Stereophile's snide editorial on ASR and Amir

[DMill]

It seems to me that when something doesn't get a good review, especially if it's from an established "audiophile" brand, the subjectivists lose their minds. We hear, "You must have measured it wrong." and "How can this be I spent $5,000 on it and the guy at the store said it was SOTA?" and this one especially, "Sounds great to my ears, I bet you didn't even listen to it." But here's the thing, we never hear a word from them when something gets a good review here. In fact, it's the opposite and we hear, "See the numbers back me up. This thing is killer and I did the right thing with my money." All of a sudden they are conveniently objectivist. I know it sucks to find out your $5,000 amp isn't as good as one that's $500, but you can,t have it both ways.

 

[krabapple]

"But owning an Audio Precision analyzer doesn't make you an expert,. . ."

View attachment 219239

? strictly speaking, that quote is true.

 

[kokakolia]

Don’t be ridiculous. A trial for the purpose of determining the subjective qualities of sound waves, that fails to distinguish sound waves from non-sonic factors, is invalid for its stated purpose.

End of. No priest required. Think, man!

To be fair, the scientific method is used by the manufacturer to design a good product which will sell.

As an "objectivist" you're kind of approaching the issue of buying the suitable product for you backwards, like the manufacturer which doesn't know your preferences and approximates them with science (i.e. a template).

So you find a template which approximates the "perfect speakers" and compare every product on the market with that template. But you're not questioning the template and how it was made. Because it has a scientific authority behind it. That is dogmatic.

 

[MaxBuck]

I really don't see much in this article to complain about.

Not all of the comments from self-identified objectivists are reliable. Just look at some of the silly things I myself have posted here.

 

[krabapple]

I am not a scientist.

And neither is Bruno Putzys. He's a great engineer. The whole 'who's a scientist' is a red herring.

The article is some Stereophile hack named Jim Austin's interpretation of what he thinks Purifi does.

I wonder what Putzys thinks of the article...and the direct salvos aimed at ASR in the comment by entities like 'The Tinkerer'.

 

[JaccoW]

I'm curious, are there studies out there that validate this?

For example, although the boomers are going to die off, their millenial children are an even bigger cohort, and will be reaching their peak earning years (perhaps belatedly) starting in the late 2020's. Will that help offset the outflow? I don't know, just asking.

Also, taking in the field as a whole, suppose it is true that there will be less interest in megabuck equipment. (I don;t know that; this is a hypothetical.) The contrary trend is that it has never been cheaper to become an audiophile.

I used to spend $1000's in the 1980's-90's for LP's and then CD's. Now I have 95 million lossless recordings available for $7.99/month on Amazon HD, and many (if not all) are as good or better than the original CD's or LP's.

Since when could you get low distortion, straight-wire-with-gain dac's and amps for less money? So much improvement.

And markets are now not just USA and Europe, they are global, with billions (yes with a "b") of people gradually upgrading their living standards toward and into the consumer class. (This research I'm more familiar with.) Is it possible that many of them will enjoy recorded music well enough to look beyond their phones? And will some of them become hobbyists, or status conscious?

(For example, did the emergence of Chi-Fi happen because of Western markets? Topping doesn't even have a service presence here. But they sure do in the Far East.)

Again, I'm just asking, is there some useful research on this out there? Is there some evidence that today's kids don't take up an interest in hi-fi once they establish careers and start nesting? I'm just not familiar with it and I'm curious.

Well, let's take a look at the US distribution.

Source

• Silent Generation ('25-'42) - 21.7 million
• Baby Boomers ('46-'64) - 70.4 million
• Generation X ('65-'80) - 65.2 million
• Millenials ('81-'96) - 73.2 million, depending on the definition
• Generation Z ('97-'12) - 67.8 million
• Generation Alpha ('10-?) - 36.7 million and rising

Seeing how the average life expectancy in the US is 78.79 years and the oldest Boomers are 76 and the youngest are 58 then yes. Between now and 20 years that group will be almost completely gone. In 10 years time you can probably expect that group to be reduced to only half their size and the previous 'Silent Generation' to be gone as well.

That means that a lot of brands that only appeal to that group will be in trouble.

Millenials only partially grew up on CDs. Those born later grew up in the time of MP3 and online streaming. Many of them do not own hifi but are used to cheap stereo sets, soundbars or bluetooth speakers. The cheap 'Good enough' is often better than the affordable options in the 90's and earlier.

That is of course juxtaposed with these generations growing up with the internet and being used to finding people sharing their particular hobby or interest on forums and places like Reddit.

Globally, you see a slightly different distribution where younger people make up a far larger part of the population.

Source 2021

I'd say, globally at least, Gen-X might save the Boomer-brands for a while but in most of the Western world... not really. The younger generation chooses their own brands. The classic brands from Japan are being replaced by new brands from China and the local brands either adapt.... or die.
Combine that with people preferring integrated designs (the smartphone does it all as well) and some of the old-school "20 boxes for the perfect sound" designs will go out of fashion.

I for one hate the way McIntosh looks and cannot for the life of me imagine someone wanting that in their living room.

