Steve Guttenberg - Audiophiliac

[jsrtheta]

I notice in this thread some admiration for Audio Critic. I used to read that publication (a few decades ago?), even though I noticed as close as a correlation between advertisers and the tone of the corresponding reviews that I have ever seen in any paper publication. (I recall that advertisers at that time included McIntosh, Boulder, Eggleston.) I recall that I (wisely or unwisely) excused this at the time, considering the economics of a small publication. Finally, I recall a letter to the editor in which an editor of a competing publication wrote for the sole purpose of paying Audio Critic a compliment. In turn, the Audio Critic editor lambasted him, accusing him of conspiratorially attempting to ingratiate him/herself to the editor of Audio Critic. That was a bit much, and my impression of the objectivity of Audio Critic had been pierced, so I stopped reading it.

Aczel had certain requirements when it came to whose advertising he would accept. He even apologized for taking an ad for an MSB item that he concluded was really just woo. Yes, he took ads from Boulder, but he also demonstrated in his reviews why Boulder was an exceptional product. On another occasion he offered to refrain from publishing a review because it would be extremely negative, and he didn't want to discourage a young designer from learning a bit more before putting out new products. The designer said to publish anyway. Aczel did, and it was a very bad review. Rotel is another manufacturer who advertised in TAC a lot. Rotel mostly makes, and made, good solid gear. But Aczel published Rotel reviews by David Rich that plainly recommended against purchasing certain components. (Rotel continued to advertise in TAC.)

As @anmpr1 noted, TAC improved its ability to review gear when David Rich was brought on board. Rich's reviews not only explained why a component was good or lousy, he gave chapter and verse to support it. If for no other reason, TAC was priceless for explaining the necessity for double-blind testing. (Dave Clark and Tom Nousaine were occasional contributors, too.) When I started out in this hobby, I sure didn't get that kind of editorial integrity from Stereophile, The Absolute Sound, or Fi. What I got from them was a monthly dose of subjective nonsense and outright chicanery. For example, I wasted an afternoon reading "Sam Tellig" droning on about how the correct placement of quarters on top of speakers dramatically vanquished "veils" and doubled the soundstage.

(For admittedly sadistic pleasure, nothing beats Aczel's flaying of Clark Johnsen's "longest crank letter ever published" in Issue 18.)

 

[Thomas savage]

That begs the question of what your mother actually does wear.

A shot tennis skirt and a knowing smile

 

[CDMC]

When I started out in this hobby, I sure didn't get that kind of editorial integrity from Stereophile, The Absolute Sound, or Fi. What I got from them was a monthly dose of subjective nonsense and outright chicanery. For example, I wasted an afternoon reading "Sam Tellig" droning on about how the correct placement of quarters on top of speakers dramatically vanquished "veils" and doubled the soundstage.

Jonathan Scull was far worse, droning on about how changing the feet on a piece of equipment transformed it or placing some magical hockey pucks around the room changed the entire sound of the room.

 

[slovell1]

I had to reflect on this for a moment to realize/decide that you meant fire up a component, as opposed to, say, a doobie.
(not a Doobie Brother)




Literally?

View attachment 73318

Conversely, I do believe that a Klipsch Cornwall at high SPL playing a typical, highly processed "pop" music recording would literally remove paint -- but I will admit that I've never tested that hypothesis.

My KLF-20's knocked the cover off the doorbell along with a framed photo off the wall. Does that count?

 

[magicscreen]

Jonathan Scull was far worse, droning on about how changing the feet on a piece of equipment transformed it or placing some magical hockey pucks around the room changed the entire sound of the room.

Yes. It is called room acoustics. Everything in a room changes the perceived sound.

 

[charleski]

What do you guys make of Steve?
...
I don't know about you lot. But I've noticed on every video review Steve always likes and praises the product. Hardly ever seen a negative review come out of him.

S.

He’s spent his whole adult life selling audio gear, he enjoys doing it and isn’t going to stop now. But as long as you take that into account he seems like a nice guy, and certainly less self-righteous about his subjectivism than many of his peers. Just don’t expect his reviews to have any value beyond ‘I think this sounds nice.’

The best videos on his channel are the interviews, which often end up being protracted chats with a lot less of the magic pixie-dust sales fluff that characterises many such things.

But as far as I’m concerned, he gets a lot of credit for this op-ed published in the August 2018 Stereophile.

one night the sound is glorious, and the next night you wonder where all the wonder went

He clearly has difficulty recognising the consequences of his observation, but it neatly exposes the feet of clay on which the entire edifice of subjective assessment is constructed. Human auditory perception is inherently prone to severe variation (‘severe’ on the scale of the subtle differences involved here), even in the same individual in the same surroundings. Even if subjective reviewers were able to filter out the conscious and unconscious biases inherent in sighted reviews (which, of course, they can’t) they would still need to find a way to control for this. The human ear is not an instrument, it’s part of a complex interactive system.

Of course, despite demolishing the entire subjectivist argument with this discovery, he remains one, but what can you do?

 

[MSTARK]

Have anyone (among cry babies) tried to do what S.G does? If you think it’s so easy and profitable...... no one is stopping you.

 

[SIY]

Have anyone (among cry babies) tried to do what S.G does?

Not while I have some conscience and integrity.

 

[charleski]

Have anyone (among cry babies) tried to do what S.G does? If you think it’s so easy and profitable...... no one is stopping you.

One can but LOL...

But frankly, in an industry where some internet reviewers are openly begging for kickbacks, Steve strikes me as one of the more tolerable examples.

