Stereophile's snide editorial on ASR and Amir

[kokakolia]

Unless that system uses vacuum tubes and horn speakers, its no good. Says me.

You get the point - a 'reference system' is impractical since different people will have different ideas on its makeup, even though all the approaches might be equally good at their task of reproducing convincing music.

A much better reference is an Audio Precision analyzer.

THIS is what I feared. The statement that NOTHING in this world beats a fictional setup on paper. It's best to listen through graphics and measurements over music (ASR, probably).

You gotta build a bridge between ASR and the "Stereophile" world. And that can only mean listening to music in stereo (obviously I'm poking fun at your testing procedure).

The reference setup is a demonstration of culminating knowledge and tangible results.

At least the opponents of ASR will have something to talk about.

Imagine: "The angry mob from ASR spent decades poo-pooing speakers/amps/DACs from reputable brands. After a two decade long tantrum, they finally reached a consensus. I'm listening to the ASR reference system. I'll confess that my teeth are grinding and my ears are fuming. This system is bloody brilliant! And at a fraction of the cost of what I paid for mine. Much like the French revolution, the angry mob was right after all."

 

[Vacceo]

The problem is that if I listen through music, whatever you play I will loathe. That's why gear needs to be tested with a fair method that does not require something as variable as music.

Otherwise, you end up as Steve Gutenberg.

 

[Mr. E. Guy]

The problem is that if I listen through music, whatever you play I will loathe. That's why gear needs to be tested with a fair method that does not require something as variable as music.

Otherwise, you end up as Steve Gutenberg.

I've done the math based on the view counts, I think a lot of audio reviewers would not mind ending up as Steve Guttenberg, self-employed and getting paid by YouTube for wearing funny shirts and playing with a room full of fine gear you didn't have to pay for

 

[Vacceo]

I've done the math based on the view counts, I think a lot of audio reviewers would not mind ending up as Steve Guttenberg, self-employed and getting paid by YouTube for wearing funny shirts and playing with a room full of fine gear you didn't have to pay for

And being of no informative value except for audio homeopathy believers.

Why having all that gear if all you play is boring?

 

[Timcognito]

I'll say it again, the problem with most "HiFi" press is they will not condemn anything the tests or sounds bad and bite the hand the feeds them. The best you can hope for is damning a poor performing device by faint praise. Thankfully for ASR Amir has another source of income so he can be independent. The problem for me, some others here and other audio publications is the lack of a shared construct, the Maxwell's Equations as it were, of what is measured and what is clearly audible, which in turn seems to be elusive and invoke a lot rancor and debate.

 

[tmtomh]

THIS is what I feared. The statement that NOTHING in this world beats a fictional setup on paper. It's best to listen through graphics and measurements over music (ASR, probably).

You gotta build a bridge between ASR and the "Stereophile" world. And that can only mean listening to music in stereo (obviously I'm poking fun at your testing procedure).

The reference setup is a demonstration of culminating knowledge and tangible results.

At least the opponents of ASR will have something to talk about.

Imagine: "The angry mob from ASR spent decades poo-pooing speakers/amps/DACs from reputable brands. After a two decade long tantrum, they finally reached a consensus. I'm listening to the ASR reference system. I'll confess that my teeth are grinding and my ears are fuming. This system is bloody brilliant! And at a fraction of the cost of what I paid for mine. Much like the French revolution, the angry mob was right after all."

Your entire argument is based on the claim that ASR has to build a bridge with the “Stereophile” world. You have yet to provide any persuasive support for why this is necessary, or even desirable.

Before you jump to the conclusion that I’m saying it’s good for there to be vilification and acrimony (a conclusion I’m guessing you’ll jump to no matter what I say, but I’ll hope for the best nonetheless ), let me clarify: I find the snarky rejoinders and “Stereophile is in its death throes” comments here to be unproductive, and I agree with you that sniping back and forth is pointless (although it is quite understandable).

Instead, my objection to your claim is that it’s just the converse of the attitude here that you’re criticizing: folks who are really upset about Austin’s petty little swipe implicitly want Stereophile to accept or respect ASR. So too does your desire for a “bridge,” and your fantasy about how Stereophile folks would be persuaded or throw in the towel if only ASR had a single “reference system,” implicitly aim for acceptance or respect by Austin et al for ASR.

