Stereophile's Jim Austin disagrees w Atkinson; says tubes have something that can't be measured

[Koeitje]

I find the disdain with which the stereophile authors are dismissed by some here misplaced. They are, in my opinion, decent people who seriously and for a long time care about hi-fi. I find it most unpleasant when extreme positions, one side or the other e.g. the so-called objectivists / subjectivists are presented in a know-it-all form.

That is a very broad and general statement. Several of their (ex)authors actively post here.

 

[mhardy6647]

How do you find Austin's disdain for us? Here is what he post after this thread was created:

View attachment 285517

We are ignorant and poorly informed? Lack wisdom?

But yes, we should not get personal.

How delightfully meta.
I mean, depending on which "certain website" he refers.

 

[fpitas]

How delightfully meta.
I mean, depending on which "certain website" he refers.

It can't be this one

 

[amirm]

How delightfully meta.
I mean, depending on which "certain website" he refers.

I don't know why these people refer to us this way. It looks so unprofessional. Just say the site name as we are doing here with stereophile.

 

[Axo1989]

Austin wrote “Many of the posts are ignorant and poorly informed.”

That’s a correct statement. Posted a few of those myself no doubt. But generally there’s no need to do the “I don’t think that’s true” “What, are you calling me a liar?” escalation.

 

[thecheapseats]

I don't know why these people refer to us this way. It looks so unprofessional. Just say the site name as we are doing here with stereophile.

ad hominem attacks are the last resort of those without communication skills...

 

[amirm]

Austin wrote “Many of the posts are ignorant and poorly informed.”

That’s a correct statement.

What are those posts? And what is the evidence that Austin is well informed?

 

[Ricardus]

Two different pieces of equipment with the same measured frequency response and distortion can sound radically different.

This is the audiophile unicorn. Still waiting to see a reliable real-world example of this. Until I do it's BS.

 

[GXAlan]

They are hard to do with speakers and headphones but very feasible for amplifiers. Yes, there is some trickiness with matching levels when output impedance of the tube amp makes variable level shifts based on frequency. Other than that, you just need an AB switch and you are ready to do the testing. You can start single blind and see how far you get. If you fail that test, i.e. get different results sighted vs unsighted then no need to worry about double blind.

Agree, and I am lenient. I say that it’s fine to match the tube to the solid state at a specific frequency or pink noise. Once you add the variable frequency response, it SHOULD make it even easier to show a difference in the blind testing. Part of the variable frequency response is part of the effect.

But it will be very hard to identify the tube in double blind testing even then.

If we consider whether it is possible to measure something, we must define what are we measuring.

Unless you’re doing null comparisons between recordings — which I have used to document differences that are vanishingly small but potentially real.

That is, false positive differences can occur but false negatives are rare. When the null comparisons hit -120 dB or more, then you can confidently say that there is not difference.

You can quote a distortion figure in percentage for an amplifier. You must quote the frequency of the signal being measured (ok, we assume a sinusoid), its level, and we obtain a figure. A figure is a single dimension. How much information can a single figure portray?

Two different pieces of equipment with the same measured frequency response and distortion can sound radically different.

No one Rarely does anyone think that a single number (such as SINAD) is sufficient to define the performance of a product. Amir says it the best: if SINAD was the only thing we needed, why would he waste his time doing all the other tests? A poor SINAD conveys a lot less than an excellent SINAD but you also need the IMD and multitone tests.

I agree that frequency response into a resistor may not predict sound into speakers. BUT while I agree poor measuring may sound good, I would *love* to see a single example of two electrical products with similar frequency response into load and similar *low* distortion that sounds *radically* different.

Now speakers? Yes. Frequency response and distortion can sound radically different.

What is the harmonic content of that distortion, it, its spectrum?

How does it vary with level?

How does it vary with signal frequency assuming a sinusoid?

Do other complex products such as intermodulation appear when we are not playing a humble sinusoid but real music?

So, you can measure it. But good luck trying to obtain a measurement that can really characterise it in a useful way.

Sure, but Nelson Pass has made attempts to characterize it. Hobbyists have made attempts to characterize it. So why do we give up so easily when it comes to manufacturers or commercial magazines?

