Stereophile doubles down on the snake oil!

[Sal1950]

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.

Well I don't know about you but just seeing the prices and turnover of these extreme luxury goods astounds me. LOL
Specially in a market like turntables that at their very best return little better than 1960-70s sound.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

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?

The reviewers cannot see the measurements because the measurements are not performed until after the review copy is submitted.

 

[MattHooper]

How many of Stereophile reviews actually explicitly stated "this component is below average, so we do not recommend it"?

That, again, misunderstands Stereophile’s reviewing approach.

It’s not generally to rank things as good or bad. It’s to give information about the price and specs and what it’s like setting up or dealing with the gear, any idiosyncrasies, etc., describe how it sounds and leave it up to the reader as to whether the item seems appealing or not.

If you read plenty of the tube amplifier reviews the measurements are often pretty bad compared to solid state. They may get a “ not recommended” on ASR, but Stereophile goes with the idea that somebody may find the performance appealing, and so they try to describe it as best they can.

Even if you find that approach faulty, you’re going to remain permanently frustrated if you misunderstand their approach and keep wondering why they don’t generally say “ buy this” or “ don’t buy this.”

Erin from Erin’s audio corner takes away somewhat similar approach. He sits out to describe how a loudspeaker performs in terms of measurements, and then tries to describe the Sonic consequences of those measurements as best he can, in terms of depicting the character of the loudspeaker.

But he’s not looking to trash speakers or tell people what to buy or not: he’s just trying to inform people about what to expect from the product. He realizes that there might be somebody out there who really likes the product, even if he thinks it’s a total dog. And he’s right. (For instance, Erin clearly thought, fairly poorly of the Borresen x3 speakers he reviewed, but he tried to describe the performance as best he could, which included some frequency idiosyncrasies as well as some resonances.
He’d never buy the speaker himself. But there are some audiophiles who chose the speakers and are quite happy- even in the case of being aware of Erin’s review).

 

[Purité Audio]

Nothing more than paid shills.
Keith

 

[Mart68]

But there are some audiophiles who chose the speakers and are quite happy- even in the case of being aware of Erin’s review).

You say that but with a speaker so flawed it's inevitable that they will make some perfectly good recordings sound bad.

They may be happy but they're living in a fool's paradise. They will tell you the speaker is so good, so revealing and transparent, that it really shows up just how many bad recordings are out there.

In reality all they have done is massively limit what they can listen to by buying bad speakers.

They may well then start to become obsessed with 'recording quality.'

They will start to chase expensive 'audiophile' re-pressings and re-masterings. They will look for 'magic' tech solutions that claim to improve the sound of existing recordings, like MQA, 'High Res', Upscaling, re-clocking, direct to disc recordings, DSD, native DSD, and so on.

Basically, a nose-dive into the worst excesses of audiophilia.

 

[lc6]

That, again, misunderstands Stereophile’s reviewing approach.

It’s not generally to rank things as good or bad. It’s to give information about the price and specs and what it’s like setting up or dealing with the gear, any idiosyncrasies, etc., describe how it sounds and leave it up to the reader as to whether the item seems appealing or not.

If you read plenty of the tube amplifier reviews the measurements are often pretty bad compared to solid state. They may get a “ not recommended” on ASR, but Stereophile goes with the idea that somebody may find the performance appealing, and so they try to describe it as best they can.

Even if you find that approach faulty, you’re going to remain permanently frustrated if you misunderstand their approach and keep wondering why they don’t generally say “ buy this” or “ don’t buy this.”

Erin from Erin’s audio corner takes away somewhat similar approach. He sits out to describe how a loudspeaker performs in terms of measurements, and then tries to describe the Sonic consequences of those measurements as best he can, in terms of depicting the character of the loudspeaker.

But he’s not looking to trash speakers or tell people what to buy or not: he’s just trying to inform people about what to expect from the product. He realizes that there might be somebody out there who really likes the product, even if he thinks it’s a total dog. And he’s right. (For instance, Erin clearly thought, fairly poorly of the Borresen x3 speakers he reviewed, but he tried to describe the performance as best he could, which included some frequency idiosyncrasies as well as some resonances.
He’d never buy the speaker himself. But there are some audiophiles who chose the speakers and are quite happy- even in the case of being aware of Erin’s review).

Well, if it is not about ranking things, then how come there are published classes of recommended components:
"Class A Best attainable sound for a component of its kind, almost without practical considerations; the least musical compromise.
Class B The next best thing to the very best sound reproduction...
Class C Somewhat lower-fi sound...
Class D Satisfying musical sound..."