But the Austin piece’s misunderstanding and disrespect for ASR (and Amir in particular) isn’t a secondary effect of a communication problem across two different hi-fi cultures: rather, the disrespect and dismissal is the entire point. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

Kal Rubinson is an active member here. John Atkinson looks in and posts now and then. And many members here are current or former Stereophile subscribers and readers of the audiophile press more generally. There’s already mutual understanding and intelligibility. We simply don’t agree (I’m not referring to Kal in this regard, BTW).

If ASR can be a better resource for fulfilling its own vision and mission, then by all means let’s encourage it to improve or change accordingly. But to embark on some kind of project to choose “THE” best-sounding system based on what Stereophile reviewers would likely hear (let alone admit to) in subjective listening tests? That’s pointless, in fact worse than pointless, because it would go against the entire purpose of this site. We don’t say an AP analyzer sounds better than a real system. We say that high-quality measurement gear is capable of measuring equipment better and more consistently than human ears are.

Putting together a “reference” system would enable a Stereophile reviewer to dismiss everything here simply by saying that they didn’t love the sound of the particular DAC or amp or speakers (or interconnects!) we had chosen. And it would reinforce the myth that particular components are somehow better than other, identically-measuring ones. It would also reinforce the myth that there’s an elite hi-fi priesthood that can tell you what the very best system is - an idea we oppose.

 

[Vacceo]

Your entire argument is based on the claim that ASR has to build a bridge with the “Stereophile” world. You have yet to provide any persuasive support for why this is necessary, or even desirable.

Before you jump to the conclusion that I’m saying it’s good for there to be vilification and acrimony (a conclusion I’m guessing you’ll jump to no matter what I say, but I’ll hope for the best nonetheless ), let me clarify: I find the snarky rejoinders and “Stereophile is in its death throes” comments here to be unproductive, and I agree with you that sniping back and forth is pointless (although it is quite understandable).

Instead, my objection to your claim is that it’s just the converse of the attitude here that you’re criticizing: folks who are really upset about Austin’s petty little swipe implicitly want Stereophile to accept or respect ASR. So too does your desire for a “bridge,” and your fantasy about how Stereophile folks would be persuaded or throw in the towel if only ASR had a single “reference system,” implicitly aim for acceptance or respect by Austin et al for ASR.

But the Austin piece’s misunderstanding and disrespect for ASR (and Amir in particular) isn’t a secondary effect of a communication problem across two different hi-fi cultures: rather, the disrespect and dismissal is the entire point. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

Kal Rubinson is an active member here. John Atkinson looks in and posts now and then. And many members here are current or former Stereophile subscribers and readers of the audiophile press more generally. There’s already mutual understanding and intelligibility. We simply don’t agree.

If ASR can be a better resource for fulfilling its own vision and mission, then by all means let’s encourage it to improve or change accordingly. But to embark on some kind of project to choose “THE” best-sounding system based on what Stereophile reviewers would likely hear (let alone admit to) in subjective listening tests? That’s pointless, in fact worse than pointless, because it would go against the entire purpose of this site. We don’t say an AP analyzer sounds better than a real system. We say that high-quality measurement gear is capable of measuring equipment better and more consistenly than human ears are.

Pitying together a “reference” system would enable a Stereophile reviewer to dismiss everything here simply by saying that they didn’t love the sound of the particular DAC or amp or speakers (or interconnects!) we had chosen. And it would reinforce the idea that there’s an elite hi-fi priesthood that can tell you what the very best system is - an idea we oppose.

Because I love to listen to music (certain music, like everyone; whomever says "I listen to everything" is delusional or a liar) and it's something I absolutely love, I am aware of the insane amount of emotional pitfalls the activity involves.

That is precisely why judgement on the equipment involved on the activity needs to be with elements that do not require passion or attachment, that do not drastically change depending on the source and the psychological reaction it's manipulation and work produce.

