Stereophile doubles down on the snake oil!

[MattHooper]

So even if you accept that it's all in genuine good faith I think "irresponsible" is fair.

Sure. As I said from the beginning that speaks to methods. It’s of course perfectly fine to criticize the methods, which we do here all the time.

I’m just finding some of the suggestions about the motives to be on shakier ground.

Cheers!

 

[kemmler3D]

Sure. As I said from the beginning that speaks to methods. It’s of course perfectly fine to criticize the methods, which we do here all the time.

I’m just finding some of the suggestions about the motives to be on shakier ground.

Cheers!

Sure, but I think you can understand that the methods applied seem to vary considerably depending on a publication's fiscal relationship to brands, and so speculation tends to churn on. I won't trot out the famous Upton Sinclair quote, but you know what I mean.

 

[Mart68]

Sure. As I said from the beginning that speaks to methods. It’s of course perfectly fine to criticize the methods, which we do here all the time.

I’m just finding some of the suggestions about the motives to be on shakier ground.

Cheers!

I don't disagree with you regarding speakers, but we have to accept that no Stereophile reviewer is unaware of cognitive bias.

That means when it comes to reviewing electronics, and cables, and equipment supports, racks, isolation, there is a big problem.

In the distant past, as noted, magazines confined themselves to measurement of electronics, a review of ergonomics, and a listening test only as a sanity check. No magazine reviewed signal cables, let alone power cables as it was accepted that it was pointless.

Take the review of the TEAC VRDS-701T which got a rave review and is in the Stereophile 'Class A' recommended component list.

Gramophone Dreams #88: TEAC VRDS-701T CD transport | Stereophile.com

It's the late 1980s, and I'm soldering tube amplifiers on a plywood bench. I decide on a whim that it's time to break down and buy a CD player to supplement the Dynaco tuner and Dual cassette deck in my workroom music system. I was a slow starter with digital because of my early take on CD...

www.stereophile.com

''Excavating and presenting these microdetails of timing and texture is what the $2700 TEAC specialized in.
It made digital more compelling than I thought it could be. I never anticipated this much drive, density, inner detail, or tone truthfulness from a digital source. It only took 40 years, but CDs are finally being reproduced in a manner I consider comparable to analog.''

I own that unit and did back to back sighted comparison with the Audiolab transport at one fifth the price. No difference.
I blind tested it against a £1K streamer, same CD copied onto hard drive, instant switching, I could not tell them apart. Entirely the result we would expect. So is the subjective review misleading the reader? There's no doubt the answer is 'yes'.

Does the reviewer know that he is being misleading? We don't know for sure, but it is hard to believe that he does not.

Does such equipment need to be reviewed that way? No. And it was not, in the past. What is the value of such reviews to the reader? Zero.

 

[Kremmen]

I don't disagree with you regarding speakers, but we have to accept that no Stereophile reviewer is unaware of cognitive bias.

That means when it comes to reviewing electronics, and cables, and equipment supports, racks, isolation, there is a big problem.

In the distant past, as noted, magazines confined themselves to measurement of electronics, a review of ergonomics, and a listening test only as a sanity check. No magazine reviewed signal cables, let alone power cables as it was accepted that it was pointless.

Take the review of the TEAC VRDS-701T which got a rave review and is in the Stereophile 'Class A' recommended component list.

Gramophone Dreams #88: TEAC VRDS-701T CD transport | Stereophile.com

It's the late 1980s, and I'm soldering tube amplifiers on a plywood bench. I decide on a whim that it's time to break down and buy a CD player to supplement the Dynaco tuner and Dual cassette deck in my workroom music system. I was a slow starter with digital because of my early take on CD...

www.stereophile.com

''Excavating and presenting these microdetails of timing and texture is what the $2700 TEAC specialized in.
It made digital more compelling than I thought it could be. I never anticipated this much drive, density, inner detail, or tone truthfulness from a digital source. It only took 40 years, but CDs are finally being reproduced in a manner I consider comparable to analog.''

