Stereophiles editor Jim Austin publicly disagreeing with Kal Rubinson

[tmtomh]

Maybe things are different in your part of the world. I've just not seen it.

Doesn't "effing" signify the avoidance of profanity, rather than profanity? It's like saying "heck" or "h-e-double hockey sticks," yes?

 

[ivayvr]

Well -- in fairness, certain forms of chemical induction are completely legal in some (US) states nowadays.

I have no problem with that, legal or not. However if both parties or all parties are not equally conditioned, conversation is lacking or it is non existent.
There is hardly any worse feeling than being the only sober person at the party!

 

[preload]

@preload
While the discourse at ASR occasionally is overly objectivist, it is about the only place we can have an honest objective discussion.

That's fair. You're right. Sometimes the conversation at ASR can be overly objectivist (particularly with loudspeaker measurements), but I agree with you that this is a good place. It's why we're all here, I think, at the end of the day.

Stereophile is one of the last magazines that even makes mention that there are some objective requirements that equipment needs to meet. And the editor threw one of his reviewers under the bus for even gently correcting a fringe cult member.

I subscribe to Stereophile, and I would love for the magazine to be more objective too. But I also loved Stereo Review and The Audio Critic, both of which attempted to be more objective and convey that solid state devices, like amplifiers, and cables basically all sounded the same. And we all know what happened to Stereo Review and The Audio Critic.

The reality is that ads keep the lights on at Stereophile. We all know this. Ad revenue allows Stereophile to publish itself and compensate its staff and writers. As EIC, Jim Austin carries great responsibility for ensuring the magazine's content appeals to Stereophile subscribers and does not alienate advertisers.

Suppose the EIC started to allow the magazine to include discussions of blind listening tests or support for the idea that amplifiers/DACs/cables/etc make little to no difference in perceived sound quality. The subscriber base, which is largely very subjectivist would freak out and cancel their subscriptions (which they sometimes threaten to do anyway in the Letters to the Editor, and please, nobody ask me to find an example). Furthermore, the advertisers will pull out and put their advertising dollars elsewhere. And manufacturers aren't going to send review samples of their latest power amplifier to a magazine that is just going to say it sounds like every other amplifier. Even Amir has acknowledged that he sometimes cannot obtain manufacturer product samples.

What I read in Jim Austin's response was clarification that outside of the measurement box, Stereophile magazine is a subjective publication, and that Stereophile's policy is that subjective listener impressions do not require scientific validation to be accepted. Jim Austin further clarifies that Stereophile's perspective is different from Kal Rubinson's perspective, and he wishes to make Stereophile's position clear.

I'm not sure how Jim Austin could have been more diplomatic or supportive of Kal while simultaneously upholding his responsibility as EIC of Stereophile to continue to appeal to its reader base and advertisers.

That's my opinion. Flamesuit on.

 

[JSmith]

Stereophile magazine is a subjective publication

So why does @John Atkinson conduct testing?

I'm not sure how Jim Austin could have been more diplomatic or supportive of Kal

I do... he could have not said anything at all. In the end he has made a mountain out of a mole hill, evidenced by this thread. I feel he generally embarrassed himself, Kal and likely put off a number of their own readers... something I feel they cannot afford to be doing.


JSmith

 

[coonmanx]

That's fair. You're right. Sometimes the conversation at ASR can be overly objectivist (particularly with loudspeaker measurements), but I agree with you that this is a good place. It's why we're all here, I think, at the end of the day.

I subscribe to Stereophile, and I would love for the magazine to be more objective too. But I also loved Stereo Review and The Audio Critic, both of which attempted to be more objective and convey that solid state devices, like amplifiers, and cables basically all sounded the same. And we all know what happened to Stereo Review and The Audio Critic.

The reality is that ads keep the lights on at Stereophile. We all know this. Ad revenue allows Stereophile to publish itself and compensate its staff and writers. As EIC, Jim Austin carries great responsibility for ensuring the magazine's content appeals to Stereophile subscribers and does not alienate advertisers.

Suppose the EIC started to allow the magazine to include discussions of blind listening tests or support for the idea that amplifiers/DACs/cables/etc make little to no difference in perceived sound quality. The subscriber base, which is largely very subjectivist would freak out and cancel their subscriptions (which they sometimes threaten to do anyway in the Letters to the Editor, and please, nobody ask me to find an example). Furthermore, the advertisers will pull out and put their advertising dollars elsewhere. And manufacturers aren't going to send review samples of their latest power amplifier to a magazine that is just going to say it sounds like every other amplifier. Even Amir has acknowledged that he sometimes cannot obtain manufacturer product samples.

What I read in Jim Austin's response was clarification that outside of the measurement box, Stereophile magazine is a subjective publication, and that Stereophile's policy is that subjective listener impressions do not require scientific validation to be accepted. Jim Austin further clarifies that Stereophile's perspective is different from Kal Rubinson's perspective, and he wishes to make Stereophile's position clear.