Graphs will be a lot more trustworthy than any other judgment because those graphs, well compiled, do not depend on aesthetics of any kind.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

THIS is what I feared. The statement that NOTHING in this world beats a fictional setup on paper. It's best to listen through graphics and measurements over music (ASR, probably).

You gotta build a bridge between ASR and the "Stereophile" world. And that can only mean listening to music in stereo (obviously I'm poking fun at your testing procedure).

The reference setup is a demonstration of culminating knowledge and tangible results.

At least the opponents of ASR will have something to talk about.

Imagine: "The angry mob from ASR spent decades poo-pooing speakers/amps/DACs from reputable brands. After a two decade long tantrum, they finally reached a consensus. I'm listening to the ASR reference system. I'll confess that my teeth are grinding and my ears are fuming. This system is bloody brilliant! And at a fraction of the cost of what I paid for mine. Much like the French revolution, the angry mob was right after all."

I've seen two different people in the same room, at the same time, listening to the same selection of music and disagreeing about what they heard and didn't hear.

So there's no reference system, even in the same room, that will invite agreement between different people. There may be "tangible results", but no concord. If there's no concord, there's no bridge.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I wish there was a "Magic Helmet". It would record exactly what you heard, with every little nuance. It wouldn't be just aural signals, it would pick up your brain waves and play them back for another person. That way it wouldn't transfer just the audio wave but also your impression of it. Then you could send it to someone who didn't seem to understand, and they could put it on, play it back and hear exactly what you heard. That's the only way that I can think of that would allow a second person, at some different location and at another time, to verify what the first person was talking about.

Until then, the closest approach to the ideal is a disciplined and logical methodology. It's equally useful and accessible to everyone, everywhere. It's not a Magic Helmet, and it will never give us the same results as a Magic Helmet. However .... it does yield the tangible results you mentioned, and they are verifiable.

Beyond that, all we have is opinions. And opinions are not the same thing as verification.

Jim

 

[krabapple]

Hydrogen Audio is or was a purely fact based forum, tread carefully upon those waters. Quickly posters are chased away by strict standards. The first and only time I shared a *notion* without graphic evidence that could be interpreted and repeated by others, I was quickly shown the rules of the forum. I took no offense, I considered my lack of preparation for my post as my own fault and didn't post again.

Been there for many years, posted there for many years, still there.

Some here are already there. Plenty others here would enjoy being there and would be welcome.

Some others, not so much.

ASR allows posts like 'how to convert RCA to XLR

As would HA.

 

[krabapple]

You must be fun at parties

Newman's answered the question correctly -- 'objectivist' in the USA is tainted by its association with the ludicrous yet horrendously influential (in American economics and politics) 'Objectivism' of the demented 'philosopher' and godawful 'novelist' and cult figure Ayn Rand.

So why the facepalm, exactly?

 

[kokakolia]

Newman's answered the question correctly -- 'objectivist' in the USA is tainted by its association with the ludicrous yet horrendously influential (in American economics and politics) 'Objectivism' of the demented 'philosopher' and godawful 'novelist' and cult figure Ayn Rand.

So why the facepalm, exactly?

Ayn Rand is bad.

 

[krabapple]

Ah, the complete denial of the human ears and asking for a test that no one does! I think Stereophile has a point.

Ah, the usual complete misunderstanding (or is it plain ignorance? Or even plain *denial*?) of how blind *listening* tests work. (Hint: ears are very much required). And why they are used

 

[kokakolia]

I've seen two different people in the same room, at the same time, listening to the same selection of music and disagreeing about what they heard and didn't hear.

So there's no reference system, even in the same room, that will invite agreement between different people. There may be "tangible results", but no concord. If there's no concord, there's no bridge.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I wish there was a "Magic Helmet". It would record exactly what you heard, with every little nuance. It wouldn't be just aural signals, it would pick up your brain waves and play them back for another person. That way it wouldn't transfer just the audio wave but also your impression of it. Then you could send it to someone who didn't seem to understand, and they could put it on, play it back and hear exactly what you heard. That's the only way that I can think of that would allow a second person, at some different location and at another time, to verify what the first person was talking about.

