| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#121
|
|||
|
|||
William Sommerwerck wrote:
2: the magazine has no objective standards Arguable. SP does do technical tests. But when have they ever been correlated with what one "actually" (???) hears? I agree. SP's objective tests are far from being well-informed in terms of audibility. I believe this partically comes from a vain attempt to bring them into some kind of congruence with their subjective evaluations, which being non-blind are not really well-connected to real audibility. An "objective" test is objective only if it correlates with valid subjective tests. I would restate that to say: An "objective" test is relative only if it correlates with valid subjective tests. Since SP does so many invalid subjective tests, they dont' have a ghost of a chance of making any connections between reliable subjective evaluations and the results of objective evaluations. Otherwise it's meaningless. I agree. To the best of my knowledge, Stereophile has never performed listening tests that might provide this correlation (or show there was none). Stereophile's technical tests are largely window dressing. I agree. 20+ years ago, when JA introduced cumulative decay spectra as a speaker measurement, I urged him to hold off for a year or so, to do additional listening tests in the hope they would reveal correlations between the measurements and specific subjective aspects of the speaker's sound. This, like every other suggestion I made to JA, was instantly rejected. Not invented in the mind of JA, or agreeable to his biases. I note that the current issue of SP attempts to rebut JA's personal cataclysm at the HE2005 debate by recounting the same ancient anecdote about JA, blind tests, and amplifier choices. All I can say is that repeating a tragic story does not seem to mitigate that intellectual tragedy and its deliterious long-term effects on JA's intellect. It's worth noting that, when I reviewed the AKG K1000 ear speakers, I ran a waterfall plot that correlated with the 'phones' extreme midrange "honking". JA's reaction was to ask me whether I'd run the tests properly. It's a fair question, provided the answer is considered fairly. I take it that your answer did not get a fair treatment. |
|
#122
|
|||
|
|||
|
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Compare music now and music then and you'll understand why "comparing recorded music to live music" is too narrow a definition of what hi-fidelity is and why the magazine might have expanded its definition of the utility of a piece of equipment. It's not "too-narrow" a definition -- it's the only _valid_ definition. If I were running an audiophile magazine, I would categorically bar reviews of non-acoustic music, If you define non-acoustic music as music that was never played into a performance space, then I would agree. If you define non-acoustic music as music that not made with traditional musical instruments and voices then I would not agree. |
|
#123
|
|||
|
|||
|
jeffc wrote:
"robert casey" wrote in message ink.net... I'd want a magazine somewhat similar to Consumer Reports, one that has no ads. One that will tell you that there is no significant difference between "Ultra Essense" speaker wire and 14 gauge power cord bought from Ace Hardware. But costs about 1/50th as much (thus freeing up money you could spend towards something that *will* improve your system). Yeah, but the problem with that approach is they can't tell what will because they can't tell the difference between any 2 CD players or amps. Hyperbole? They can barely tell between 2 speakers, and then not between any speakers that cost more than $600. Do you really believe this? |
|
#124
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 2005-06-17, Scott Dorsey wrote:
I am not nostalgic, I am peeved. Modern technology has made homebrewing easier and it has given us a huge set of powerful tools to make sophisticated electronic systems on a low budget with hardly any infrastructure. If anything, the DIY phenomenon should be taking off. But it's dying. Why? Synth DIY is alive and well. Perhaps not as many practitioners as in the seventies but it's on the rise, as far as I can tell. -- André Majorel URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/ (Counterfeit: ) What worries me is not the violence of the few, but the indifference of the many. -- M. L. King |
|
#125
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" said:
A Tesla coil ;-) Been there, done that. You made one too, Arny? That's cool! -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
|
#126
|
|||
|
|||
|
"jeffc" said:
No, their basic approach is to only review high-dollar stuff, which, like the other guy said, isn't going to suck. To be fair, I know some $$$ stuff that really sucks, sound-wise and build-quality wise. Cary comes to mind. -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
|
#127
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 2005-06-17, Scott Dorsey wrote:
