Stereophiles editor Jim Austin publicly disagreeing with Kal Rubinson

[Palladium]

I saw a video of a Chinese hi-fi reviewer blaming the steep contraction of their domestic hi-fi market to snake oil and their salesmen killing interest for most potential new buyers.

 

[antcollinet]

That's certainly one way of looking at it, but again, it's not thinking like a research scientist would. That would be dismissing data because it doesn't fit your original hypothesis. Maybe that approach works in engineering? It's very frowned upon research science.

Rather, a research scientist would say, "it's possible that the food critics tasted a burnt flavor because they knew the identity of Stove A. Let's test that by blinding the food critics to the identity of each stove, and see if we get the same results." This is called "controlling for bias."

By the way, I'll skip to the end. What actually happened in this hypothetical example is that the the thermocouple was place in a position that measured an average temperature, and the average temps of each stove were identical. However, Stove A had hotspots that made certain parts of the frying pan hotter than others, whereas Stove B had more even thermal distribution. Hence, Stove A was actually causing some parts of the food to be burned.

If we had taken the "engineering" approach, we would have taken the "measured" data at face value and completely dismissed the overwhelming "subjective" signal (in this case, 90 food critics out of 100 tasting something burnt when the food was cooked on stove A). And in doing so, we would have overlooked an important difference between Stove A and Stove B that actually existed.

Analogies usually have serious problems. Here is (IMO) a serious problem with yours.

You are measuring part of the internals of the system (the heat of the hob) rather than a measure of the output (the 'burntness' of the food). It is like measuring the output of the dac chips into the internal analogue electronics of the two dacs - using that as a determinant that the two dacs are identical - and ignoring the influence of the analogue electronic part of the dac.

The measurements here measure the output of the dac, and do so with sufficient scientific/engineering capability, that we know if the ouput of two dacs are audibly different or not. Hence the scepticism when people say that two identical output dacs sound different.

This is equivalent in your analogy to measuring the composition of the finished food for 'burntness'. If you'd done that with your two cookers, and the measurements (accurately and trusted) determined that neither dish was burnt - what would be your response to different peoples sighted perceptions that one was burnt, and the other not. I suspect you'd not be questioning the performance of the cooker, or the cook - and you'd be looking at what can influence the perception of what the people are tasting.

 

[melvinjames]

One thing I didn't realise until recently is that Genelec collaborated with designer Harri Koskinen on their iconic designs. Nice work! And I totally want his Block lamp (which isn't even hideously expensive).

I had no idea of his Genelec connection! I love the Block too and purchased one during a visit to MOMA maybe 20 years ago. Classic.

 

[BDWoody]

Many, many years ago a physics professor (Richard Feynman) I happened to audit for a class or two...

Ok, that's just too damn cool to go without comment. Feynman is one of my favorite thinkers out there...

 

[Astoneroad]

Ok, that's just too damn cool to go without comment. Feynman is one of my favorite thinkers out there...

Absolutely... Q.E.D. Also... one of my favorite bongo players. I was reading his correspondences, when I came upon one that he had with an old roommate of mine, mathematician Bob Bonic (RIP) and got chills from the 2 degrees of separation to such a giant. In rereading it now... it's funny how appropriate it is to the fundamental premise of ASR.

"You must compare your ideas with Nature; she tells you yes or no. She produces phenomena that require explanation. You cannot make your own assumptions and analyze the consequences." – Letter to Mr. Robert Bonic, January 1974

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[teched58]

Yes there is a gag response when Stereophile, Absolute Sound, John Darko and others, or the suggestion of subjectivity is involved, and don't even mention tubes, cables or MQA.

They do mention cables:

On the Stereophile thread, on Nov 7 at 1:54 pm PT, Kal Rubinson wrote [this is an excerpt, not the full comment]:

"When I asked the VP of Sales of a major manufacturer of high-end/high-quality speakers with global distribution why their new models now offered bi-wire/bi-amp terminals: There's no reason other than that it was demanded by many of our loyal dealers who see it as an opportunity for them to sell more cables."​

In reply, on Nov 9 at 9:04 am PT, Jim Austin wrote [this is an excerpt, not the full comment]:

"I don't doubt even for a moment that this exchange occurred or that you've characterized it correctly. It's worth pointing out, though, that it can be stated less cynically. Those biwire/biamp terminals were added due to demand from customers who wanted to biwire or bi-amp their speakers and so to buy those cables, from those or other dealers. That statement is not precisely parallel to the other, but it's close, and it's an equally valid interpretation."​

 

[JeffS7444]

Bi-wiring is an example of "rhetorical engineering" in which design decisions are made, not by tests or measurements, but by the persons who make the most persuasive (or deafening) argument.

