Stereophiles editor Jim Austin publicly disagreeing with Kal Rubinson

[fpitas]

Am glad that "our" appreciated @Kal Rubinson doesn't give up fighting with the typical audiophile myths, but let's see for how long...

I notice Kal has speakers that measure very well. I doubt that's by coincidence.

 

[Vacceo]

I'm extremely biased towards kind people. Kal is, as his answers and comments are respectful, honest, and evidence-based.

 

[jools]

Problem is, Kal was telling people not to go out and waste their time and money on things that don't add to the musical enjoyment.
Jim Austin is saying that all you have to do is tell people that they can enjoy music without wasting money and it will cause them to not enjoy their music. And Jim Austin is right, because Stereophile made those people.

Telling people that there is moderately priced equipment which outperforms the gear on which they've spent a small (or not so small) fortune is almost bound to spoil their enjoyment, if not their whole day.

 

[fpitas]

Telling people that there is moderately priced equipment which outperforms the gear on which they've spent a small (or not so small) fortune is almost bound to spoil their enjoyment, if not their whole day.

Nah. They just won't believe you

 

[Deleted member 43957]

Nah. They just won't believe you

I don't believe that's true. I can prove how good my stuff is... I've got the receipts and a stack of subjective magazine reviews to prove it. We don't need your stinking badges... or Ohm, Maxwell and Majidimehr... when we have Ritchie, McGowen and Austin. My reality is really... really... true. Really.

 

[fpitas]

I don't believe that's true. I can prove how good my stuff is... I've got the receipts and a stack of subjective magazine reviews to prove it. We don't need your stinking badges... or Ohm, Maxwell and Majidimehr... when we have Ritchie, McGowen and Austin. My reality is really... really... true. Really.

Think how many times we've been told our silly measurements are pointless, when numerous internet experts have weighed in with subjective assessments. It's hard to argue with reasoning like that.

 

[Deleted member 43957]

It's hard to argue with reasoning like that.

Agreed. Sadly, it's even hard to reason with arguments like that

 

[preload]

I notice Kal has speakers that measure very well. I doubt that's by coincidence.

Kal also owned a pair of B&W 802D speakers for a long time. He also reviewed them in Stereophile. I purchased a pair myself and I agree with what he wrote in his review.

 

[DonH56]

Ok I didn't read the article. But I do agree with him to a certain extend that science has little relevance on music enjoyment.

Read Toole?

 

[preload]

Subjective listening impressions are still useful data.
This is difficult for applied scientists (“engineers”) to appreciate, since you can’t measure subjective listening impressions with an oscilloscope.
Whereas, this is easily appreciated by natural/research scientists, who are accustomed to experimental research involving human subjects. Unfortunately, natural/research scientists also happen to be vastly underrepresented in this forum.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Subjective listening impressions are still useful data.

Subjective listening impressions can be useful data if collected and analyzed properly.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Subjective listening impressions are still useful data.
This is difficult for applied scientists (“engineers”) to appreciate, since you can’t measure subjective listening impressions with an oscilloscope.
Whereas, this is easily appreciated by natural/research scientists, who are accustomed to experimental research involving human subjects. Unfortunately, natural/research scientistsmalso happen to be vastly underrepresented in this forum.

Can you explain what a subjective opinion of a device that does exactly the same thing as another device would tell us? I mean it's like a food critic saying he can tell that food cooked on one stove tastes better than food cooked on another stove that in any objective way is the same...but he can only make that subjective confirmation if he knows the food was cooked on the one stove and not the other.

 

[AdamG]

There is no room for, fact based evidence and scientific measurements, in SALES endeavors. Unless said science/engineering strongly supports the SALES pitch. SALES and Truth represent the polar opposite extremes in which a SALES pitch can function to motivate readers into Buyers. Not believers. Feelings, Emotions, Desires, Imagination and Dreams are what they Sell. This should not surprise anyone who has been a member of ASR for more than a week.

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

Subjective listening impressions are still useful data.
This is difficult for applied scientists (“engineers”) to appreciate, since you can’t measure subjective listening impressions with an oscilloscope.
Whereas, this is easily appreciated by natural/research scientists, who are accustomed to experimental research involving human subjects. Unfortunately, natural/research scientists also happen to be vastly underrepresented in this forum.

Presumably, there are other audio related sites where they are, over represented?

 

[puppet]

This all comes down to how many audio tapes you can sell to the deaf community.

 

[preload]

Can you explain what a subjective opinion of a device that does exactly the same thing as another device would tell us? I mean it's like a food critic saying he can tell that food cooked on one stove tastes better than food cooked on another stove that in any objective way is the same...but he can only make that subjective confirmation if he knows the food was cooked on the one stove and not the other.

Well for starters, why start with a single sample?

To build on your example, suppose:
100 food critics tried a particular dish cooked on stove A and stove B.
90 of those food critics reported that the food cooked on stove A had a burnt flavor to it.
But when you measured the temperature of each stove using a precision thermocouple, they were identical to within 0.001C

It would be tempting for many folks here to stop and say, "well the stoves are identical, the precision thermometer tests prove it, and the food critics are fools."

But a natural/research scientist would say, no, maybe there's some merit to the fact that in our sample, 90% of food critics reported the same subjective concern about food cooked on Stove A. And a natural/research scientists would ask WHY. And would generate a hypothesis that explains all observations (i.e. both the subjective food critic responses AND the thermocouple readings) - and then would test that hypothesis.

That's the difference.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Well for starters, why start with a single sample?

To build on your example, suppose:
100 food critics tried a particular dish cooked on stove A and stove B.
90 of those food critics reported that the food cooked on stove A had a burnt flavor to it.
But when you measured the temperature of each stove using a precision thermocouple, they were identical to within 0.001C

It would be tempting for many folks here to stop and say, "well the stoves are identical, the precision thermometer tests prove it, and the food critics are fools."

But a natural/research scientist would say, no, maybe there's some merit to the fact that in our sample, 90% of food critics reported the same subjective concern about food cooked on Stove A. And a natural/research scientists would ask WHY. And would generate a hypothesis that explains all observations (i.e. both the subjective food critic responses AND the thermocouple readings) - and then would test that hypothesis.

That's the difference.

If none of those food critics can identify that burnt flavor unless they know the food was cooked on stove A ahead of time, I don't care about their subjective opinion because it's false. We already have a hypothesis that explains such situations - cognitive bias.

 

[puppet]

Well for starters, why start with a single sample?

To build on your example, suppose:
100 food critics tried a particular dish cooked on stove A and stove B.
90 of those food critics reported that the food cooked on stove A had a burnt flavor to it.
But when you measured the temperature of each stove using a precision thermocouple, they were identical to within 0.001C

It would be tempting for many folks here to stop and say, "well the stoves are identical, the precision thermometer tests prove it, and the food critics are fools."

But a natural/research scientist would say, no, maybe there's some merit to the fact that in our sample, 90% of food critics reported the same subjective concern about food cooked on Stove A. And a natural/research scientists would ask WHY. And would generate a hypothesis that explains all observations (i.e. both the subjective food critic responses AND the thermocouple readings) - and then would test that hypothesis.

That's the difference.

Left out the critical variable ... the cook on stove A.

 

[Liberal Democracy]

People still read stereophile , it's just a puff mag that pedals whatever boosts their industry mates and defacto themselves.

It's all vested interest, very small community they all play the game .

Personally can't respect anyone who buys it or pushes reviews and gains money from it .

Big bag of shite , always misterfied me so many here still hold it in regard . Hopelessly intellectually dishonest tripe .

 

[birdog1960]

i kind of get the feeling it's "us" against the world.