That's true, there is still a large homebrew software community. It's not as mainstream a thing as it used to be either, though. Debatable. I don't have any figures regarding the proportion of programmers amongst computer owners then and now, but I clearly remember that during the microcomputer explosion in the eighties, the vast majority of users just loaded programs from cassettes as opposed to writing them. In any case, in terms of absolute numbers, there have never been as many software hobbyists as there are now. I bet than in a few decades, we'll think of the 2000's as the golden age of DIY software. Today you buy a Windows machine and it comes with NO programming interface of any sort. Not even a BASIC interpreter. That was a shock to me when I bought an Atari ST. In a way, 1985-1995 was a relative dark age for poor software hobbyists. After that, we could grab a FreeBSD or Linux CD for cheap at the store and it had interpreters and compilers for a variety of languages far more interesting than BASIC. I've been living in programmer heaven since then. I suppose those who live in the dark empire just install pirate copies of MSVC or VB or whatever is trendy this year. It's still DIY. -- André Majorel URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/ (Counterfeit: ) What worries me is not the violence of the few, but the indifference of the many. -- M. L. King |
|
#128
|
|||
|
|||
|
It's the education sytem, or as I call it, "The dumb-sizing of
America". Most of these kids can't even write their names, much less being interested in anything outside of peer pleasure. It's already like that old Sci Fi movie, "Why do you keep the old guys around?" "Because they know how to fix the machines". Jim Williams Audio Upgrades Fixing the machines |
|
#129
|
|||
|
|||
|
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... William Sommerwerck said: Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of "high fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it exists primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to make. You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal people make their choices. If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too much bass" or "great imaging". I don't find it odd at all. Like most businesses, Stereophile tries to appeal to the lowest common denominator. "At least" the lowest common denominator that wants to spend $30,000 on an amplifier. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#130
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ups.com... Clyde Slick wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Clyde Slick wrote: "robert casey" wrote in message ink.net... Any of these magazines ever come out and say that Product X made by Company Y really sucked? The situation is that they are mostly reviewing extremely expensive and high end products. Generally, such products do not really suck. SET amps, anyone? Shakti Stones? Shun Mook Mpingo discs? Bedini Clarifiers? Power conditioners? High $ "interconnects"? High $ power cords? Shall I go on? Of course, there is the valid question as to whether one can get comparable sound for less money than some of the other high priced items. Careful and persistent reading of the magazine may help steer one in that direction. To which magazine are you referring, Art? Surely, one cannot glean such information by reading Stereophile. that's your problem, I have done well by them. My problem? Sorry, Art, but I see Stereophile for exactly the scam it is. If you want to engage in a fantasy about getting a 'good value' audio system by "the careful and persistent reading' of Stereophile, good luck. Hope you don't go blind. Much of the equipment I own was reviewed in Stereophile, or advertised there.. Vandesteen, Jolida, Music Hall, Ortofon, VPI, etc. Remeber, I NEVER paid more than $1,900 for any piecce of audio equipment. OTOH, can one "get comparable sound for less money than some of the other high priced items"? Of course. But you don't need Atkinson's Little Rip-off for that. but Stereophile sure helped. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#131
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clyde Slick said to Thing: I see Stereophile for exactly the scam it Much of the equipment I own was reviewed in Stereophile, or advertised there.. This just shows you how far from reality Thing is. The only $12 scam I can think of is two cups of coffee at starbucks. Stereophile is dirt cheap for what it delivers. |
|
#132
|
|||
|
|||
|
Please remember that there's not a system on the planet that can sound
exactly like a live performance. All systems are a series of compromises and there's no system or component that offers an absolute reference vis a vis live or "acoustic" music. Different components and systems have strengths and weaknesses that can also be judged by "non-acoustic" music, especially since there's precious little music that hasn't been processed electronically in one way or another (and I'm not *just* talking about the physical act of recording either, which imposes its own "signature"). JA once made that point to me -- that if a recording reveals a difference between two components, it's useful. I see the logic, except that we aren't as much interested in differences as we are in which one (if either) is closer to "correct". |