I'm not sure how Jim Austin could have been more diplomatic or supportive of Kal while simultaneously upholding his responsibility as EIC of Stereophile to continue to appeal to its reader base and advertisers.

That's my opinion. Flamesuit on.

This comment to me sounds simply like someone saying that they recognize that Stereophile is in fact a scam. And if they stop scamming those who want to be scammed then they will fail.

 

[Inner Space]

This comment to me sounds simply like someone saying that they recognize that Stereophile is in fact a scam.

Is Architectural Digest a scam? House Beautiful? They and Stereophile are soft porn for those excited by buying things. Is a pillow or a sofa going to change anyone's life? Why aren't we all up in arms about that? In fact I'm sure we are, in tiny numbers - there are probably websites where they know plenty about soft furnishings, and scoff at what you and I buy.

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

That's fair. You're right. Sometimes the conversation at ASR can be overly objectivist (particularly with loudspeaker measurements), but I agree with you that this is a good place. It's why we're all here, I think, at the end of the day.

I subscribe to Stereophile, and I would love for the magazine to be more objective too. But I also loved Stereo Review and The Audio Critic, both of which attempted to be more objective and convey that solid state devices, like amplifiers, and cables basically all sounded the same. And we all know what happened to Stereo Review and The Audio Critic.

The reality is that ads keep the lights on at Stereophile. We all know this. Ad revenue allows Stereophile to publish itself and compensate its staff and writers. As EIC, Jim Austin carries great responsibility for ensuring the magazine's content appeals to Stereophile subscribers and does not alienate advertisers.

Suppose the EIC started to allow the magazine to include discussions of blind listening tests or support for the idea that amplifiers/DACs/cables/etc make little to no difference in perceived sound quality. The subscriber base, which is largely very subjectivist would freak out and cancel their subscriptions (which they sometimes threaten to do anyway in the Letters to the Editor, and please, nobody ask me to find an example). Furthermore, the advertisers will pull out and put their advertising dollars elsewhere. And manufacturers aren't going to send review samples of their latest power amplifier to a magazine that is just going to say it sounds like every other amplifier. Even Amir has acknowledged that he sometimes cannot obtain manufacturer product samples.

What I read in Jim Austin's response was clarification that outside of the measurement box, Stereophile magazine is a subjective publication, and that Stereophile's policy is that subjective listener impressions do not require scientific validation to be accepted. Jim Austin further clarifies that Stereophile's perspective is different from Kal Rubinson's perspective, and he wishes to make Stereophile's position clear.

I'm not sure how Jim Austin could have been more diplomatic or supportive of Kal while simultaneously upholding his responsibility as EIC of Stereophile to continue to appeal to its reader base and advertisers.

That's my opinion. Flamesuit on.

Preload, does "subscribe to Stereophile" mean you pay money regularly to them?
If so, why do you need to do that? Do you actually see more than I do, if I access the website?

 

[DonH56]

What I read in Jim Austin's response was clarification that outside of the measurement box, Stereophile magazine is a subjective publication, and that Stereophile's policy is that subjective listener impressions do not require scientific validation to be accepted. Jim Austin further clarifies that Stereophile's perspective is different from Kal Rubinson's perspective, and he wishes to make Stereophile's position clear.

So why does @John Atkinson conduct testing?

I have no dog in this hunt, but in this case @preload did qualify his statement, appropriately IMO.

 

[RayDunzl]

So why does @John Atkinson conduct testing?

Because he's the one with the AP on his dining room table.

 

[mhardy6647]

At least stereophile is honest about the content. In many ways, it is a bit like an auto magazine or motorcycle magazine - mostly entertainment with a few specs. Fun to read and look at the pictures, but perhaps not something to base a purchase decision.

I concur (FWIW). I like Stereophile (although my interests aren't really along the main axis of ASR, as some of y'all do know*). I would still much rather read than watch inane video content (thus showing my age). The editorial content of Stereophile is still OK, and most of their reviews do include fairly comprehensive (and consistently performed) quantitative assessment by good ol' @John Atkinson.

Because he's the one with the AP on his dining room table.

Oh. Does he live in an NYC apartment, too?
_____________
* I am a tubes and horns kind of guy, and unapologetically so. But I like both dynamics and subtlety, and tubes and horns'll get me there for far less cash outlay than can modern alternatives!

 

[Vacceo]

I concur (FWIW). I like Stereophile (although my interests aren't really along the main axis of ASR, as some of y'all do know*). I would still much rather read than watch inane video content (thus showing my age). The editorial content of Stereophile is still OK, and most of their reviews do include fairly comprehensive (and consistently performed) quantitative assessment by good ol' @John Atkinson.



Oh. Does he live in an NYC apartment, too?
_____________
* I am a tubes and horns kind of guy, and unapologetically so. But I like both dynamics and subtlety, and tubes and horns'll get me there for far less cash outlay than can modern alternatives!