 

[bloodshoteyed]

you beat me to it, i was just about to post a link to this site

 

[MSTARK]

Like I’ve said. If you never dealt with manufacturers, content production, time it takes, countless correspondence, mountains of boxes, shipping hustle while trying to add value to a community then why would I take your complaints seriously???
I really don’t care about your feelings or virtue signaling. If you feel you can do better job, just do it.

 

[anmpr1]

Yes, he took ads from Boulder, but he also demonstrated in his reviews why Boulder was an exceptional product.

Your review of TAC is pretty much is spot on and the way I remember it. One point: Boulder then is not Boulder now. In the '80s the company sold a beefy amp and modular preamp based off Deane Jensen's 990 operational amplifier circuit. They were not cheap, but not orbiting one of Jupiter's moons, price-wise.

Boulder is now a making fifty thousand dollar stand-alone phono stages, and hundred thousand dollar amplifiers. I'm not saying that their products aren't the best in the world--for those prices you'd think they'd pretty much have to be [even if Mike Fremer thought their amp 'lacked the ultimate musical flow'--BTW, where does he get those descriptions--does he make them up himself or are they beamed to him via the tin-foil antenna hat he wears when watching network television?].

However it is, one's thing's for sure, Boulder certainly changed their marketing strategy since the 'old days' of the company.

 

[SIY]

Like I’ve said. If you never dealt with manufacturers, content production, time it takes, countless correspondence, mountains of boxes, shipping hustle while trying to add value to a community then why would I take your complaints seriously???
I really don’t care about your feelings or virtue signaling. If you feel you can do better job, just do it.

If "better job" means "providing entertainment regardless of truth value," then I don't do a better job. If it means "providing honest and accurate information," I modestly believe that I do a far better job.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Like I’ve said. If you never dealt with manufacturers, content production, time it takes, countless correspondence, mountains of boxes, shipping hustle while trying to add value to a community then why would I take your complaints seriously???
I really don’t care about your feelings or virtue signaling. If you feel you can do better job, just do it.

Who cares? Why should any of that mean anything to anyone? I don't care how hard it is to do what he does. It's hard to rob banks for a living too. So what? It's awesome that he's "good" at talking about audio equipment. I also don't care if he takes my complaints seriously. He's reviewing equipment that is designed to transmit audio signals. The issue at hand isn't whether or not he's good at making youtube videos. It's whether or not there's any value in the information he's providing wrt how well the equipment does what it's designed to do.

 

[MSTARK]

If "better job" means "providing entertainment regardless of truth value," then I don't do a better job. If it means "providing honest and accurate information," I modestly believe that I do a far better job.

So what you’re saying is that you are the “honest” one and rest (including S.G) are paid liars.....

 

[anmpr1]

But frankly, in an industry where some internet reviewers are 'openly begging for kickbacks', Steve strikes me as one of the more tolerable examples.

These sites have to make money. They are not Consumer's Union. Gordon Holt always argued (pre Larry Archibald) that it is impossible to appear independent when taking ads for what you are reviewing. Automatically you are suspected as a shill, whether it is true or not. I think it is certainly possible to remain objective, but one thing is certain, if you do, and if you tell the whole truth you are going to limit your ad revenue to a handful of manufacturers. So the incentive has to be to say something good about everything reviewed, and minimize the not so good.

Interestingly, there are no ads on the Stereophile Web site. Where does the money to support the operation come from? If you read their TOS it's clear that they (like most Web sites that encourage 'sign ups') are part of a larger information gathering network, the ostensible and primary purpose being to build a customer database that can be used for further marketing 'outreach'. That is, they sell your information. Does that cover their costs? Beats me.

I'm guessing the print magazine is filled with ads, but I don't know. I haven't seen one in years.

Back in the day Gordon took dealer ads. Are dealers unbiased? That said, as far as I know Gordon was upfront mentioning his industry contacts/friends, for instance when he gave the erstwhile Paoli amplifier good reviews. Aczel was accused of shilling--a particular point was that he was once associated with Ohm (the speaker company). Whomever complained about that didn't bother to read his review, which was devastating as to the loudspeaker's flaws.

Steve G. asks for contributions. He's never seemed to me like an overt shill. He comes across more like a nutty hobbyist simply trying to do what he likes. I don't follow him closely. It would surprise me if he has much of an influence over anyone. But again, I don't know.

In the link, the guy 'openly begging for kickbacks' has a point. He admits that as a 'reviewer' he's part of the manufacturing team's marketing arm, albeit an 'unofficial' arm. I am a bit surprised he's so honest. Maybe he doesn't realize the implications of what he's saying! LOL

One thing he doesn't mention (maybe I skipped that part as I read fast) is that the manufacturer will probably sell the review item it to him at their cost--maybe less. That's certainly an 'incentive'.

A 'bad' review can tank an item. Could be impossible to recover from for a small operation. Sony and Panasonic probably could not care less.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

So what you’re saying is that you are the “honest” one and rest (including S.G) are paid liars.....

Steve isn't a "liar." He probably believes most of what he says is true. He's just delusional...like many audiophiles.

 

[MSTARK]

Steve isn't a "liar." He probably believes most of what he says is true. He's just delusional...like many audiophiles.

This silly arguments can go on forever. And are total waste of time.
But it’s funny to hear all these “experts” crying and complaining.

 

[SIY]

Who is crying and complaining? We don't take him seriously. You are the one that seems triggered.

Out of all the causes in the world, for you to feel that you have to come out and "defend" S.G.'s honor is quite laughable.

 

[MSTARK]

Who is crying and complaining? We don't take him seriously. You are the one that seems triggered.

Out of all the causes in the world, for you to feel that you have to come out and "defend" S.G.'s honor is quite laughable.

No need to defend him. Seems like he is doing just fine.
It’s the “know it all” opinionated egos that might need some defending. Glad to see you step up. Lol