|
#133
|
|||
|
|||
|
It's worth noting that, when I reviewed the AKG K1000
ear speakers, I ran a waterfall plot that correlated with the 'phones' extreme midrange "honking". JA's reaction was to ask me whether I'd run the tests properly. It's a fair question, provided the answer is considered fairly. I take it that your answer did not get a fair treatment. As far as I could tell, JA had already decided he liked the K1000s (who _wouldn't_ want to like such a sexy audiophile product?), and didn't want anything to disturb his a-priori judgement. |
|
#134
|
|||
|
|||
|
If you define non-acoustic music as music that was never
played into a performance space, then I would agree. If you define non-acoustic music as music that not made with traditional musical instruments and voices then I would not agree. Rock music played over a huge PA system is not, to my mind, acoustic music. |
|
#135
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clyde Slick wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... To which magazine are you referring, Art? Surely, one cannot glean such information by reading Stereophile. that's your problem, I have done well by them. If you call what you've done Art, doing well. Toobs, anyone? LOL! |
|
#136
|
|||
|
|||
|
jeffc wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... SET amps, anyone? Shakti Stones? Shun Mook Mpingo discs? Bedini Clarifiers? Power conditioners? High $ "interconnects"? High $ power cords? Shall I go on? With what? More Stereophile-approved snake oil. Those things never did anything to make your stereo sound bad. You think that SET amps are anything but a blight on any stereo that is based on them? The rest are merely cosmic wastes of money that could spent on things that actually help. |
|
#137
|
|||
|
|||
|
William Sommerwerck wrote:
It's worth noting that, when I reviewed the AKG K1000 ear speakers, I ran a waterfall plot that correlated with the 'phones' extreme midrange "honking". JA's reaction was to ask me whether I'd run the tests properly. It's a fair question, provided the answer is considered fairly. I take it that your answer did not get a fair treatment. As far as I could tell, JA had already decided he liked the K1000s (who _wouldn't_ want to like such a sexy audiophile product?), and didn't want anything to disturb his a-priori judgement. Probably something like what happened in his power amp anecdote from the HE2005 debate. |
|
#138
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:27:36 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: Please remember that there's not a system on the planet that can sound exactly like a live performance. All systems are a series of compromises and there's no system or component that offers an absolute reference vis a vis live or "acoustic" music. Different components and systems have strengths and weaknesses that can also be judged by "non-acoustic" music, especially since there's precious little music that hasn't been processed electronically in one way or another (and I'm not *just* talking about the physical act of recording either, which imposes its own "signature"). JA once made that point to me -- that if a recording reveals a difference between two components, it's useful. I see the logic, except that we aren't as much interested in differences as we are in which one (if either) is closer to "correct". Which is sort of my point. I'm not sure that a system that "correctly" reproduces a modern classical recording is *necessarily* the best for an Eno/Jah Wobble disc. If you catch my drift. |
|
#139
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:31:50 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: If you define non-acoustic music as music that was never played into a performance space, then I would agree. If you define non-acoustic music as music that not made with traditional musical instruments and voices then I would not agree. Rock music played over a huge PA system is not, to my mind, acoustic music. No it's not. for that matter, acoustic music fed into a small PA isn't acoustic music either (ofttimes, the processing is right there on the instrument). That leaves you with either unamplified classical music (hopefully you have a good seat) or perhaps living room acoustic guitars. Not much to hang your hat on. Now, having said that, I happen to think that music similar to what you might hear from an electric band playing in a fairly small place is worth using as a standard. I'd include such artists as Glenn Tilbrook with his current band, (I know that this is going to give torresists a hard-on) The Fluffers, or perhaps Aimee Mann and her band or even Elvis Costello (all of which I have seen in the last year and who all sounded "right" to me) can give you a good sense of what electric music SHOULD sound like and I expect a good meaure of the power *and* palpability (there's THAT word again) that this sort of music can offer to be present in my systems. Then there are the artists that you might NEVER hear in concert and whose music might be impossible to reproduce in concert. I listen to a lot of music that one would never hear in a live setting. If one *only* listens to "acoustic" classical or acoustic jazz and folk music, then your narrow definition of what a system should reflect will work out just fine. I just hope that the five of you don't share the magazine amonst yoruselves. |