 

[TSB]

To be fair, the scientific method is used by the manufacturer to design a good product which will sell.

As an "objectivist" you're kind of approaching the issue of buying the suitable product for you backwards, like the manufacturer which doesn't know your preferences and approximates them with science (i.e. a template).

So you find a template which approximates the "perfect speakers" and compare every product on the market with that template. But you're not questioning the template and how it was made. Because it has a scientific authority behind it. That is dogmatic.

Engineering is not science. Engineers do not use the 'scientific method'. They don't send out their designs for peer review. They don't publish measurement protocols that can be replicated. There are no retractions. Most of the work is anonymous.

On a related note, as someone involved in programming high-end audio equipment, I think many would be surprised by how much of high-end audio is improvised and cobbled together, even in the best products, and how many high-end companies have absolutely no idea how their products work, outsourcing everything except product design and marketing.

 

[Beershaun]

I read it as journalists trying to "talk science and engineering." The cherry picking of engineering and science terms without understanding the concepts. Specifically whether they are attacking Amir's work or not, everything they used as an example of what you should be measuring or should understand before measuring (like IMD and -100db distortion being audible due to IMD) Amir calls out and does measure. So I think their comments bolster Amir is actually doing.

 

[krabapple]

Did anyone happen to read the comments? There are only two so Stereophile certainly meant it as a snipe against Amir since they posted only one other comment other than this one I will quote here for you all.

I doubt Stereophile online moderates comments to that extent. Maybe they've only got two (three now) comments so far. The article was only posted yesterday. Sheesh.

Amir's mods 'allow' some loopy subjectivist and some aggro (e.g anti-PS) stuff to get posted here, it doesn't mean he/they are promoting it at the expense of other views.

 

[krabapple]

An ASR angle would never even have occurred to me.

I viewed it more as a Pro-Purifi puff piece.

It's that too. But hard to see how you could miss the references that 'just happen' to fit ASR . (Certainly one of their commenters 'got' it.)

Maybe you're just a super-nice person?

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

I'm curious, are there studies out there that validate this?

For example, although the boomers are going to die off, their millenial children are an even bigger cohort, and will be reaching their peak earning years (perhaps belatedly) starting in the late 2020's. Will that help offset the outflow? I don't know, just asking.

Also, taking in the field as a whole, suppose it is true that there will be less interest in megabuck equipment. (I don;t know that; this is a hypothetical.) The contrary trend is that it has never been cheaper to become an audiophile.

I used to spend $1000's in the 1980's-90's for LP's and then CD's. Now I have 95 million lossless recordings available for $7.99/month on Amazon HD, and many (if not all) are as good or better than the original CD's or LP's.

Since when could you get low distortion, straight-wire-with-gain dac's and amps for less money? So much improvement.

And markets are now not just USA and Europe, they are global, with billions (yes with a "b") of people gradually upgrading their living standards toward and into the consumer class. (This research I'm more familiar with.) Is it possible that many of them will enjoy recorded music well enough to look beyond their phones? And will some of them become hobbyists, or status conscious?

(For example, did the emergence of Chi-Fi happen because of Western markets? Topping doesn't even have a service presence here. But they sure do in the Far East.)

Again, I'm just asking, is there some useful research on this out there? Is there some evidence that today's kids don't take up an interest in hi-fi once they establish careers and start nesting? I'm just not familiar with it and I'm curious.

You'll have to do the homework to find studies. One thing I'm certain of however is that I'm old and can't live forever (neither can you). Don't need graphs 'n charts to verify that. I also work in the audio equipment manufacturing industry, so I'm not just blowing theories out my ass.

 

[krabapple]

Of course they take a shot at measurements. Stereophile features gear from makers they have good "relationships" with. This includes gear the measures average but somehow has "great sound". I'm in no way an expert, but Amirs reviews are to the point (and as a Marantz AVR owner frustrating).

The 'other' JA does measurements. The fun part is when they conflict with the swoony sighted reviews

 

[DonH56]

So you find a template which approximates the "perfect speakers" and compare every product on the market with that template. But you're not questioning the template and how it was made. Because it has a scientific authority behind it. That is dogmatic.

Hmmm... I read the papers, the books, and considered the research behind the preference curves. To me that is rational thought, not dogmatic. If you (anyone) do not trust any authority outside your own, the corollary is that you must know all that is known through your own experience. The extreme interpretation is that all scientific authority must be rejected without questioning the research, with the implication that you (again, any "you", not you specifically) have the time and competence to perform and/or understand the research. I am nowhere near that smart, nor have the time it would require to achieve that level of competence; I must depend upon the expertise of others both in my job and in my daily life.

Engineering is not science. Engineers do not use the 'scientific method'. They don't send out their designs for peer review. They don't publish measurement protocols that can be replicated. There are no retractions. Most of the work is anonymous.

I would disagree with that in general. Engineers must go through design reviews, do publish papers in peer-reviewed journals (ever hear of the IEEE? AES? IRE?), and are trained almost from the start in the scientific method. Perhaps schools have changed since I was there, but in recent years when I have lectured at the local college it was still very much in evidence. I have participated in several standards that focused on repeatable measurement protocols (various IEEE standards, primarily, plus PCIe and SAS standards more recently). Many people look down upon engineers as not true "scientists", and from the standpoint of performing basic research that is often (probably mostly) true, but I see a continuum from basic to applied research and thence to product design. Perhaps because I spent much of my career in an R&D environment, both for government and commercial projects.

