Stereophile's snide editorial on ASR and Amir

[sofrep811]

Stereophile is like a piece of fly feces within the entire audio world. I bet less than 1K people will even read that entire editorial and of that 1K only 15% would understand why this old codger feels insecure and needs to try and bash people for challenging truth.

 

[sq225917]

Timbre, the difference in sound between nylon and steel strings.

 

[Daverich4]

Why do loudspeakers need to cost over $100,000.00 in order to make the "Editors' Choice" list?

They don’t as I’m sure you know. The Editors Choice list is broken into several different price ranges which includes among other things Editor Choice speakers under $1K.

Best Speakers Under $1,000 - The Absolute Sound

Our editors have evaluated speakers over the past several years and discussed which stand out. Here are our recommendations under $1,000.

www.theabsolutesound.com

 

[captainbeefheart]

I guess on some level it matters on what we call 'timbre' - which is really a music related term, not a sound engineering one. Certainly with some tube amplifiers as the operating level is changed, the distortion and to some degree spectral balance will change (saturating transformers and such). My SET amplifier which uses 2A3 output tubes will level compress the signal with the waveform changing but not clipping beyond a certain output level - does that qualify as a 'timbre' change? What about transient response? Some tube amplifiers will exhibit flutter/blocking when pulsed with a signal - admittedly not a great design aspect. That is certainly changing the 'envelope' of the signal. Does it matter what an FFT shows at that point - is it the best tool for analysis?

That's why we do multiple tests to determine how an amplifier will behave and not just an FFT plot and call it a day.

It seems a lot of people are trying to make a technical point about what an FFT won't show which is completely understood but that's not what is being said by me which started the whole thing. I of course know the overall sound of an amp includes testing in the time domain. My main point is that the vast majority of people looking at how an amplifier is voiced is via an FFT. We can of course then move onto square wave testing or measuring the phase shift breakpoints for stability criteria etc...

With Class A1 or AB1 if overloaded can show blocking distortion issues. There are compressive issues from power supply impedance etc......


There isn't just one test to determine the complete performance of an amplifier but I'm not the only person out there that when discussing the "Timbre" or "Voicing" of an amplifier the major part is the harmonic content which an FFT plot is the standard. Strong Third harmonic is going to sound different vs second harmonic. Higher harmonics that are non-harmonious in regard to music theory (2H octave, 3H 12th which is an octave above the fifth, both very harmonious but different sounding) sound awful.

I know envelope and different modulations will effect perceived sound, I have been making analog effects and amplifiers for a very long time.

 

[DMill]

They've gone through a few owners over the past years and laid off some people I believe.

I would have no way of knowing but ANY magazine is a difficult business in todays day and age. Being profitable would require leveraging web properties. Subscriptions might only cover the cost of printing. My ex is a magazine publisher. Any magazines day of being the only source of community and information are long gone

 

[tmtomh]

There's also this new piece in The Absolute Sound:

Philosophical Notes: What Is The Trouble With Measurements? - The Absolute Sound

Philosophical Notes: What Is The Trouble With Measurements? -

www.theabsolutesound.com

Measurements, more than ever, have become the Elephant In The Room many audiophile review mags can't totally ignore anymore.
I suspect they notice some of the audiophile crowd really is getting more demanding in this regard.

Yes, these editorials are signs that the ASR approach in general, and ASR in particular, are making inroads (not to mention generating traffic and views well in excess of what much of the established audiophile press gets). The Stereophile piece is more defensive and disingenuous, while TAS piece is more thoughtful and generous in its approach and tone.

The Stereophile piece’s tone and content is in my view a product of its author. Jim Austin is, in my personal opinion, a self-important dilettante who knows precious little about the technical issues and seems to think he can effectively fake his way through it, which this latest piece shows he cannot. Say what you will about John Atkinson, but he knows his stuff technically. So too does the fair-minded and ever-gracious @Kal Rubinson . I have seen exactly zero evidence that Austin knows much of anything about the technical aspects.

For its part, Robinson’s piece has a fundamental logical flaw: if you take measurements, you still have to communicate their meaning in words, so we at TAS have decided to cut out the middleman and just start with the words - never mind that words unanchored to measurements are impressionistic at best and meaningless at worst when it comes to communicating the performance of hi-fi equipment.

But at least Robinson doesn’t make invidious distinctions or sling insults as Austin does.

Oh - and as for the argument that it’s fair game for these outlets to attack ASR since we attack them, I agree that there’s no point in getting worked up or offended about these snide swipes at ASR. But I do think a couple of points should be kept in mind:

1. These mainstream magazines seem to be referring to the most simplistic and thoughtless comments that get posted on this forum - but they use them to attack @amirm himself. That’s bush-league and deserving of whatever scorn members here wish to express.

