tuga
Major Contributor
And provides less return?
Besides there are probably more audiophiles who couldn't care less about objectivity in audio review than those who would.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Why aren't there more honest and objective reviewers like ASR and Amir?
- Thread starter noiseangel
- Start date
And provides less return?
Besides there are probably more audiophiles who couldn't care less about objectivity in audio review than those who would.
tuga
Major Contributor
This was a conversation which took place elsewhere on the web.
Alan Sircom (then editor of Hi-Fi+) wrote:
There are precious few objective tests run on cables and those that are run are usually just investigations of the cable's basic resistance, capacitance and inductance. Oh, and sometimes a cursory glance to see whether the claimed 'hi-tech' insulator material is not, in fact, bits of crumbled up Victoria sponge cake.
Listening tests on cables are generally performed sighted, occasionally sighted AB, very, very rarely blind AB and a once-a-generation double-blind ABX tests. The level of difference heard in the cable is inversely proportional to the level of scientific accuracy applied to the test protocol. At their extremes, huge differences in products can be heard when tests are performed sighted and in isolation and no differences can be reported in double-blind ABX tests.
What sits uncomfortably for me though is not that statistic. It's that the prospects of survival of the magazine that publishes a cable test is also inversely proportional to the level of scientific accuracy applied to that test. To the best of my knowledge, the only hi-fi magazines that published an ABX test and survived was Stereophile, and that was primarily because the editor essentially back-tracked some months later. All of the others were gone within a few years of publishing the exposure. That's not advertising-based, either; readers dismiss the test - and the magazine that published the test - as nonsense.
Edit: There is also another concern. If I apply double-blind ABX tests to cables and thereby eliminate all cables from the review schedule of the magazine, a cable manufacturer can potentially call this special pleading for cables and insist I perform the same test on sources and amplifiers. That would likely lead to the conclusion that all CD players and amplifiers sound the same under double-blind ABX conditions. I would imagine that would cut pretty deeply into the perceived credibility of the magazine by its readers.
--
Since you are in the business I hope you don't mind if I ask you a few of questions.
1. What, if any, are the requisites for someone to be a reviewer in your magazine? (I'm not fishing for a job, just curious about reviewers' fitfulness for the job; ex. do they periodically attend live non-amplified music concerts, must they have any knowledge of physics, electronics and acoustics)
2. Do you have a standard evaluation method that all reviewers must to follow?
3. Hi-fi magazines are indirectly a major source income for manufacturers but they also have a moral responsibility to the buyer/consumer. And, as any business, they must make a profit. How do you manage the last two without becoming a hostage of the industry?
Alan Sircom replied:
1) Reviewers are hired largely on their interest in music, interest in reproduced music through audio and on their ability to write. If they can write entertaining and 'clean' copy on deadline, all the better. There understanding of electronics, engineering or physics is less important these days, and I'd prefer a writer who was able to look at a product empirically rather than one who wore their objectivity like a badge of honour.
2) The evaluation model is relatively ad hoc, but usually involves 'running in' a product, inserting it into the reviewer's 'reference' system and ideally comparing it with its peers. A series of benchmark recordings are used to evaluate the product. Some level match, some don't. Some blind test, most don't. Some measure the product, some don't. My key demand is for internal consistency; if their methodology works and works consistently, they review equipment. If their methodology involves casting runes or looking up the product's horoscope... nice knowing you!
3) We insure that our reviewers are blissfully unaware of what advertisers are in the magazine. People in publishing tend to read magazines slightly differently from typical readers; Ad people look at editorial pages as filler, we look at advertising as the bits that get in the way of the words. I can just about tell you what's on the back cover of the magazine off hand, because that's what is staring at me from my rack o' mags. Otherwise I'd struggle. Reviewers who are found to be too strongly influenced by PR sirens or marketing harpies are quietly sidelined.
Alan Sircom (then editor of Hi-Fi+) wrote:
There are precious few objective tests run on cables and those that are run are usually just investigations of the cable's basic resistance, capacitance and inductance. Oh, and sometimes a cursory glance to see whether the claimed 'hi-tech' insulator material is not, in fact, bits of crumbled up Victoria sponge cake.
Listening tests on cables are generally performed sighted, occasionally sighted AB, very, very rarely blind AB and a once-a-generation double-blind ABX tests. The level of difference heard in the cable is inversely proportional to the level of scientific accuracy applied to the test protocol. At their extremes, huge differences in products can be heard when tests are performed sighted and in isolation and no differences can be reported in double-blind ABX tests.
What sits uncomfortably for me though is not that statistic. It's that the prospects of survival of the magazine that publishes a cable test is also inversely proportional to the level of scientific accuracy applied to that test. To the best of my knowledge, the only hi-fi magazines that published an ABX test and survived was Stereophile, and that was primarily because the editor essentially back-tracked some months later. All of the others were gone within a few years of publishing the exposure. That's not advertising-based, either; readers dismiss the test - and the magazine that published the test - as nonsense.
Edit: There is also another concern. If I apply double-blind ABX tests to cables and thereby eliminate all cables from the review schedule of the magazine, a cable manufacturer can potentially call this special pleading for cables and insist I perform the same test on sources and amplifiers. That would likely lead to the conclusion that all CD players and amplifiers sound the same under double-blind ABX conditions. I would imagine that would cut pretty deeply into the perceived credibility of the magazine by its readers.