I own that unit and did back to back sighted comparison with the Audiolab transport at one fifth the price. No difference.
I blind tested it against a £1K streamer, same CD copied onto hard drive, instant switching, I could not tell them apart. Entirely the result we would expect. So is the subjective review misleading the reader? There's no doubt the answer is 'yes'.

Does the reviewer know that he is being misleading? We don't know for sure, but it is hard to believe that he does not.

Does such equipment need to be reviewed that way? No. And it was not, in the past. What is the value of such reviews to the reader? Zero.

I've just read the article you linked to, and despite it not being without some merit (the technical info on the CD transport, for example, was interesting), passages such as the following exemplify the worst hyperbole present on Stereophile:

"With the TEAC transport, my reference Lina DAC took violin matters one step further, bringing vivid presence and sharper definition to the high-energy harmonics boiling off Perlman's violin. This combination showed—or rather put on aural display—how the unerring accuracy of Perlman's playing is balanced by his soulful humanity—how his technical skill never overrides his spiritual worldview. I could tell how the microphone was placed at just the right angle to face the instrument, how the beaming high notes were carefully balanced against the rest of the spectrum. I swear I could hear right into the f-holes. With the Lina DAC and 701T transport, I was aware of the internal volume of Perlman's violin."

What a load of bollocks.

 

[sergeauckland]

I've just read the article you linked to, and despite it not being without some merit (the technical info on the CD transport, for example, was interesting), passages such as the following exemplify the worst hyperbole present on Stereophile:

"With the TEAC transport, my reference Lina DAC took violin matters one step further, bringing vivid presence and sharper definition to the high-energy harmonics boiling off Perlman's violin. This combination showed—or rather put on aural display—how the unerring accuracy of Perlman's playing is balanced by his soulful humanity—how his technical skill never overrides his spiritual worldview. I could tell how the microphone was placed at just the right angle to face the instrument, how the beaming high notes were carefully balanced against the rest of the spectrum. I swear I could hear right into the f-holes. With the Lina DAC and 701T transport, I was aware of the internal volume of Perlman's violin."

What a load of bollocks.

To me, purple prose like that demeans the publication. It's so obviously padding as the reviewer is commissioned to provide a certain number of words. It's information-free content, like the empty calories of so much fast-food. Give the space taken up by that sort of rubbish for a few more graphs. I might then begin to have a bit more respect for Stereophile and HiFi News that do exactly the same.

S.

 

[pinger]

I read Stereophile just to keep up on whats going on in the world of Audio. Component reviews I'll read some to get a sense of the build quality etc of a component. As soon as they start the sound quality discussion I bail. ( unless they are speakers of course)

 

[teched58]

To me, purple prose like that demeans the publication. It's so obviously padding as the reviewer is commissioned to provide a certain number of words. It's information-free content, like the empty calories of so much fast-food. Give the space taken up by that sort of rubbish for a few more graphs. I might then begin to have a bit more respect for Stereophile and HiFi News that do exactly the same.

S.

It becomes very easy to understand when one accepts the premise that the Stereophiles of the world are not writing articles for their readers. They are writing them for their advertisers.

These days, it's widely accepted that FB's audience aren't the customers, they are the product. Likewise, Stereophile's readers are not the customers, they are the product. (Advertisers are the customers.)

 

[Sal1950]

Does the reviewer know that he is being misleading? We don't know for sure, but it is hard to believe that he does not.

''Excavating and presenting these microdetails of timing and texture is what the $2700 TEAC specialized in.
It made digital more compelling than I thought it could be. I never anticipated this much drive, density, inner detail, or tone truthfulness from a digital source. It only took 40 years, but CDs are finally being reproduced in a manner I consider comparable to analog.''

It's all about the marketing and tickling the advertisers.
As in the above quote they never miss a chance to take a BS shot at the sound of digital and support the sales of 5 and 6 $digit turntables, needles, and all the rest. That's where the big money is and about all you can read about in Stereophile and TAS. How sad it is they have encouraged the spending of huge dollars on vinyl by spreading the lie that it sounds better than digital, that's just so much crap that it drives me up a wall.