Until then, the closest approach to the ideal is a disciplined and logical methodology. It's equally useful and accessible to everyone, everywhere. It's not a Magic Helmet, and it will never give us the same results as a Magic Helmet. However .... it does yield the tangible results you mentioned, and they are verifiable.

Beyond that, all we have is opinions. And opinions are not the same thing as verification.

Jim

This is so deeply frustrating to me! In the name of "objectivity" you're chasing perfection. But perfection is the enemy of "good". Perfection prevents you from simply putting a bunch of components (you like) together and playing a piece of music (you like). But isn't that the point of a speakers? Do you always have to listen to one single speaker in mono because of... objective reasons? Where's the fun? When do stop reviewing and start appreciating?

I'm also flustered because there are lists somewhere with recommended speakers/amplifiers/DACs etc... on ASR. One could just pick items from these lists and hope for the best? But are these items recommended because of their value or their absolute performance level? So just pick the most expensive of everything? Or the reverse if all is equal due to diminishing returns?

And it's not like Stereophile and ASR have polar opposite goals. We're talking about highlighting speakers which play music well.

 

[amirm]

Do you always have to listen to one single speaker in mono because of... objective reasons?

Are you still this confused when it comes to the matter of testing speakers vs using them? Does your doctor talk to you about your fishing trip to diagnose what is wrong with you or does he conduct an examination?

 

[amirm]

I'm also flustered because there are lists somewhere with recommended speakers/amplifiers/DACs etc... on ASR. One could just pick items from these lists and hope for the best? But are these items recommended because of their value or their absolute performance level? So just pick the most expensive of everything? Or the reverse if all is equal due to diminishing returns?

You get to decide that. And if you need help, you create a thread and members chime in. I help you by throwing out 2/3 of the speakers out of that list. A subjective reviewer who likes everything, reduces the list by 0%. And he doesn't help you with the other factors anyway.

 

[amirm]

And it's not like Stereophile and ASR have polar opposite goals. We're talking about highlighting speakers which play music well.

We have identical goals. To tell the consumer how to get great sound. They -- outside of measurements -- use totally unreliable methods to get there. We don't. That our goals are the same doesn't mean both of our approaches are valid. One side has method and logic for testing. The other tells you story and introduces you to new music albums in every review. If you want to know about said music, then read what they have to say. But if you want a consistent, logical, research based method of what makes great sound, read ours. Not hard.

BTW, I do think there is value in subjective reviews in the way they cover functionality of the product. And per above, entertainment value. Just don't take it beyond that and you are golden.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

But perfection is the enemy of "good". Perfection prevents you from simply putting a bunch of components (you like) together and playing a piece of music (you like).

Perfection isn't the enemy of anything. It's simply a goal. I'm quite comfortable with it being unattainable, as long as I can see progress at getting nearer. I'm also quite comfortable with the idea that I won't live forever, as long as I can see progress toward a long and useful life.

And it's not like Stereophile and ASR have polar opposite goals.

Having the same goals isn't necessarily good. A thief and I both have the same goal; spend my money. I'd rather keep it and spend it my way. Jim

 

[DMill]

Kokakolia, I believe the saying is, “Good is the enemy of great.” Btw

 

[Gary_G]

Perfection isn't the enemy of anything. It's simply a goal. I'm quite comfortable with it being unattainable, as long as I can see progress at getting nearer. I'm also quite comfortable with the idea that I won't live forever, as long as I can see progress toward a long and useful life.



Having the same goals isn't necessarily good. A thief and I both have the same goal; spend my money. I'd rather keep it and spend it my way. Jim

I'm working on building a Pretty Good system, not a perfect system.

 

[BDWoody]

This is so deeply frustrating to me! In the name of "objectivity" you're chasing perfection

Most here aren't chasing anything. For me It isn't about the measurements and numbers in isolation, it is about having a context to put them in, so I can better figure out what might be a potentially audible problem (or whatever other issue that may be exposed) or not.

One could just pick items from these lists and hope for the best? But are these items recommended because of their value or their absolute performance level?

How well do you understand the measurements and what they mean? That's a good place to start, before deciding how useless it all is.