What people like John or Kal do, is incredibly valuable. It is possible to dissent from their interpretation, but there is a basis to at least discuss beyond "I find it boomy" which esentially means nothing.

 

[puppet]

So why does @John Atkinson conduct testing?

I do... he could have not said anything at all. In the end he has made a mountain out of a mole hill, evidenced by this thread. I feel he generally embarrassed himself, Kal and likely put off a number of their own readers... something I feel they cannot afford to be doing.

We'll never know what someones real intentions are most times .. till it's often too late. I'd keep my eye on a guy that would step on my head to either further some unknown agenda or just to make some new friends at my expense. There was a fork in the road there and instead of using that moment to help a fellow enthusiast understand some misconceptions they might have ... he, well ....

 

[preload]

This comment to me sounds simply like someone saying that they recognize that Stereophile is in fact a scam. And if they stop scamming those who want to be scammed then they will fail.

Yes, but replace the word "scamming" with "entertaining."

 

[fpitas]

We'll never know what someones real intentions are most times .. till it's often too late. I'd keep my eye on a guy that would step on my head to either further some unknown agenda or just to make some new friends at my expense. There was a fork in the road there and instead of using that moment to help a fellow enthusiast understand some misconceptions they might have ... he, well ....

Yes, that's the only thing about this that mystified me. The Golden Rule of any business like that is don't air your dirty laundry. I was under no illusions about Stereophile, although I do appreciate the measurements.

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

Yes, but replace the word "scamming" with "entertaining."

I will politely ask again, if you pay for Stereophile, and if so, what extra that payment gets you?
Truthfully, I have long studied, up to a point, reviews over there, while finding most of the equipment is at a cost far beyond my means. However, vile comments, in one of his own reviews, by Michael Fremer drove me away. And incidentally, appear to have provided the means for my artificially reproduced music gizmos to be replaced, perfectly satisfactorily, for very reasonable money.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Nope, just trying to reconcile what I'm reading. This is an anonymous internet forum. People can claim to be the anyone. He stated he is a biologist, but he also stated earlier that he didn't know that he was a natural scientist. Also, I would have expected someone experienced in a research field to be less defensive of the idea that measurements can completely replace empiric listening tests. And then there's the profanity.

I have long suspected that there are people on this forum who are not what they say they are. Usually, I keep my doubts to myself. In the first place, you or I (or anyone else) might be wrong. It can happen. Secondly, posting public doubt works two ways; for every person you doubt, dozens can subsequently doubt you. And thirdly (and possibly most important of all), it's not really critical. People who are so desperate that they pretend to be something that they are not probably need compassion more than confrontation.

Kindness (and forbearance) goes a long ways. Jim

 

[preload]

I will politely ask again, if you pay for Stereophile, and if so, what extra that payment gets you?

The subscription is for the print magazine. Maybe I'm old school but I enjoy flipping through the pages, and I appreciate the layout and sequence of the magazine product.

Also, if I want to look at a print ad, I can do so without being watched and recorded and "monetized." And best of all, it doesnt have internet reader comments at the end of each article, like the online version, which ironically is what triggered this thread to begin with . A print subscription costs $1.50/issue. It costs less than a cup of coffee. Pretty cheap entertainment if you ask me.

Stereophile.com is organized differently. I only use it to search for a specific review to pull it up quickly.

Truthfully, I have long studied, up to a point, reviews over there, while finding most of the equipment is at a cost far beyond my means. However, vile comments, in one of his own reviews, by Michael Fremer drove me away. And incidentally, appear to have provided the means for my artificially reproduced music gizmos to be replaced, perfectly satisfactorily, for very reasonable money.

A lot of the equipment they feature is beyond the means of most. But to me, it doesn't mean it's not worth looking at. I mean who would want to read a magazine that had photos of amps in diy project boxes or speakers in plywood cabinets? I mean sure some people would, but I'm guessing there isn't widespread interest.

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

The subscription is for the print magazine. Maybe I'm old school but I enjoy flipping through the pages, and I appreciate the layout and sequence of the magazine product.

Also, if I want to look at a print ad, I can do so without being watched and recorded and "monetized." And best of all, it doesnt have internet reader comments at the end of each article, like the online version, which ironically is what triggered this thread to begin with . A print subscription costs $1.50/issue. It costs less than a cup of coffee. Pretty cheap entertainment if you ask me.

Stereophile.com is organized differently. I only use it to search for a specific review to pull it up quickly.

A lot of the equipment they feature is beyond the means of most. But to me, it doesn't mean it's not worth looking at. I mean who would want to read a magazine that had photos of amps in diy project boxes or speakers in plywood cabinets? I mean sure some people would, but I'm guessing there isn't widespread interest.

Thanks for that head's up!

 

[roog]

I read the 'Stereophile exchange' and I came to the conclusion that, "Thou shall not challenge another man's belief system."

 

[fpitas]

I read the 'Stereophile exchange' and I came to the conclusion that, "Thou shall not challenge another man's belief system."

Heck no. That's bad for sales.