 

[JiiPee]

It's all about the marketing and tickling the advertisers.
As in the above quote they never miss a chance to take a BS shot at the sound of digital and support the sales of 5 and 6 $digit turntables, needles, and all the rest. That's where the big money is and about all you can read about in Stereophile and TAS. How sad it is they have encouraged the spending of huge dollars on vinyl by spreading the lie that it sounds better than digital, that's just so much crap that it drives me up a wall.

The big money in audio equipment sales is in 5 and 6$digit turntables? Really? Could You give some pointers to data supporting that.

 

[Sal1950]

The big money in audio equipment sales is in 5 and 6$digit turntables? Really? Could You give some pointers to data supporting that.

Really, what evidence would you like, do you read Stereophile or TAS?

Recommended Components 2025 Edition Turntables | Stereophile.com

Turntables: A+:

www.stereophile.com

 

[JiiPee]

Really, what evidence would you like, do you read Stereophile or TAS?

Recommended Components 2025 Edition Turntables | Stereophile.com

Turntables: A+:

www.stereophile.com

I would like to see the value of total sales of turntables in 5 to 6 digit price range as percentage of total HiFi equipment sales value in the same period.

 

[MattHooper]

Does the reviewer know that he is being misleading? We don't know for sure, but it is hard to believe that he does not.

This again is what I find puzzling.

We know that people fall for cognitive biases all the time. In precisely the scenarios in which these subjective reviewers are operating. And Stereophile (for many years now at least) is a magazine predicated on the primacy of informal listening to evaluate gear.

So it’s set up for reviewers to “ hear differences” in anything they review, just as it is for any other audiophile taking the same approach.

Are they aware that bias effects are possible?
Sure.

But on balance, if their views were that of Amir in terms of the unreliability of their method, they wouldn’t be writing for Stereophile in the first place.

They’re using the same methods that other
“ subjective-based” audiophiles are using, and they are getting the same type of results.
That’s the Occam's razor version of this.

And sometimes you’ll see some of these reviewers or maybe an editorial addressing the concerns about measurements and blind testing. And typically it will be some defense as to why blind testing nor measurements may not be sensitive to the things they are describing. One doesn’t have to leap to this as some knowing defence of nonsense, in order to protect advertisers.
It’s completely consonant with how motivated reasoning works - people looking for ways to justify what they believe. We see this all the time from average “golden ear” audiophiles who aren’t writing for magazines. So why would we think magazine writers would be exempt from bias effects, and motivated reasoning?

 

[kemmler3D]

This again is what I find puzzling.

We know that people fall for cognitive biases all the time. In precisely the scenarios in which these subjective reviewers are operating. And Stereophile (for many years now at least) is a magazine predicated on the primacy of informal listening to evaluate gear.

So it’s set up for reviewers to “ hear differences” in anything they review, just as it is for any other audiophile taking the same approach.

Are they aware that bias effects are possible?
Sure.

But on balance, if their views were that of Amir in terms of the unreliability of their method, they wouldn’t be writing for Stereophile in the first place.

They’re using the same methods that other
“ subjective-based” audiophiles are using, and they are getting the same type of results.
That’s the Occam's razor version of this.

And sometimes you’ll see some of these reviewers or maybe an editorial addressing the concerns about measurements and blind testing. And typically it will be some defense as to why blind testing nor measurements may not be sensitive to the things they are describing. One doesn’t have to leap to this as some knowing defence of nonsense, in order to protect advertisers.
It’s completely consonant with how motivated reasoning works - people looking for ways to justify what they believe. We see this all the time from average “golden ear” audiophiles who aren’t writing for magazines. So why would we think magazine writers would be exempt from bias effects, and motivated reasoning?

Certainly possible to reasonably believe it's done in good faith or not, you're right that payola is not a necessary factor to produce this stuff.