 

[ahofer]

They do mention cables:

On the Stereophile thread, on Nov 7 at 1:54 pm PT, Kal Rubinson wrote [this is an excerpt, not the full comment]:

"When I asked the VP of Sales of a major manufacturer of high-end/high-quality speakers with global distribution why their new models now offered bi-wire/bi-amp terminals: There's no reason other than that it was demanded by many of our loyal dealers who see it as an opportunity for them to sell more cables."​

In reply, on Nov 9 at 9:04 am PT, Jim Austin wrote [this is an excerpt, not the full comment]:

"I don't doubt even for a moment that this exchange occurred or that you've characterized it correctly. It's worth pointing out, though, that it can be stated less cynically. Those biwire/biamp terminals were added due to demand from customers who wanted to biwire or bi-amp their speakers and so to buy those cables, from those or other dealers. That statement is not precisely parallel to the other, but it's close, and it's an equally valid interpretation."​

Indeed, they respond to demand. Alan Shaw of Harbeth has said the same thing explicitly in his User Forum, although he is since removed the bi-wiring out of frustration with that nonsense.

But to *that* interpretation, I say:

How can bogus claims and inferior audio thrive in a competitive market?

I keep running into the same addlepated thought, here and in other forums. It goes something like this: Market success is the clearest indication of value. Expensive cables must sound better, or people wouldn't pay for them; exotic amplifiers must be better or they wouldn't survive. Even...

audiosciencereview.com

 

[preload]

Analogies usually have serious problems. Here is (IMO) a serious problem with yours.

You are measuring part of the internals of the system (the heat of the hob) rather than a measure of the output (the 'burntness' of the food).

(Wasn't my analogy, btw. I just rolled with it.)

But you bring up a good point - how could we objectively measure the taste qualities (including burnt flavor) of the food? We can't. We simply assumed that both stoves produced identical results because based on what we were able to measure, they measured the same. But this introduces the possibility of arriving at an erroneous conclusion because we did not measure the output (taste).

Same thing with understanding how people perceive the sound of Loudspeaker A and Loudspeaker B. We're taking objective measurements (like FR plots at various angles of incidence), but we're still not measuring the final outcome of interest, which is how people perceive the sound. This is why subjective impressions of, say, loudspeakers are still important to consider, particularly when these subjective impressions are obtained under more reliable conditions (i.e. larger sample sizes, concordant impressions across multiple listeners, and efforts to reduce bias, such as blinding and level matching).

 

[ahofer]

(Wasn't my analogy, btw. I just rolled with it.)

But you bring up a good point - how could we objectively measure the taste qualities (including burnt flavor) of the food? We can't. We simply assumed that both stoves produced identical results because based on what we were able to measure, they measured the same. But this introduces the possibility of arriving at an erroneous conclusion because we did not measure the output (taste).

Same thing with understanding how people perceive the sound of Loudspeaker A and Loudspeaker B. We're taking objective measurements (like FR plots at various angles of incidence), but we're still not measuring the final outcome of interest, which is how people perceive the sound. This is why subjective impressions of, say, loudspeakers are still important to consider, particularly when these subjective impressions are obtained under more reliable conditions (i.e. larger sample sizes, concordant impressions across multiple listeners, and efforts to reduce bias, such as blinding and level matching).

I have trouble with this (and @MattHooper ’s “conundrum”, which is similar).

I agree that we listen with our eyes open and full knowledge of our equipment. But:

• I think it is important to understand the actual difference between audible signal and the other elements
• I don’t think anyone has shown that the perceptions driven by non-audible stimuli are stable and repeatable (there’s at least *some* evidence that the audible part is)
• If so much of our perception is driven by inaudible stimuli with stable effects, where is the research on how to enhance *those*? (I’ve suggested THC, but that’s sort of not comme Il faut for many around here).

My hypothesis is that the inaudible parts of perception are unstable and are part of what drives upgrade-itis and the endless supply of veils to be lifted.

 

[antcollinet]

(Wasn't my analogy, btw. I just rolled with it.)

But you bring up a good point - how could we objectively measure the taste qualities (including burnt flavor) of the food? We can't. We simply assumed that both stoves produced identical results because based on what we were able to measure, they measured the same. But this introduces the possibility of arriving at an erroneous conclusion because we did not measure the output (taste).

Exactly - a further weakness of the analogy.

Whereas we can fully measure the output of a DAC or amplifier. (Speakers admittedly not so much - or not at least at the interface with the ear). So it is perfectly reasonable (perhaps required) to be sceptical when people claim to hear differences between pieces of electronics who's measuremnets say they should output audibly identical signals.

 

[ahofer]

Exactly - a further weakness of the analogy.

Whereas we can fully measure the output of a DAC or amplifier. (Speakers admittedly not so much - or not at least at the interface with the ear). So it is perfectly reasonable (perhaps required) to be sceptical when people claim to hear differences between pieces of electronics who's measuremnets say they should output audibly identical signals.

Right. So just piling up subjective responses to an inaudible difference, the source of which is likely to be subject-specific, unstable, and ill-defined, seems silly.