And if so, where is Class E, F, etc. of components that are not recommended, which would complete the normal distribution? Nowhere to be found, because this would (a) decrease the flow of new products from manufacturers for future reviews, and (b) increase the threat of legal actions that are costly to address and result in higher business liability insurance premiums.

This thread is about Stereophile, not Erin, so let's not sidetrack the discussion. However, Erin conducts his reviews in the manner opposite from your description: first, he listens and describes his impressions (so as not to be biased by measurements), then he presents measurements and correlates his impressions with them. If Erin says he would never buy a speaker himself, then to me it is Class E, F, etc. Where are the instances of Stereophile making a similar statement?

 

[Ropeburn]

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?

That one is easy. It's the plan to sell a handful per year to finance a comfortable life for the owner and employees.

 

[Sal1950]

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"?

Never happens in the subjective review. John Atkinson does on rare occasion criticize a product the measures very badly, but in a very tempered manner. and find a demure way to support the subjectives review outcome. Then when asked about the "all good" review trends they'll respond "we chose not to review bad sounding gear.".

It’s not generally to rank things as good or bad.

What the hell are you talking about? Every years Recommended Components issue ranks products from Class A+ to D?
More of Mr Hoopers fence riding support of the subjective slant. I thing Matt may be looking for a job writing at SF or TAS


Opps, you beat me to it @Ic6

Well, if it is not about ranking things, then how come there are published classes of recommended components:
"Class A Best attainable sound for a component of its kind, almost without practical considerations; the least musical compromise.
Class B The next best thing to the very best sound reproduction...
Class C Somewhat lower-fi sound...
Class D Satisfying musical sound..."

That one is easy. It's the plan to sell a handful per year to finance a comfortable life for the owner and employees.

There may be something to what you say, but even a $65K it's gonna take a LOT of sales to finance that life. LOL

 

[MattHooper]

Well, if it is not about ranking things, then how come there are published classes of recommended components:

I already addressed this earlier in the thread.
Note I wrote: It’s not generally to rank things as good or bad.
And that is true. First of all… if you go through Stereophile’s many reviews how many are you going to find where the reviewer is actually concluding “ this is a bad product. I do not recommend it to anybody.”
You’ll find vanishing few if any.

And this is what I mean.

Further, as I mentioned before, if you go through the Introduction to Stereophile’s recommended components you will find all sorts of caveats along the lines I’ve been saying. For instance, right off the bat:

Every product listed here has been reviewed in Stereophile. Everything on the list, regardless of rating, is genuinely recommendable.

So they are not calling out any of the equipment there as “ bad” either.

And of course you can find further explanations of their approach, which clearly differs from ASR:

Measurements matter, but we do not expect every component to aspire to the best measurements possible; to do so would incentivize conformity, boredom, and metric-gaming, all of which we oppose. We do not expect our measurements of a traditional tube amplifier to closely resemble those of a perfectionist solid state amplifier. In any case, the reviewer's experience with real music is always the most important factor in assigning ratings.

Further caveats:

Class ratings are based on performance, but different reviewers value different aspects of performance, so it's best not to expect thematic or methodological consistency. You'll find high-tech amplifiers with vanishingly low noise and distortion listed alongside old-school tube amps; what they share is a demonstrated ability to facilitate musical bliss in their respective reviewers. Recommendations, then, are most useful to those who share, or at least are aware of, reviewers' tastes and proclivities and the reviewing context.

And they point out that the value proposition of component is yours alone.

So my point is that Stereophile is more about trying to convey the characteristics of gear to the reader in order for the reader to make their own choice, rather than to simply rate things as good or bad. Note that John Atkinson himself “liked” my previous post pointing that out.

You seem to interpret this solely along the lines of how it benefits stereophile’s relationship with advertisers.

On one hand, yes if a magazine is constantly trashing gear they are unlikely to keep receiving gear to review. So if you want to be cautious about any possible advertiser influence, a place like ASR is your safest bet.

On the other hand, it could be a bit too facile to dismiss Stereophile’s approach as SIMPLY about maintaining advertising: it may be, and I think it likely is, a sincere expression of their actual reviewing philosophy.

I have known many reviewers myself, and I have found most of them hold to that philosophy: they understand that their tastes may be different from their audience so ultimately they’re trying to do their best to describe the features and sound of the product so that the reader can make up their own decision rather than the reviewer saying “ I don’t like this so you shouldn’t buy it.”

And that is where my reference to Erin comes in. He has pointed out that he doesn’t see it as his job to tell people what to buy or not, but rather to explain the relevance of the data to what he (and likely the viewer) perceives in the sound of the gear. He constantly points out that when he’s talking about what he likes or dislikes in a loudspeaker, he’s talking about his taste and other people may not prefer the same thing. His main goal is to simply accurately describe the product.