2. They also regularly misrepresent what Amir/ASR actually does in reviews/tests, whereas Amir critiques them based on what they actually say and do. The old political saying is therefore quite apt here: “If you stop telling lies about me, then I’ll stop telling the truth about you.”

 

[raif71]

 

[theREALdotnet]

Phase plots of actual physical devices are trivially derived from the amplitude plot. This won’t hold if a design has an all pass filter, but in audio reproduction, that is exceptionally rare.

No argument. The point I made was not about the frequency response (i.e. amplitude and phase response) of a device, but about the spectral plot of a signal. Two signals, in fact, that have identical spectral content yet different waveforms.

The fact that those can exist leads to the observation that by sending a 1kHz (or whatever) tone through two amps and looking at the spectra of the harmonic distortions they produce – as is commonly done in better audio reviews – one cannot conclude the distortions will sound the same, even if the spectra are identical. Or, to put it another way, one of the amps can sound worse than the other, even if the spectra of their output signals are identical. This is because identical spectra can be produced by different types of IMD (amplitude and phase modulation), and those sure sound different.

 

[MarkS]

If the distortion components are small enough, then the amps will sound identical.

And they are small enough in all modern solid-state amps.

 

[Chrispy]

Yes, you are speaking the truth. This stuff happens because it's nearly impossible to try products IRL. I call this hype. You can get hype from measurements (Aiyima A07). You can get hype from hyperbolic reviews (Klipsch RP600M).

It's all silly because as a buyer you have to trust the internet and the magazines.

Getting the boot is commonplace on the internet if your opinions don't align with the majority. It's more obvious in politics, health sciences or economics over consumer electronics (most consumer electronics function well and fulfill their purpose).

Two things can be true at once, so the truth is rather subjective depending on the context.

I just want subjective listening IRL to be more important.

OTOH IRL means what with limited setup for comparison? It's usually shite as far as most comparisons go.....

 

[theREALdotnet]

If the distortion components are small enough, then the amps will sound identical.

And they are small enough in all modern solid-state amps.

Let’s keep that under wraps, shall we? We wouldn’t want Topping to know that they’ve been pi$$ing in the wind…

 

[mhardy6647]

Stereophile (which, in full disclosure, I still enjoy and periodically subscribe to when it's cheap enough for 12 issues) certainly has changed over the years.
But, then again, so has... umm... everything.
Pretty much everything.

STEREOPHILE: High-end monthly audio magazine beginning 1962

Stereophile is a monthly magazine that focuses on high-end home audio equipment, such as loudspeakers and amplifiers, and audio-related news, such as online audio streaming. It continues to be published.

worldradiohistory.com

 

[Chrispy]

Stereophile (which, in full disclosure, I still enjoy and periodically subscribe to when it's cheap enough for 12 issues) certainly has changed over the years.
But, then again, so has... umm... everything.
Pretty much everything.


View attachment 219609

STEREOPHILE: High-end monthly audio magazine beginning 1962

Stereophile is a monthly magazine that focuses on high-end home audio equipment, such as loudspeakers and amplifiers, and audio-related news, such as online audio streaming. It continues to be published.

worldradiohistory.com

Yep, has become a ridiculous bit of fluff over the years....

 

[syn08]

Our enemy is the lack of knowledge.

Not mine. Honest ignorance is the first step in the knowledge journey. I take issue with those obviously knowledgeable individuals, willingly misleading the innocent bystanders.

I’m afraid PurifI is also trying to have the cake and eat it too, by trying to play on both turfs. Originally I thought some Purifi subjective nonsense (never undersigned) were part of a 3rd party hearsay interpretation, but I’m afraid I was wrong. For those with extra time and patience, you may want to parse this discussion https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...resistors-in-signal-path.384534/#post-6978816 NB, @irisbo is nobody else but Lars of Purifi fame.

The shitstorm starts around post #70. I could not believe any competent engineer can attempt to completely Fourier characterize a signal, by ignoring the phase. Also note how eagerly the high end audio bull chips perpetrators are digesting and promoting Lars‘s technical nonsense. For those with less patience to read through the silly thread, here’s the Purifi blog debunked: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...rs-in-signal-path.384534/page-17#post-6988928 The original claim was that two signals with the same FFT spectrum can sound different, hence we cannot rely on Fourier to identify sound differences. Hence, there are sound differences that we don’t usually measure.

 

[JPA]

Engineering is not science.

You're right. It's not.

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.

Good engineers absolutley do all of the above. Maybe you're confused about the distinction between real engineers and those who only have "Engineer" in their title but do no real engineering work. I've known many of them in my career.

Most of the work is anonymous.

Most scientific work is also anonymous. The "publish or perish" thing is mostly confined to academia.