I need a break...

 

[MattHooper]

A periodic reminder of what a garbage, baggage-laden term “objectivist” is.

Audio Subjectivist: Someone who believes that his subjective perception is the final and most reliable arbiter for evaluating audio gear.

If measurements or appeals to blind listening tests don't support - or even contradict - his subjective impressions, he will reject that evidence in favor of his subjective impressions. People in this camp tend to think that casual listening, uncontrolled for bias, is the best way to evaluate audio gear.

Audio Objectivist: Someone who acknowledges the limitations of our subjective perception and who recognizes the use of measurements and controlled listening tests to buttress confidence in evaluating gear.

Unlike the subjectivist, in principle if measurements or controlled listening tests don't support a subjective impression (his own, or claims made from subjective impressions), the objectivist will put more confidence in what the measurements and/or blind listening tests, imply.


Short Version:

The "subjectivist" essentially operates as if his subjective impressions are infallible. The "objectivist" operates on the grounds his subjective impressions can be fallible, and looks to more objective/controlled evidence that can help increase confidence levels.

 

[krabapple]

In my experience "objectivists" are the most annoying people online because they try to force their opinions on others and prove that "A is better than B".

If you think 'objectivists' 'force' anything on anyone, or that 'subjectivists' are never annoyingly smug, I think you need to get out more (in the hobby, I mean).

If it was only ever 'objectivists' trying to push their view on poor just-mindin'-our-own-business subjectivists, there'd hardly be any debate, would there?

 

[Vacceo]

Wrong choice of material

You should use this recording for testing HiFi gear:

View attachment 219354

Only the most revealing equipment will lift all seven.

Not really. These are the kinds of veils that need lifting:

This needs to be played on Wilson's powered by Pass Labs.

 

[MRC01]

You’d be surprised where many throw their cash. I know quite a few in their early 20’s spending over $2k on a custom keyboard, such as the Keycult offerings.

Guilty.

Most techies who spend $ on keyboards do so for mechanical switches and ergonomics rather than cosmetics or collectibility. I'm guilty as charged, with a Unicomp Mini-M (buckling springs) and a few others with Cherry browns, blues and greens. But that costs only hundreds, not thousands. And they have objective benefits (improved typing speed & accuracy, comfort) and last forever.

 

[krabapple]

Not a problem with objectivists necessarily, unless objectivists mock the guy who "enjoys his music with 5dB,q2 up at 8khz". Most subjectivists will just shrug it off and think "I like what I like, you do you".

Again, we're talking about what happens in print/on screens, right? (Or even at audio gear conventions.)

This is either quite naive or just arrant bullshit.

 

[Rednaxela]

And if you like
B over A you're judged for being "stupid" or "wrong" by the objectivists.

Not my experience.

On the contrary. The objectivist position is in fact that you can like what you want. Just don’t call it better because you like it better.

You can call people defending this distinction religious and cultist, but in reality it’s a crucial antidote against religion and cults. And it is worth asking yourself why this is so.

The feeling of being judged is all in your head. Generally an objectivist is not very interested in your preferences. Until you make them more meaningful than they are. However if that is something you find hard to deal with, why expose yourself to it? You’re not forced to do so right?

 

[kokakolia]

Amir's mods 'allow' some loopy subjectivist and some aggro (e.g anti-PS) stuff to get posted here, it doesn't mean he/they are promoting it at the expense of other views.

Again. Dogmatic. You're illustrating the "Righteous Us VS Them" mentality. There is no room for people outside of your viewpoint on the hobby. They're wrong.

I may be a "loopy subjectivist" but I acknowledge that people have different methods for purchasing/recommending products. The objective method is valid for many people on ASR, it's just not the direction for me.

Engineering is not science. Engineers do not use the 'scientific method'. They don't send out their designs for peer review. They don't publish measurement protocols that can be replicated. There are no retractions. Most of the work is anonymous.

On a related note, as someone involved in programming high-end audio equipment, I think many would be surprised by how much of high-end audio is improvised and cobbled together, even in the best products, and how many high-end companies have absolutely no idea how their products work, outsourcing everything except product design and marketing.

The "scientific method" is misused so much in the context of foreign aid, education and health. The Maintenance Phase podcast episode on the "Worm Wars" is a perfect example. Some hotshot American Economist traveled to Africa with the goal to improve school attendence. He (forcefully) distributed worm medecine to all students and attendence shot up. But the worm medecine wasn't the direct cause, other causes like increased surveillance due to the program and "free stuff" also came into effect. Scientific papers were published and the damage was done. Millions of dollars were funneled into sending billions of pills to Africa. The effects of that policy weren't as effective as anticipated. Worse, a riot broke out in the school and a teacher got murdered by a parent for forcing medecine on a kid.

So blind trust in "science" is reckless. One must think critically regardless.