Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Article: Why We Need Audiophiles (Read 504546 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1125 –
Quote from: honestguv on
Quote from: krabapple on
They're NOISE when we need more signal.

Why do we need more signal? If a person genuinely wants to find out about sound, sound perception and how audio equipment works then reliable information exists in all the normal places.


Maybe I'm just showing my age, but for decades, the audio journals *were* the 'normal places'.  It's great when damage is being undone by the new 'normal places' now.  (like HA).

Quote
Why do you expect information, for example the content of Stereophile, to be in your interests when you have not paid for it and your interests are not aligned with those that have paid for it?


Gee, why do I expect things that claim to be true, to be true, if I haven't *paid for them*? 

Quote
I also felt this strongly in the 1970s when audiophile nonsense first moved into the mainstream to the extent I changed my career path and ignored the area for the next few decades. John Atkinson also had a technical background at this time but made a rather different choice to drop the technical side, make a few compromises and work with the opportunities created by the new path of home audio. Looking back on it now, my decision to quit was not necessarily wrong but the basis on which it was made certainly was.


Not clear to me here, does this mean you actually were an audio journalist back then?

Quote
Like rpp3po, I do not find the current audiophile nonsense offensive because it is too silly to be believed by anyone with a moderate amount of common sense and an interest in what is going on.


Ah, then John Atkinson and the writers of SP either lack even a moderate amount of common sense, or lack interest in 'what is going on', or are charlatans.

Quote
This does not mean that significant numbers of people do not choose to abandon common sense and believe in magic but that is a personal choice. I have no problem with people making this choice or with people like John Atkinson making a profit from such people. But I would certainly have a problem with a society where the opportunity to buy and sell overly foolish luxury goods was greatly reduced or removed.


Are you suggesting that if Stereophile were to adhere to HA's standards of proof, that consumers would be deprived of the opportunity to buy and sell 'overly foolish' goods?



Quote
It is not a question of benign but a question of where the line should be drawn. Should the taxpayers fund action to oppose the trade in overly silly luxury goods? Does the trade in overly silly luxury goods really do harm? Does it do good in terms of the economy?



I'm not advocating that the government shut down Stereophile.

(Let me, guess, am I arguing with a *online Libertarian*?)

Quote
So should we stop the publication of nonsense? How can this be achieved without doing far more harm than good?



Calm down sparky. rppo's post to which I replied, was about why oh why is there such dogged critique of Stereophile and the high end.  I say we should not stop that.


Quote
The audiophile industry brings both benefits and problems.


So does the homeopathic medicine industry. Mainly monetary benefits to its sellers, fake benefits or problems to its buyers -- and problems to real medicine.


Quote
People like John Atkinson, who almost certainly have a good grasp of these, are unable to post a balanced view because of the need to maintain/promote the illusions that are essential for his consumers. HA is perhaps one of the few places a semi-sensible discussion on the topic might take place if some of the regular posters were a bit more tolerant of those illusions and had a bit more confidence in the common sense of those with a genuine interest in what is going on.



I think at least some wholly sensible discussion has already taken place, and continues to.  Did you miss it?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1126 –
Quote from: honestguv on
My 9-5 job involves the technical side of sound and there is no input from the audiophile world. No noise and all signal. (Actually there is plenty of noise but the source is not audiophiles). I had no idea how audiophile beliefs had evolved since the 1970s until I made the effort to enter the isolated audiophile world and find out.


With all due respect, then you are not a 'normal guy' with respect to audio    To you there is no need for more signal, less noise (though actually, given the marketing of 196 kHz ADCs to the pro market, I'd say there' still some noise to be canceled) .  I suspect you routinely consult professional sources, not popular publications, for your audio information...

Given your testimony, I would posit that it is your view, not mine, that is skewed with regard to audiophilia.

Quote
You choose to seek out audiophile information and you choose to impose your view of what is signal and what is noise.


Signal in this case is accurate information.  Noise is inaccurate or scientifically dubious assertion. 

If you find this idea exasperating, may I ask what on earth you are doing on HA?