The best strength of measurements is identifying stuff like AC mains noise. It has zero role for beneficial audio, so it’s a very consistent goal that tube and solid state fans can agree upon. When you say that we only know a little bit about characterization and give up completely on objective measurements, it’s no good for anyone but the retailers.

 

[MattHooper]

I don't know why these people refer to us this way. It looks so unprofessional. Just say the site name as we are doing here with stereophile.

I agree. I think as a matter of forum or internet etiquette: If you have a specific criticism of a site, group or person and you are going to voice it, specify who you are talking about.

Some people presume it's taking the high road not to "name names" I think that makes things worse; you end up indiscriminately spraying criticism in which case even those who aren't your target are left wondering "Is he talking about me? Is he calling me ignorant?" (An analogy I've used before is walking in to a party and announcing "Look, I don't want to name names or upset anyone, but I'll just say this: some people here are full of sh*t.")

And not naming names also comes off as an excuse to lodge a critique without taking on the burden of defending that critique. Nobody can come back saying "you've got me wrong on that" because you haven't identified anyone in particular. So you get to strawman all you want.

Of course we know who JA2 was nodding toward with the comments, and I don't really take his comment as malicious, but I do think it suffers from the above problems.

 

[ahofer]

Excuse me, but is this the sort of person that Mr. Austin "takes seriously?" Is this the sort of person who is "worthy of his respect?" I'm just asking, mind you .....

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656271838433927217

Jim

IT VIBRATES SYMPATHETICALLY AT THE FREQUENCIES YOU DON'T LIKE! EVERYONE AGREES IT SOUNDS BETTER WITH THE GROUNDER!

Did he blink an SOS?

 

[Axo1989]

I agree. I think as a matter of forum or internet etiquette: If you have a specific criticism of a site, group or person and you are going to voice it, specify who you are talking about.

Some people presume it's taking the high road not to "name names" I think that makes things worse; you end up indiscriminately spraying criticism in which case even those who aren't your target are left wondering "Is he talking about me? Is he calling me ignorant?" (An analogy I've used before is walking in to a party and announcing "Look, I don't want to name names or upset anyone, but I'll just say this: some people here are full of sh*t.")

And not naming names also comes off as an excuse to lodge a critique without taking on the burden of defending that critique. Nobody can come back saying "you've got me wrong on that" because you haven't identified anyone in particular. So you get to strawman all you want.

Of course we know who JA2 was nodding toward with the comments, and I don't really take his comment as malicious, but I do think it suffers from the above problems.

That ‘not naming names’ is definitely a cultural/generational thing: at least, my parents maybe and my grandparents certainly would do it that way. Austin may be old school. ASR is like totally hip and down with the truth-telling.

 

[GXAlan]

Excuse me, but is this the sort of person that Mr. Austin "takes seriously?" Is this the sort of person who is "worthy of his respect?" I'm just asking, mind you .....

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656271838433927217

Jim

The sad part is that those MBL’s are genuinely good speakers.

MBL Radialstrahler 101 E MkII Loudspeaker Lab Report

Lab Report Measured on the tweeter magnet axis, the impact in forward response of the various 'Natural/Rich' and 'Smooth/Natural/Fast' mid/treble modes is minor – the difference between the three treble settings amounting to just ±0.1dB (5-12kHz) while the 'Attack' Low setting offers a +0.7dB...

www.hifinews.com

That frequency response *for hifinews* is great, and even though that is not ruler flat, you get the benefit of the omnipolar design which overcomes the irregularity of the frequency response.

MBL Radialstrahler 101E Mk.II loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements

www.stereophile.com

 

[Doodski]

What got my attention was:
"These are Shun Mook feet, custom-designed just for this speaker. They replaced the brass footer feet. On the bottom of these ... uh .... mpingo wood Shun Mook devices there's a big stainless steel spike. On the end of that spike is an industrial diamond ... and the diamond has some kind of way of grounding the speaker most effectively ... or of any other piece of equipment that the Shun Mook might sit on."

Maybe Mr. Austin takes this sort of person seriously and considers them worthy of his respect, but I'm sorry ..... I don't.

Jim

They are maybe using the diamond as a hard element to retain the most efficient and exact angle of the point of contact with the floor. Getting techy with the engineering and making something totally overpriced and virtually useless other than a conversation piece.

