speaker will appeal to you or not.”
That’s why, to the degree stereophile ends up ranking speakers at all in recommended components, they are clearly ranked by the subjective impressions and not on the measurements.
Does JA after all this time have some personal views of how he would generally like to see an amplifier or speaker measure - certain best practises he himself would prefer to see a show up in the measurements?
No doubt. And this often shows up in his comments, in the measurement section.
He will talk about things that he found troubling, or that might make a device a bit more finicky to use, etc.
But he’s NOT there in the measurements generally speaking to renter verdict like “ this is a piece of crap.” The measurements are there for you the reader to render that judgment if you are measurements driven and that’s how you feel.
But it’s not how Stereophile is ranking things, and it’s not how JA wants things ranked either clearly as he was the editor of Stereophile for so many years and it was clear the subjective impressions were given precedence through this whole time.
Of course anyone at ASR can reject this approach as obviously most here do.
But this strange hand-ringing over “ why doesn’t John Atkinson explicitly trash a loudspeaker with some wonky measurements in the measurement section” is just a manifest failure to understand the sincere difference in approach Stereophile staff takes to evaluating audio gear.
It’s not simply some nefarious protection of advertisers.
It’s that Stereophile REALLY DOES have a different approach to reviewing gear than ASR.
A place like ASR takes a measurement/criteria-driven approach: whether it’s electronics or loudspeakers there’s a criteria held as “good measurements” against which all things are judged, and this criteria is used to judge equipment “ good or bad” or “ better or worse.”
Stereophile has a DIFFERENT approach, that they really believe in and adhere to:
Measurements don’t necessarily tell the whole story - what ultimately counts is “ how it sounds” to the listener or a reviewer, and subjective impressions are the ultimate arbiter. JA himself has numerous times indicated that he found some loudspeakers to still sound quite compelling, despite anomalies he has measured.
Loudspeakers are not evaluated ultimately on how they measure, but rather how they sound to the reviewer(s). Stereophile is not about saying “ we have a criteria by which we’re going to judge speakers great or crap” but rather “ there’s a great many different speaker designs out there, we are going to investigate them and tell you how they sound. If our descriptions are accurate enough, you can get an idea as to whether the speaker will appeal to you or not.”
That’s why, to the degree stereophile ends up ranking speakers at all in recommended components, they are clearly ranked by the subjective impressions and not on the measurements.
Does JA after all this time have some personal views of how he would generally like to see an amplifier or speaker measure - certain best practises he himself would prefer to see a show up in the measurements?
No doubt. And this often shows up in his comments, in the measurement section.
He will talk about things that he found troubling, or that might make a device a bit more finicky to use, etc.
But he’s NOT there in the measurements generally speaking to renter verdict like “ this is a piece of crap.” The measurements are there for you the reader to render that judgment if you are measurements driven and that’s how you feel.
But it’s not how Stereophile is ranking things, and it’s not how JA wants things ranked either clearly as he was the editor of Stereophile for so many years and it was clear the subjective impressions were given precedence through this whole time.
Of course anyone at ASR can reject this approach as obviously most here do.
But this strange hand-ringing over “ why doesn’t John Atkinson explicitly trash a loudspeaker with some wonky measurements in the measurement section” is just a manifest failure to understand the sincere difference in approach Stereophile staff takes to evaluating audio gear.
Last edited:
Stereophile certainly is different they rely on advertising revenue.
Keith
Keith
HalSF
Senior Member
Great post.
I’ve had a lot of Frank Constanza grievances about Stereophile and the wavering utility of its subjectivity over the years (and even in this thread!), but I’ve also found a lot of value there.
The prevailing cynical and contemptuous attitudes here that equate any reviewing of audio gear for meager pay in a capitalist enterprise, one that also carries paid advertising, with automatically corrupt and on-the-take payola, is the sign of a severe and paranoid case of Internet poisoning.
MattHooper
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 10,949
- Likes
- 19,449
Yup.
Cynicism shouldn’t be mistaken for critical analysis.
But it goes down easily when it’s the prevailing mood of the crowd. (And I myself have certainly indulged in cynical takes here as well - cynicism is essentially the
“junk food” for the skeptic).