--
Since you are in the business I hope you don't mind if I ask you a few of questions.
1. What, if any, are the requisites for someone to be a reviewer in your magazine? (I'm not fishing for a job, just curious about reviewers' fitfulness for the job; ex. do they periodically attend live non-amplified music concerts, must they have any knowledge of physics, electronics and acoustics)
2. Do you have a standard evaluation method that all reviewers must to follow?
3. Hi-fi magazines are indirectly a major source income for manufacturers but they also have a moral responsibility to the buyer/consumer. And, as any business, they must make a profit. How do you manage the last two without becoming a hostage of the industry?
Alan Sircom replied:
1) Reviewers are hired largely on their interest in music, interest in reproduced music through audio and on their ability to write. If they can write entertaining and 'clean' copy on deadline, all the better. There understanding of electronics, engineering or physics is less important these days, and I'd prefer a writer who was able to look at a product empirically rather than one who wore their objectivity like a badge of honour.
2) The evaluation model is relatively ad hoc, but usually involves 'running in' a product, inserting it into the reviewer's 'reference' system and ideally comparing it with its peers. A series of benchmark recordings are used to evaluate the product. Some level match, some don't. Some blind test, most don't. Some measure the product, some don't. My key demand is for internal consistency; if their methodology works and works consistently, they review equipment. If their methodology involves casting runes or looking up the product's horoscope... nice knowing you!
3) We insure that our reviewers are blissfully unaware of what advertisers are in the magazine. People in publishing tend to read magazines slightly differently from typical readers; Ad people look at editorial pages as filler, we look at advertising as the bits that get in the way of the words. I can just about tell you what's on the back cover of the magazine off hand, because that's what is staring at me from my rack o' mags. Otherwise I'd struggle. Reviewers who are found to be too strongly influenced by PR sirens or marketing harpies are quietly sidelined.
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
I eat all those meats when they're not in a hot dog.
I don't see why I shouldn't like them in a hot dog.
Tongue tacos (lengua) are one of my favorites.
Liver wurst or pate on fresh bread.
Tripe, either in Vietnamese Pho or Scottish Haggis, is a special treat.
Chicken heart yakitori....mmmm.
And good old steak and kidney pie goes great with a pint!
Last edited:
mhardy6647
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 11,462
- Likes
- 24,892
They won't taste any worse(?).
I'd also mention Napilopez and Audioholics as well as Mitchco and Kal who I think are fighting the good fight.We need more “objective” guys there are some other contributors to the site regarding speakers and some like wolf with an AP ,but his is only one site . And even objectivists disagrees and have opinions.
So it would be extremely nice if more valid opinions on the same product would be aviable
For example if one guy thinks a product is junk even on good grounds ok that’s a thing probably a good opinion , well if 10 guys trying to be objective are in agreement that a product is junkthen you know .
Chicken heart , flambé with Calvados finished with a dash of cream if one is so needing . All done in under 1 min but don't split the cream lol.
Sounds like a Hannibal Lecter recipe.
He's they only guy who gives it to you straight in that field.Same thing happens with car reviews
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
Same thing happens with car reviews
I'm struggling to think of a consumer product category where it doesn't happen.
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2019
- Messages
- 1,172
- Likes
- 2,323
Same thing happens with car reviews
So using his logic, I shouldn’t listen to him, as he is a mechanic and has a financial incentive to tell me to buy the most unreliable vehicle.
9 minutes to make a 20 second argument, with the rest being self congratulatory bs.
Are the Hebrew National's "cut", if you take my meaning?The epitome of hot dog science was the Presto "Hot Dogger".
View attachment 84802
Yes, these insidious devices electrocute poor, defenseless hot dogs.
Unless, of course, there's a phone call from the Governor in time.
Doesn't even matter if they're kosher or -- you know -- the other kind.
View attachment 84807
You have to go through a wine tasting progression before you're ready to appreciate a Grand Cru Vin, so yeah, most wine drinkers will most certainly not be able to tell the difference between an Vin Ordinair and the GCV.
It doesn't matter how you try to quantify it the end result is random. The only way to get accurate information about what will sound good to you is to listen to the gear. Everything else is a joke, a lie, and ultimately, a con job. An obsession with measurements is a con job for sure.
Victor Martell
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2018
- Messages
- 199
- Likes
- 230
Victor Martell
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2018
- Messages
- 199
- Likes
- 230
Menudo! - Tastiest way to eat tripe!
And for the advanced taco eater... Nana!
http://www.themijachronicles.com/20...-tacos-de-nana-or-the-meat-of-the-pig-uterus/
Is it a U.S.A. thing to only consider muscle tissue food?
v
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
Well, I'm in the USA and grew up eating organ meat.
But I think it's related to increasing affluence.
Robin L
Master Contributor
We had a lot of liver and tongue as kids.
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
Great !
I love ox heart , stuffed . And liver wise my favourite is lambs liver as it taste like lamb unlike most offal from various beasts that doesn't correspond to origin.
Liver ( probably calf's ) , mash potatoes and onion gravy. I was bought up on that . Fantastic and cheap as cardboard.
Only had tongue sliced in a jelly , love it too.
Pigs ears are great deep fried and used as a seasoned sprinkle for salads .. I also enjoy pigs trotter but never prepared it myself.
Similar threads
- Poll