 

[Sal1950]

nd that is where my reference to Erin comes in. He has pointed out that he doesn’t see it as his job to tell people what to buy or not, but rather to explain the relevance of the data to what he (and likely the viewer) perceives in the sound of the gear. He constantly points out that when he’s talking about what he likes or dislikes in a loudspeaker, he’s talking about his taste and other people may not prefer the same thing. His main goal is to simply accurately describe the product.

Blah blah blah, Whats your point?
Amir and Erin are a couple of the good guys with honest, transparent reviewing.
Stereophile, not so much.

 

[Mart68]

I agree with what Matt's saying with regards to loudspeakers, and I suppose turntable motor units, arms, pickups. Those things all have some sonic character and subjective interpretation of that seems fair enough. Sometimes they can even be accurate, describing a characteristic that pretty much everyone would perceive.

Once you get onto doing the same with electronics, you're on much sticker wicket right away.

Once you get to cables, and imaginative devices like 'grounding boxes' you've firmly crossed the line of credibility.

Could you run a profitable magazine, or at least one that paid its way, that did not subjectively review electronics? That instead just offered measurements and a review of the non-sonic aspects, and that didn't review cables or foo at all?

Would members here consider subscribing to such?

 

[lc6]

I already addressed this earlier in the thread.
Note I wrote: It’s not generally to rank things as good or bad.
And that is true. First of all… if you go through Stereophile’s many reviews how many are you going to find where the reviewer is actually concluding “ this is a bad product. I do not recommend it to anybody.”
You’ll find vanishing few if any.

And this is what I mean.

Further, as I mentioned before, if you go through the Introduction to Stereophile’s recommended components you will find all sorts of caveats along the lines I’ve been saying. For instance, right off the bat:

Every product listed here has been reviewed in Stereophile. Everything on the list, regardless of rating, is genuinely recommendable.

So they are not calling out any of the equipment there as “ bad” either.

And of course you can find further explanations of their approach, which clearly differs from ASR:

Measurements matter, but we do not expect every component to aspire to the best measurements possible; to do so would incentivize conformity, boredom, and metric-gaming, all of which we oppose. We do not expect our measurements of a traditional tube amplifier to closely resemble those of a perfectionist solid state amplifier. In any case, the reviewer's experience with real music is always the most important factor in assigning ratings.

Further caveats:

Class ratings are based on performance, but different reviewers value different aspects of performance, so it's best not to expect thematic or methodological consistency. You'll find high-tech amplifiers with vanishingly low noise and distortion listed alongside old-school tube amps; what they share is a demonstrated ability to facilitate musical bliss in their respective reviewers. Recommendations, then, are most useful to those who share, or at least are aware of, reviewers' tastes and proclivities and the reviewing context.

And they point out that the value proposition of component is yours alone.

So my point is that Stereophile is more about trying to convey the characteristics of gear to the reader in order for the reader to make their own choice, rather than to simply rate things as good or bad. Note that John Atkinson himself “liked” my previous post pointing that out.

You seem to interpret this solely along the lines of how it benefits stereophile’s relationship with advertisers.

On one hand, yes if a magazine is constantly trashing gear they are unlikely to keep receiving gear to review. So if you want to be cautious about any possible advertiser influence, a place like ASR is your safest bet.

On the other hand, it could be a bit too facile to dismiss Stereophile’s approach as SIMPLY about maintaining advertising: it may be, and I think it likely is, a sincere expression of their actual reviewing philosophy.

I have known many reviewers myself, and I have found most of them hold to that philosophy: they understand that their tastes may be different from their audience so ultimately they’re trying to do their best to describe the features and sound of the product so that the reader can make up their own decision rather than the reviewer saying “ I don’t like this so you shouldn’t buy it.”

And that is where my reference to Erin comes in. He has pointed out that he doesn’t see it as his job to tell people what to buy or not, but rather to explain the relevance of the data to what he (and likely the viewer) perceives in the sound of the gear. He constantly points out that when he’s talking about what he likes or dislikes in a loudspeaker, he’s talking about his taste and other people may not prefer the same thing. His main goal is to simply accurately describe the product.

Lots of words about reviewing "philosophy" and "tastes," in an attempt to wiggle out of not sticking to facts, which are that (a) Stereophile rankings are incomplete in that they do not include gradation of reviewed products that are not on the recommended component lists, and (b) your interpretation of the sequence in which Erin does evaluations and his straightforward critique is just plain wrong (for example, watch Are Fosi Audio SP-601 Speakers WORTH Your Money?).