Yes. Everything makes a huge difference to stereophile, "even my wife in the kitchen hears the difference this power cord makes". Speaker reviews might have some merit but when you cant see the line between bullshit (cable reveiws etc etc) and truth (speakers maybe) how can you believe anything?
MattHooper
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 10,949
- Likes
- 19,449
Use some discretion.
If you are in the camp where you value measurements, then you can look to the reviews that supply measurements.
And for a reader who is not into measurements, they can still use discretion in certain ways, for instance: noting whether a certain reviewer’s descriptions of loudspeakers match their own experience and so they might build some level of confidence in that reviewer.
Both approaches have worked for me.
I don’t see the need for an all or nothing approach myself: some of the stuff in Stereophile I find useless; some of it I find useful. (And ASR simply doesn’t cover all of the gear that I and many other audiophiles are interested in).
Automatically? Any reviewing? No. It took stereopile (and many other rags) many years and many reviews that were utterly preposterous. And I dont care if the reason is corruption, ego, or self delusion the result is the same. Reviews that arnt worth the paper there written on.
ASR, Erins audio, and even our own Siy write proper reviews.
And how does that tell me when a liar is not lying.
That's pretty much my view. Back in the mists of time there were proper reviewers like Hugh Ford and Angus McKenzie MBE who made measurements and explained what they meant. The subjective part of their reviews was limited to comments about the ergonomics, positioning of knobs and switches and about build quality and serviceability.
S.
MattHooper
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 10,949
- Likes
- 19,449
How do I know you’re not lying about the view you’re putting forth here?
How about a heuristic: you can take somebody’s stated position as sincere unless you have good reason to believe otherwise.
I have not for instance, over many years of written reviews or videos, seen any good evidence that Herb Reichert or Steve Guttenberg are misrepresenting their actual views on audio equipment. You may disagree with their approach, but unless you’ve got good evidence to the contrary, you’re just dealing in cynicism if you assume they are “lying.”
Again: use some discretion. If you want to know where a reviewer is telling you something accurate read a review in which measurements are supplied as well, and then you can judge their accuracy.
That’s what matters right?
Trying to chase down or second-guess somebody’s internal motivation doesn’t seem necessary.
And I noticed a strange inconsistency that often pops up on ASR:
We are constantly told here about just how powerful bias effects are when it comes to sighted listening, and how many audiophiles come to believe in all sorts of pseudoscience and woo woo on the basis of these bias effects.
But as soon as it comes to Stereophile or subjective reviewers, suddenly people leap past “ taken in by a bias effect” to “LIARS!”
This is what I mean where cynicism seems to take over from more nuanced analysis.
Why in the world couldn’t you just recognize that reviewers using methods uncontrolled for biased effects, aren’t just falling for bias effects? And are therefore quite sincere in what they believe they are hearing? It’s absolutely prevalent in the audiophile world and many of these audiophiles go on to write for subjective magazines.
Really? Wow, thats grasping. Saying a power cable increases soundstage is not a view its a lie. Learn the difference.
Is stereopile paying you or are you just a fan boy?
Matt has a point they might not be liars just incompetent.
Keith
Keith
MattHooper
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 10,949
- Likes
- 19,449
Still missing the point.
This is where cynicism “ jumps the shark.”
Kieth gets the point.
So after you measure a speaker with really crap results, the best thing you can say to inform your reader is, (from my earlier post),
"Then onto John Atkinson artfully dodges the bullet over the speakers poor measurements, by calling it "somewhat idiosyncratic" with great care
being needed for placement/setup. "
Somewhat Idiosyncratic ??? Stereophile subscribers deserve better, more honest reporting sir.
Even worst is the speakers are priced at least 10x what they reasonably should cost.
A $65,000 a pair, passive, with one 1" Tweeter, and one 8" field coil woofer, in a 31" x 14" x 10" Birch Plywood monkey coffin ???
What could possible make this thing that expensive?
Yes Matt, we are asking for some integrity and honestly in their reporting.
Once again you ride the fence supporting the subjectives that have ruined almost any reputation our passion holds in the scientific community.
In educated circles we are laughed at and ridiculed for the nonsense that gets published as fact.
- Status
Similar threads