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.

If they do their own product design then obviously they understand how their products work.

 

[MattHooper]

Yes, these editorials are signs that the ASR approach in general, and ASR in particular, are making inroads (not to mention generating traffic and views well in excess of what much of the established audiophile press gets). The Stereophile piece is more defensive and disingenuous, while TAS piece is more thoughtful and generous in its approach and tone.

The Stereophile piece’s tone and content is in my view a product of its author. Jim Austin is, in my personal opinion, a self-important dilettante who knows precious little about the technical issues and seems to think he can effectively fake his way through it, which this latest piece shows he cannot. Say what you will about John Atkinson, but he knows his stuff technically. So too does the fair-minded and ever-gracious @Kal Rubinson . I have seen exactly zero evidence that Austin knows much of anything about the technical aspects.

For its part, Robinson’s piece has a fundamental logical flaw: if you take measurements, you still have to communicate their meaning in words, so we at TAS have decided to cut out the middleman and just start with the words - never mind that words unanchored to measurements are impressionistic at best and meaningless at worst when it comes to communicating the performance of hi-fi equipment.

But at least Robinson doesn’t make invidious distinctions or sling insults as Austin does.

Oh - and as for the argument that it’s fair game for these outlets to attack ASR since we attack them, I agree that there’s no point in getting worked up or offended about these snide swipes at ASR. But I do think a couple of points should be kept in mind:

1. These mainstream magazines seem to be referring to the most simplistic and thoughtless comments that get posted on this forum - but they use them to attack @amirm himself. That’s bush-league and deserving of whatever scorn members here wish to express.

2. They also regularly misrepresent what Amir/ASR actually does in reviews/tests, whereas Amir critiques them based on what they actually say and do. The old political saying is therefore quite apt here: “If you stop telling lies about me, then I’ll stop telling the truth about you.”

I generally agree.

One thing though: - never mind that words unanchored to measurements are impressionistic at best and meaningless at worst when it comes to communicating the performance of hi-fi equipment.

If you are talking about putting sonic impressions in to words, they are just as impressionistic "anchored" to measurements, or not. That's what they tell us, the subjective impression the sound makes to the listener.

 

[pablolie]

They don’t as I’m sure you know. The Editors Choice list is broken into several different price ranges which includes among other things Editor Choice speakers under $1K.

Best Speakers Under $1,000 - The Absolute Sound

Our editors have evaluated speakers over the past several years and discussed which stand out. Here are our recommendations under $1,000.

www.theabsolutesound.com

I distinctly recall the original LS50 made Class A. Along with stuff many times its price. Sometimes they get it right. I don't hate Stereophile. Of course their prose is over the top, which is necessary since it's mostly about audio jewelry. Then again, no one reads Car And Driver for their review of the Chevrolet Spark.

 

[tmtomh]

I generally agree.

One thing though: - never mind that words unanchored to measurements are impressionistic at best and meaningless at worst when it comes to communicating the performance of hi-fi equipment.

If you are talking about putting sonic impressions in to words, they are just as impressionistic "anchored" to measurements, or not. That's what they tell us, the subjective impression the sound makes to the listener.

Well of course - but that’s not what Robinson’s article argues. He writes about “objective perceptions,” and it’s clear that he lumps (a) measurements and (b) what you (and I, and any intellectually honest person) call subjective impressions into that category.

So he’s claiming that measurements and individual listening impressions are coequal in their objectivity, at least when the listening impressions are those of professional reviewers.

 

[Audiofire]

The fact that those can exist leads to the observation that by sending a 1kHz (or whatever) tone through two amps and looking at the spectra of the harmonic distortions they produce – as is commonly done in better audio reviews – one cannot conclude the distortions will sound the same, even if the spectra are identical. Or, to put it another way, one of the amps can sound worse than the other, even if the spectra of their output signals are identical. This is because identical spectra can be produced by different types of IMD (amplitude and phase modulation), and those sure sound different.

This entails a question that is more interesting to me: What measurements and equipment are prudent, for a magazine like Stereophile or individuals in general, in order to have a thorough analysis of an audio amp or preamp?

I can think of oscilloscopes that show the waveforms, FFTs that show the spectrograms, and spectrum analyzers. Can I make thorough measurements with an oscilloscope and loopback testing through a high-end audio interface, or do I need a spectrum analyzer (or something else)?

 

[theREALdotnet]

I can think of oscilloscopes that show the waveforms, FFTs that show the spectrograms, and spectrum analyzers. Can I make thorough measurements with an oscilloscope and loopback testing through a high-end audio interface, or do I need a spectrum analyzer (or something else)?

I’m totally in favour of oscilloscopes, but perhaps I’m biased because I own a couple . One of them also does FFT.