 

[Cbdb2]

I agree with what Matt's saying with regards to loudspeakers, and I suppose turntable motor units, arms, pickups. Those things all have some sonic character and subjective interpretation of that seems fair enough. Sometimes they can even be accurate, describing a characteristic that pretty much everyone would perceive.

Once you get onto doing the same with electronics, you're on much sticker wicket right away.

Once you get to cables, and imaginative devices like 'grounding boxes' you've firmly crossed the line of credibility.

Could you run a profitable magazine, or at least one that paid its way, that did not subjectively review electronics? That instead just offered measurements and a review of the non-sonic aspects, and that didn't review cables or foo at all?

Would members here consider subscribing to such?

We are already subscribed right here.

 

[Cbdb2]

Recommendations, then, are most useful to those who share, or at least are aware of, reviewers' tastes and proclivities and the reviewing context.

So if I want to know what a reviewer is saying I have to know the reviewer? How ridiculous is that. Which means you have already been brain washed by all his previous reviews and I guess every other reviewer which you also have to know.
Everbody back order 10 years of stereopile and read every review remembering who the reviewer is for each one and then you will find the reviews usefull.

 

[lc6]

I agree with what Matt's saying with regards to loudspeakers, and I suppose turntable motor units, arms, pickups. Those things all have some sonic character and subjective interpretation of that seems fair enough. Sometimes they can even be accurate, describing a characteristic that pretty much everyone would perceive.

Once you get onto doing the same with electronics, you're on much sticker wicket right away.

Once you get to cables, and imaginative devices like 'grounding boxes' you've firmly crossed the line of credibility.

Could you run a profitable magazine, or at least one that paid its way, that did not subjectively review electronics? That instead just offered measurements and a review of the non-sonic aspects, and that didn't review cables or foo at all?

Would members here consider subscribing to such?

I would pay for a subscription if such a publication reviewed components I am truly interested in for potential purchase. Personally, I have little interest in 100s of standalone DACs, the vast majority of which are based on the same ESS, AKM or Cirrus chips; little Class D amps with external power supplies, mostly based on the same TI chip without full feedback to reduce load dependency; inexpensive desktop or small bookshelf speakers that have trouble reproducing bass and produce lots of distortion; active speakers, esp. of bookshelf size; cheap or esoteric headphones outside of a reasonable price range; or discontinued, vintage or unobtainable foreign gear. But I read/watch such reviews, incl. here on ASR, for education, entertainment, and storytelling.

 

[MattHooper]

Lots of words about reviewing "philosophy" and "tastes,"

What you mean is “ arguments against your position that you are ignoring.”

in an attempt to wiggle out

Give me a break

Nobody’s trying to wiggle out of anything… I’m doing my best to outline Stereophile’s approach.

I note that you seem to ignore the fact that JA himself liked a post in which I outlined their approach, which would indicate that I am accurate in the point I’m trying to get across.

of not sticking to facts, which are that (a) Stereophile rankings are incomplete in that they do not include gradation of reviewed products that are not on the recommended component lists,

I specifically said that I was talking
“ generally”

“ It’s not generally to rank things as good or bad.“

You understand that words like “ generally” are there to admit of exceptions?

And your point about the Stereophile rankings not being complete doesn’t at all undermine what I’ve been saying. It doesn’t mean they are saying “ anything we’ve left off this list is bad.” In fact plenty of previously recommended products fall off the list over time, for reasons they gave in the explanation. It doesn’t mean they are suddenly declared “ bad products .”

You also seemed to ignore that I pointed out, due to the “ reviewing philosophy” I have outlined, you will be hard pressed to find Stereophile reviews in which the conclusion is “ This is a bad product, I recommend you stay away from it.”

But be my guest and prove me wrong. Go searching through plenty of Stereophile review conclusions, and find enough times where the reviewer explicitly tells the reader
“ this is bad, I recommend you avoid this product” such that it obviates my claim that the vast majority of the reviews support the general trend I’ve been explaining.

I’ll be waiting here for the results ;-)

and (b) your interpretation of the sequence in which Erin does evaluations

What does that mean? In invoking Erin from my point, it had nothing to do with any
“ sequence” he uses for evaluation (though like Stereophile writers he first evaluates the product subjectively before the measurements are done). My point was that even someone as ASR-friendly in his approach as Erin has said he’s not generally out to just give thumbs up or thumbs down on products (i’ve quoted Erin before here “If my goal was to share data only and give a thumbs up or down then I wouldn't even bother with creating videos.”).