But we also know stereophile is not a charity... In this day and age consumer-hostile behavior driven by profit motive is pervasive and far from subtle. Is it any surprise if people tend to fit these credibility-stretching passages into the same rubric?

 

[Sal1950]

But on balance, if their views were that of Amir in terms of the unreliability of their method, they wouldn’t be writing for Stereophile in the first place.

Maybe that would be for the best, something I told Jim Austin straight up.

So why would we think magazine writers would be exempt from bias effects, and motivated reasoning?

I very much doubt bias takes a very large part with those mostly educated reviewers ,
It's much more about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[DMill]

Because professional reviewers (IMO) should know how the gear works to a reasonable extent beyond laypeople, and be aware of sighted bias as the likely cause of heard differences where no other plausible tangible cause can be proposed.

I think it might go beyond sighted bias to reviewers now having measured bias. It’s not difficult for anyone who understands the charts to listen to a speaker and say they now hear the measured imperfections. In one sense I do applaud Stereophile for asking reviewers to write impressions before they actually see JAs results. Do they cheat and do their own before JA does? I have no idea. Just saying, for argument sake, it’s easy to bash a chart that might be nearly impossible for humans to actually hear. SINAD numbers over 80ish are a perfect example of this.

 

[Sal1950]

I would like to see the value of total sales of turntables in 5 to 6 digit price range as percentage of total HiFi equipment sales value in the same period.

I think you'd be astounded.
The numbers of folk to whom these equipment prices is no issue is very large.
Take a cruise of US Audio Mart, I get their weakly emails just to drool over seeing how the other half lives.
I post somewhere here the other day, it absolutely amazes me how the deep pockets think nothing about buying and selling these hyper expensive
products very regularly to the tune of 30-40 % losses on the $5 and 6 figure gear.
But the audio world isn't alone, the same and more goes on with car collectors, etc.
Now where'd I put that lotto ticket.

 

[Sal1950]

Just saying, for argument sake, it’s easy to bash a chart that might be nearly impossible for humans to actually hear. SINAD numbers over 80ish are a perfect example of this.

Your correct but though our membership is often accused of this, having been here since about day 3, I'm not sure I can remember anyone saying they're dumping a 90 db SINAD DAC for one with a 105?. Now if they're buying something new, they might be looking for something with SOTA numbers. If my AVR NEEDS replacement, I will check our reviews and get the best measuring one I can afford, why shouldn't I ?
That's only common sense to me.

 

[DMill]

That's only common sense to me.

I 100% agree. I have used this site to help guide me in every purchase I’ve made since joining and have nothing but sincere thanks to Amir and the members including yourself. My point was more about doing subjective reviews on gear when we have the benefit of seeing measurements first. Based on what we know about sighted bias it seems to me that seeing those charts might be why reviewers are hearing things that have little bearing. I do like the approach of a trusted reviewer doing subjective reviews before seeing measurements telling them what they should be hearing, if that makes sense? This has been the Stereophile approach which I commented on. Again, no idea if their reviewers stay true to that approach.

 

[lc6]

As with almost everything in nature, the audio components should follow a normal (Gaussian) distribution in terms of evaluation and ratings. How many of Stereophile reviews actually explicitly stated "this component is below average, so we do not recommend it"? And how many ASR reviews did, at least in the form of "I can't recommend it" coupled with audience voting that is visible to anyone?

 

[JiiPee]

I think you'd be astounded.
The numbers of folk to whom these equipment prices is no issue is very large.
Take a cruise of US Audio Mart, I get their weakly emails just to drool over seeing how the other half lives.
I post somewhere here the other day, it absolutely amazes me how the deep pockets think nothing about buying and selling these hyper expensive
products very regularly to the tune of 30-40 % losses on the $5 and 6 figure gear.
But the audio world isn't alone, the same and more goes on with car collectors, etc.
Now where'd I put that lotto ticket.

According to Business Research Company the market size of all turntables is less than 1% of total audio equipment market size. Considering that the market size of $10000+ turntables is only a fraction of total turntable market size, I don't see any reason for being astounded.