 

[antcollinet]

Right. So just piling up subjective responses to an inaudible difference, the source of which is likely to be subject-specific, unstable, and ill-defined, seems silly.

If I could understand what you are trying to say there I might be able to reply.

 

[ahofer]

If I could understand what you are trying to say there I might be able to reply.

I apologize. I was just following up on my earlier point and weaving yours into it. There’s been a long back and forth about the value of subjective impressions here. In the case of electronics, since we know the signal isn’t changing audibly, it seems useless to collect subjective impressions that are focused on the equipment. Clearly something else is going on, and none of these audio publications/forums are remotely interested in what is really leading to these impressions, let alone controlling their listening to find out.

So we end up with made-up feelings about expensive inert objects.

 

[Sal1950]

I saw a video of a Chinese hi-fi reviewer blaming the steep contraction of their domestic hi-fi market to snake oil and their salesmen killing interest for most potential new buyers.

Absolutely, snake-oil and pricing of.
Can you imagine the reaction of Joe SixPack walking into one of todays Hi-End dealers thinking it was just another 1980s like stereo store looking to buy a small hi-fi for his house.

Whereas we can fully measure the output of a DAC or amplifier. (Speakers admittedly not so much - or not at least at the interface with the ear).

Speakers can be measured very well as per Amir, but reading how they will sound in any particular room is the difficult if not impossible part of the equation.

 

[antcollinet]

I apologize. I was just following up on my earlier point and weaving yours into it. There’s been a long back and forth about the value of subjective impressions here. In the case of electronics, since we know the signal isn’t changing audibly, it seems useless to collect subjective impressions that are focused on the equipment. Clearly something else is going on, and none of these audio publications/forums are remotely interested in what is really leading to these impressions, let alone controlling their listening to find out.

So we end up with made-up feelings about expensive inert objects.

Ah - thanks

So we are in violent agreement then

 

[antcollinet]

Absolutely, snake-oil and pricing of.
Can you imagine the reaction of Joe SixPack walking into one of todays Hi-End dealers thinking it was just another 1980s like stereo store looking to buy a small hi-fi for his house.


Speakers can be measured very well as per Amir, but reading how they will sound in any particular room is the difficult if not impossible part of the equation.

That's what I meant by "at the interface with the ear"

 

[preload]

Whereas we can fully measure the output of a DAC or amplifier. (Speakers admittedly not so much - or not at least at the interface with the ear). So it is perfectly reasonable (perhaps required) to be sceptical when people claim to hear differences between pieces of electronics who's measuremnets say they should output audibly identical signals.

Exactly. We can use an instrument to measure the electrical output of a DAC. But we cannot use an instrument to measure what the human being perceives as the sound quality of that DAC. That being said, we ASSUME that electrical measurements of DACs are sufficient to allow us to make surrogate determinations of what the human being would hear (or not hear) between DACs. I agree with this, and I accept those assumptions.

HOWEVER, as you point out, that is not necessarily the case with transducers. The assumption that objective measurements of speakers can fully explain the differences in subjective sound quality impressions has not been proven to be true.

Furthermore, if two DACs supposedly measure the same, but 90 out of 100 listeners report that they hear something distorted in DAC A, a natural/research scientist may say "well let's investigate why that it is" instead of "well those 90 listeners are biased idiots because the measurements prove there is no difference with those DACs."

 

[preload]

I have trouble with this (and @MattHooper ’s “conundrum”, which is similar).

I agree that we listen with our eyes open and full knowledge of our equipment. But:

• I think it is important to understand the actual difference between audible signal and the other elements
• I don’t think anyone has shown that the perceptions driven by non-audible stimuli are stable and repeatable (there’s at least *some* evidence that the audible part is)
• If so much of our perception is driven by inaudible stimuli with stable effects, where is the research on how to enhance *those*? (I’ve suggested THC, but that’s sort of not comme Il faut for many around here).

My hypothesis is that the inaudible parts of perception are unstable and are part of what drives upgrade-itis and the endless supply of veils to be lifted.

Not sure I'm following.
MattHooper appears to be making the argument that loudspeakers have large, audible differences across models. If someone hears a difference, or clearly prefers Model A over Model B, you can't simply dismiss the subjective impression as "100% due to bias due to an unblinded comparison."

This is different from a situation where we do not necessarily accept that are large, audible differences (i.e. amps and DACs), and someone claims to hear a large difference.

 

[Mart68]

Furthermore, if two DACs supposedly measure the same, but 90 out of 100 listeners report that they hear something distorted in DAC A, a natural/research scientist may say "well let's investigate why that it is" instead of "well those 90 listeners are biased idiots because the measurements prove there is no difference with those DACs."

That's not the sort of difference that is reported though. Here are some of the differences that people have told me they hear between DACs that should have no audible differences:

Taller, wider, deeper soundstage
Deeper bass
More natural
More organic
Longer reverb tails
more like the real sound of instruments

I don't know how you can investigate those qualities whereas a bit of audible distortion would be trivial to spot in measurement.