 

[Newman]

The sad part is that those MBL’s are genuinely good speakers.

I think the evidence is that horizontally omnidirectional loudspeakers are not "genuinely good speakers" for the purpose of playback in domestic rooms. link

Also, because no recording studios use omnidirectional speakers, Toole believes that they should be seen as "sound effect generators" for the purpose of recorded music playback.

 

[Sal1950]

I find the disdain with which the stereophile authors are dismissed by some here misplaced. They are, in my opinion, decent people who seriously and for a long time care about hi-fi. I find it most unpleasant when extreme positions, one side or the other e.g. the so-called objectivists / subjectivists are presented in a know-it-all form.

You do?
Within Stereophile we have a group of "writers" that consistently lie to the readers in a effort to promote expensive products which are of no value in increasing the quality of a systems ability to reproduce High Fidelity music. Even within their own ranks, when JA1 makes any mention of a product who's measurements have highlighted a failure in that product to create transparent I/O, the excuses fly and BS comes to the front in efforts to devalue the products failure as a High Fidelity component. Some lame coverup explaining why the poor measurements didn't matter or even have a positive effect. (It's OK the amp screws up FR with load, it sounds "better" that way".)
This subjective community has done more to inhibit the advance of audios SOTA than any one snake-oil peddler I could ever imagine. It's sad beyond belief and in any other scientific field, they would be laughed off the public stage.

I don't know why these people refer to us this way. It looks so unprofessional. Just say the site name as we are doing here with stereophile.

They can then say anything they like about us, an we don't have the ability of a direct response.

Excuse me, but is this the sort of person that Mr. Austin "takes seriously?" Is this the sort of person who is "worthy of his respect?" I'm just asking, mind you .....

Yep, that's exactly JA2's type of guy.

 

[Doodski]

I think the evidence is that horizontally omnidirectional loudspeakers are not "genuinely good speakers" for the purpose of playback in domestic rooms. link

Also, because no recording studios use omnidirectional speakers, Toole believes that they should be seen as "sound effect generators" for the purpose of recorded music playback.

I agree wholeheartedly with those comments. I have used extensively the Polk SDA SRS and the Definitive Technology bipolar floor standing speakers and they where all special effects and hit well sometimes and other times it was not so good.

 

[Sal1950]

I think the evidence is that horizontally omnidirectional loudspeakers are not "genuinely good speakers" for the purpose of playback in domestic rooms. link

Also, because no recording studios use omnidirectional speakers, Toole believes that they should be seen as "sound effect generators" for the purpose of recorded music playback.

I agree wholeheartedly with those comments. I have used extensively the Polk SDA SRS and the Definitive Technology bipolar floor standing speakers and they where all special effects and hit well sometimes and other times it was not so good.

Big 10-4 guys. I never heard an omni I thought sounded "right".
Since the days of the original Bose 901's, all I ever heard from omni's were a large, unfocused image bouncing
from every wall in the room.
They're just wrong IMHO

 

[Blumlein 88]

I've heard some good bipoles which are sort of like an omni. Mirage M1 and M3si being good examples. Toole used the Mirage M1 for years in his own system. I don't know what he uses currently. They aren't omni's except in lower frequencies.

 

[GXAlan]

Big 10-4 guys. I never heard an omni I thought sounded "right".
Since the days of the original Bose 901's, all I ever heard from omni's were a large, unfocused image bouncing
from every wall in the room.
They're just wrong IMHO

@Floyd Toole probably wouldn't be as harsh. See his comments post-Harman:
https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/genelec-on-audio-science.3110/post-80274

Also, here are some of his slides on non-direct radiators from his official Harman era: https://www.harman.com/documents/LoudspeakersandRoomsPt1_0.pdf

It's a special effects box, but it's not always horrible because
"By spraying sound in more directions it was possible to create a greater sense of space, width and depth. Sometimes, with some recordings, it may be a bit too much. But that is stereo, always a bit of a gamble whether the recording technique and the playback technique match."

I don't think anyone would ONLY have the MBL 101e or Bose 901 as their only music system. But if you have stellar multi-channel setup with direct radiating speakers, having other setups to embellish stereo in a manner different to Dolby/DTS/Auro is a reasonable option.