|
#140
|
|||
|
|||
|
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Please remember that there's not a system on the planet that can sound exactly like a live performance. All systems are a series of compromises and there's no system or component that offers an absolute reference vis a vis live or "acoustic" music. Different components and systems have strengths and weaknesses that can also be judged by "non-acoustic" music, especially since there's precious little music that hasn't been processed electronically in one way or another (and I'm not *just* talking about the physical act of recording either, which imposes its own "signature"). JA once made that point to me -- that if a recording reveals a difference between two components, it's useful. I see the logic, except that we aren't as much interested in differences as we are in which one (if either) is closer to "correct". The ABX group has studied and collected recordings that make differences more readily audible. I mentioned a compendium of excerpts of such recordings at the HE2005 debate. These recordings are not necessarily good-sounding or exceptionally natural-sounding. |
|
#141
|
|||
|
|||
|
William Sommerwerck wrote:
If you define non-acoustic music as music that was never played into a performance space, then I would agree. If you define non-acoustic music as music that not made with traditional musical instruments and voices then I would not agree. Rock music played over a huge PA system is not, to my mind, acoustic music. Agreed. But what about music recorded directly from the acoustic output of music amps? What about music recorded directly from electrical pickups? What about music recorded from synthesizers? |
|
#142
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal wrote:
"Arny Krueger" said: A Tesla coil ;-) Been there, done that. You made one too, Arny? That's cool! A number of them of various sizes and technologies. My largest one was based on a 304TL transmitting tube. I also made smaller ones based on 211s. |
|
#143
|
|||
|
|||
|
Signal said: This just shows you how far from reality Thing is. The only $12 scam I can think of is two cups of coffee at starbucks. When people walk into Starbucks, there's a real openness and a focus to behold and take in whatever may be on that counter. That's what Alanis Morrissette says, anyway. If those are song lyrics, you could make a case that the writer scammed her. |
|
#144
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#146
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 19:49:50 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote: On 6/18/05 1:42 AM, in article , "Pooh Bear" wrote: Don't bother debating the point with Phil. Your words will not so much fall on deaf ears as inflame them ! Allright children. Everybody needs to edit their heretofore-ignored crossposting addresses, It takes a second or two, it's easy, and even YOU (yes -YOU-!) can do it! Then why can't YOU do it, young man? Just curious... |
|
#147
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yeah, but the problem with that approach is they can't tell what will because they can't tell the difference between any 2 CD players or amps. They can barely tell between 2 speakers, and then not between any speakers that cost more than $600. Maybe at Consumer Reports they can't, but they're not audiophiles either. What I'm thinking of is a mag similar to Consumer Reports but staffed with audiophiles who can tell speakers costing more than $600 apart. Using both ABX tests and also non ABX testing (to satisfy those who don't believe in ABX testing) and listing results under separate columns. |
|
#148
|
|||
|
|||
|
the rev. robert casey said: Maybe at Consumer Reports they can't, but they're not audiophiles either. What I'm thinking of is a mag similar to Consumer Reports but staffed with audiophiles who can tell speakers costing more than $600 apart. Using both ABX tests and also non ABX testing (to satisfy those who don't believe in ABX testing) and listing results under separate columns. why don't you go off to idaho and start a minimalist audio cult? |
|
#149
|
|||
|
|||
|
"robert casey" wrote in message ink.net... Yeah, but the problem with that approach is they can't tell what will because they can't tell the difference between any 2 CD players or amps. They can barely tell between 2 speakers, and then not between any speakers that cost more than $600. Maybe at Consumer Reports they can't, but they're not audiophiles either. What I'm thinking of is a mag similar to Consumer Reports but staffed with audiophiles who can tell speakers costing more than $600 apart. Using both ABX tests and also non ABX testing (to satisfy those who don't believe in ABX testing) and listing results under separate columns. Will the employess have to buy their own lab coats, or are they provided for free? ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#151