Quote
Audiophiles who read the same information will classify the signal and noise rather differently and they are the intended audience not you. Why should your values and beliefs be imposed on audiophiles?


Why do you claim to speak for all audiophiles? Hwo do you know their values and beliefs globally differ from mine?  Would you call J. Gordon Holt -- founder of Stereophile, and recent advocate of DBTs -- something other than an audiophile?


Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1127 –
Quote from: honestguv on
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
What it's not OK to do is to claim that they sound better, when there is no such evidence.

Why do you consider the lack of evidence to support claims about the betterness of luxury goods a significant problem?



If they're not true, is that not a problem for the proponents and sellers of the 'less good' goods, whose performance is being falsely impugned?  Remember that much of the current outbreak here of anti-Steroephillia was due to JAs' misleading article on mp3s...a technology near and dear to HA's heart.


Quote
Obviously it matters in more important areas but when considering the selling of expensive audiophile equipment to audiophiles who want to be told stories about the magical properties of audiophile equipment?



I might just as well ask, why does it matter to you that it matters to me?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1128 –
Quote from: honestguv on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on

> Because they aren't just my values and beliefs, but are the best available
> information about how things are.


If you listen to audiophiles,


I guess you don't know who you are talking to. Have I listened to audiophiles? Check out my mid-six-figure posting history to Usenet over a period of more than 13 years.

Quote
you will find that they do not like your beliefs


I lack the chutzpah that it would take to make such a sweeping claim.

I find that many audiophiles really like my beliefs, once they hear of them and particularly after they've had a chance to apply them in practical situations.

Quote
preferring their own


Many audiopiles are actually quite agnostic, especiallly the young ones who have not been brain-washed, yet.

Quote
and that they are not particularly interested in signing up for the scientific method.


AFAIK, most young people leave high school favorably disposed towards the scientific method. IME most college graduates with degrees in tech- or business-related areas, whether the arts or sciences retain their favorable opinion in science. One little problem is that many who find careers in politics and communications get brainwashed with post-modern non-thought.  So, when you read what journalists and wannabe journalists write, you get OD'd with that sort of thing.

Quote
This is their choice and so long as their beliefs have negligible input to anything important it is hard to see much of a problem.


Of course. This business of defending people's "right to choice" is in actuality quite strange. People are going to believe what they want to believe, and make the choices they want to make no matter what I say or type. Your continued harping on this point tells me that you are at best a closet true believer in the weird wing of high end audio. :-(

Quote
Quote

> And, there is no imposition, there is competition in the market for ideas and
> beliefs.

So your postings on the Stereophile forum, which is clearly an audiophile forum, is not trying to impose your ideas on an unreceptive audience?


You've got a funny definition of imposition.  Imposition is forcing people to do something they don't want to do. The members of any forum don't have to read any posts they don't want to read, and they surely don't have to respond to any posts that they don't want to respond to. Furthermore, if they didn't read my posts and didn't flame them as they do, they would obviously be lacking for anything at all to do.

Quote
In order to become an audiophile, a person has to be both lacking in intelligence and a bigot.


A person can be an audiopile and be very smart and open-minded about it.

Quote
The former is necessary in order to fail to recognise the silliness in the first place


There doesn't have to be any silliness in the audiophile hobby.


Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1129 –
[quote name='krabapple' date='May 20 2009, 16:21' post='635771']
> Maybe I'm just showing my age, but for decades, the audio journals *were* the 'normal
> places'.

Not sure what you mean by journal. Academic/technical journals are a reliable source of technical information but consumer audiophile magazines generally are not.

> It's great when damage is being undone by the new 'normal places' now.

Not sure many new places have become well established. Peoples experiences with the many new sources of information on the web is that the presence of disinformation tends to greatly reduce the value of the good information.

>> Why do you expect information, for example the content of Stereophile, to be in your
>> interests when you have not paid for it and your interests are not aligned with those
>> that have paid for it?
>
> Gee, why do I expect things that claim to be true, to be true, if I haven't *paid for
> them*?