In fact when Erin’s review of the poorly measuring Borresen x3 speakers was discussed on ASR, people were frustrated that he didn’t simply call out the speakers as a piece of crap and broken. But as he has pointed out, that’s generally not what he’s trying to do. He’s usually trying to present an accurate picture of the performance, indicate as well what aspects might have appealed to him or not - even if a speaker like the Borresen has some deficits he’ll point out if they perform well in certain respects - and the listener can decide for themselves.

However, yes, Erin has come out sometimes and named some “dogs” in his reviews. So yes, I think he does go a bit further than Stereophile there. Erin:

“Sometimes I only talk about bad things because there are only bad things to talk about—for example, the Fiio SP3 speaker or the Klipsch Heresy IV.”

 

[lc6]

Yet another winded response that goes to great lengths to justify what Stereophile does. Judging by yet another like from JA, and the fact that you seem to know so much much about and advocate for their approach to reviewing products, and have admitted to knowing reviewers, what is your actual relationship with them (or your identity)?

 

[sceptical1]

Stereophile is one of the cornerstones of the HEA industry going on 50 yrs.

If I read a review from someone there that rubs me the wrong way I ignore anything else he reviews no matter what it is including the measurements.

If you have a problem being selective or impressionable Stereophile is the least of your worries. If nuance is so foreign to you that a cut and dried Sinad number or a 90% favorability poll result is all that you understand you don't know what an audiophile is.
Now that we have review sites like this one (ASR) to set the record straight for people like you how is bad-mouthing an established source of info going to do you any good or change any minds? You're talking to the converted.

Look at the responses from Rubinson and JA here, civil and level-headed, not the endless regurgitated pointless crap from some members here who think everyone needs to be saved from themselves.

p.s. Ya, Hooper, fess up!

 

[Sal1950]

So if I want to know what a reviewer is saying I have to know the reviewer? How ridiculous is that. Which means you have already been brain washed by all his previous reviews and I guess every other reviewer which you also have to know.

That's a good understanding of the most basic issues there.
"High Fidelity" which has been the defining path for this passion speaks for itself and the "reviewers personal bias" has no place entering into a discussion.
Either a product attempts to portray a clearer picture of the source or it is just another "tone control".

But I read/watch such reviews, incl. here on ASR, for education, entertainment, and storytelling.

I hear what your saying, most of those products are "solved" technologies but the implementation of those chips can sometimes vary from excellent to junk. Thankfully there are a couple places like ASR we consumers can reach out to and find who's been doing his homework on lining up his bitstream.
The D-M AVR's have come a long way in the last decade thanks to them being willing to share "implementations" with ASR and others and their desire to produce better measuring-performing gear.

Yet another winded response that goes to great lengths to justify what Stereophile does. Judging by yet another like from JA, and the fact that you seem to know so much much about and advocate for their approach to reviewing products, and have admitted to knowing reviewers, what is your actual relationship with them (or your identity)?

His is a 2 sided approach.
One is a misguided desire to impress some people with his ability to write a 500 essay on subjects that could be covered in 25 words or less. He does it here 3 or 4 times a day.
The other is the fact that he mostly uses a 5 figure vinyl source and tube amplification and needs to justify the Stereophile "yes it's distorted but it sounds good to me" path.

Look at the responses from Rubinson and JA here, civil and level-headed, not the endless regurgitated pointless crap from some members here who think everyone needs to be saved from themselves.

Kal is a first class act,
JA only comes here in vain attempts to cover up his loss of integrity in the industry.

 

[Arindal]

Whats your point?

Cannot speak for Matt, but maybe the point is that reviews involving a listening test, are always in a way subjective. Even if they rely mainly of objective data like measurements and use testing methods which eliminate bias and errors, like blind testing. Nevertheless there is a link in a process of evaluating what is relevant and what leads to which subjective impression, or requiring to define the ideal by some sort of reference, and that induces a subjective verdict as well.

Amir and Erin are a couple of the good guys with honest, transparent reviewing.
Stereophile, not so much.

Stereophile editors and readers might see it the other way ´round, as for them subjective testing according to their personal ideals is regarded as ´honest, transparent reviewing´. And interestingly, the subjectivistic approach (which I personally absolutely do not support) seems to be attractive to a majority of buyers and hi-fi afficionados. Me thinks it is worth a discussion, why is that so?

Either a product attempts to portray a clearer picture of the source or it is just another "tone control".

It is not as clear. For example, I regard every loudspeaker which is significantly colorating the reverb in the listening room, as ´tone control´ or ´non high fidelity´, as you might put it. Amir and Dr. Toole (Erin not so much) seemingly have a different set of reference points when it comes to interpreting the data,l so they might label such speaker as ´ideal. Who is right here from objective point?