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#152
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#153
|
|||
|
|||
|
If one *only* listens to "acoustic" classical or acoustic jazz and
folk music, then your narrow definition of what a system should reflect will work out just fine. I just hope that the five of you don't share the magazine amonst yoruselves. Five? I didn't know there were so many of us! |
|
#154
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rock music played over a huge PA system is not,
to my mind, acoustic music. Agreed. But what about music recorded directly from the acoustic output of music amps? What about music recorded directly from electrical pickups? What about music recorded from synthesizers? Ditto. |
|
#155
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger said:
SET amps, anyone? Shakti Stones? Shun Mook Mpingo discs? Bedini Clarifiers? Power conditioners? High $ "interconnects"? High $ power cords? Shall I go on? With what? More Stereophile-approved snake oil. I find it hysterical that there's a fued going on over the "intelligent chip" and some people's experiences. Jim Austin is getting a rash of **** from some of the more incredibly stupid readers who insist this thing can do the impossible. Some people and some magazines, either don't care or don't want to learn. You can be sure that when this subscription, (paid for by wife) runs out, I won't be subjecting myself to more of the blather that is SP. |
|
#156
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger said:
SET amps, anyone? Shakti Stones? Shun Mook Mpingo discs? Bedini Clarifiers? Power conditioners? High $ "interconnects"? High $ power cords? Shall I go on? With what? More Stereophile-approved snake oil. I find it hysterical that there's a fued going on over the "intelligent chip" and some people's experiences. Jim Austin is getting a rash of **** from some of the more incredibly stupid readers who insist this thing can do the impossible. Some people and some magazines, either don't care or don't want to learn. You can be sure that when this subscription, (paid for by wife) runs out, I won't be subjecting myself to more of the blather that is SP. |
|
#157
|
|||
|
|||
|
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... Rock music played over a huge PA system is not, to my mind, acoustic music. Agreed. But what about music recorded directly from the acoustic output of music amps? What about music recorded directly from electrical pickups? What about music recorded from synthesizers? Ditto. Well, that statement just about completely puts vocal music out of the realm of acoustic music. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#158
|
|||
|
|||
|
why don't you go off to idaho and start a minimalist audio cult? North Dakota. No neighbors, so we can blast the music and nobody will complain.... ;-) |
|
#159
|
|||
|
|||
|
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Rock music played over a huge PA system is not, to my mind, acoustic music. Agreed. But what about music recorded directly from the acoustic output of music amps? What about music recorded directly from electrical pickups? What about music recorded from synthesizers? Ditto. William, tain't the first time we disagreed. ;-) |
|
#160
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 06:14:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: William Sommerwerck wrote: Rock music played over a huge PA system is not, to my mind, acoustic music. Agreed. But what about music recorded directly from the acoustic output of music amps? What about music recorded directly from electrical pickups? What about music recorded from synthesizers? Ditto. William, tain't the first time we disagreed. ;-) If someone like me had listed those as sources of acoustic music, you would have said I was crazy. Obviously, none of those is what most of the universe considers "acoustic music", which is usually defined as music emanating from non-electrical instruments. Once a circuit gets in the mix (pun intended), then the idea of "acoustic" is thrown out the window since there's no absolute standard anymore (which is the point of demanding it in the first place). I'd argue though that even with acoustic music, you still have the issue of microphone/recording medium/recording console/studio playback monitors/production values and the recording room itself that keeps there from being a true absolute standard anyway, which is why I think that the idea of using "live, acoustic music" as the only standard is not the great idea that it sounds like on first blush. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| The problem with Stereophile, in a nutshell | Pro Audio | |||
| Some Recording Techniques | Pro Audio | |||
| CLC: More | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| Does anyone know of this challenge? | High End Audio | |||
| Note to the Idiot | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