Naive I guess. Perhaps your view will change when you get older.

> Not clear to me here, does this mean you actually were an audio journalist back then?

I have never been a journalist (my writing should have made that clear) and have never had the slightest interest in being one. I have a technical background.

> Ah, then John Atkinson and the writers of SP either lack even a moderate amount of
> common sense, or lack interest in 'what is going on', or are charlatans.

One can speculate on the nutter:rogue ratios for proclaimed audiophiles on the supply side but it difficult to be sure without the hard evidence.

> Are you suggesting that if Stereophile were to adhere to HA's standards of proof, that
> consumers would be deprived of the opportunity to buy and sell 'overly foolish' goods?

If Stereophile was to become like HA then they would lose almost all their current audiophile advertisers and readers. A smaller audiophile publication is then likely to benefit from an influx of new advertisers and readers and become the leading audiophile publication.

> So does the homeopathic medicine industry. Mainly monetary benefits to its sellers,
> fake benefits or problems to its buyers -- and problems to real medicine.

The audiophile industry is in the luxury goods business. The homeopathic medicine industry is not. The potential for good and harm is quite different.

> I think at least some wholly sensible discussion has already taken place, and
> continues to. Did you miss it?

It would seem so. I have seen no balanced discussion on the pros and cons of the current audiophile industry on HA or other audio/audiophile sites. The odd post but not a discussion.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1130 –
People have a right to be lied to?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1131 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
a product should be judged an on well it performs its core function, not on how it is crafted.
Those two are inseparable in your world, surely? The product's core function is to deliver good sound, while creating the expectation (partly through how it is crafted) that it is something really special, in order to induce the placebo effect, causing the listener to perceive / believe that it sounds exceptionally good.


You're not seriously claiming that part of your life's work is to remove all the data about what the product looks like, how much it costs, how it's built etc, from the equation and concentrate on only the sound? That's the essence of blind testing, and your magazine promotes the antithesis of this.


(to me, "how it is crafted" is quite important - I have various pieces of hi-fi equipment that are multiple decades old - still working well because they were well crafted in the first place. that's a completely different discussion though).

Cheers,
David.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1132 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on

thanks for posting that - I hadn't seen him insulting me again - let me quote it here for posterity...

Quote from: Fremer link=msg=0 date=
Quote from: 2Bdecided link=msg=0 date=

Make no mistake why it is this way: the _real_ problems of audio need real engineering to fix them. You need competence and skill to design speakers properly, or to record and replay a fully immersive sound field - whereas anyone can build snake oil products - especially the advertisers in the magazine that employs Michael.


Most of the products advertised in Stereophile are designed by qualified engineers you dimwit. You are an imbecile. - Michael Fremer



This is by the way, a false claim.  Most of the so-called engineers in the freaky segment of high end audio do not have good credentials.


More expression of a belief not supported by the evidence, Mr. Krueger.


Since you stripped off my citation of authority John, I feel that it is only right that I strip off the entirety of your unsupported comments that followed.


Huh?

Quote
Got anything relevant to say?


Sure: "While some designers in high-end audio are not engineers, the majority of them _are_ engineers." [This is an observation based on my own experience having been an audio magazine editor for almost 27 years, Mr. Krueger, which I am sure even you would admit is more extensive relevant experience than your own, other you would be doing my job :-).]

"I note with interest some HA posters' tendency to construct castles with foundations of sand, vide, the recent agreement that Stereophile's inclusion of measurement data in its equipment reports is window dressing to delude the gullible into trusting the magazine." [I don't see that this needs to be supported. The relevant message were all posted in this thread in the past 4 days.]

" Yet might it just possibly be that the measurements sidebars that I work so hard to write perform a valuable function: that they allow readers to distinguish between those questionable products that are based on a shaky knowledge of audio engineering? That even if the readers are technically naive, the explanatory text I write about every product's performance allows them the necessary insight? That the inclusion of measured perfomance data is one of the reasons Stereophile has become dominant in its field by whatever metric you care to name." [Again, this is an example of someone like Mr. Krueger ignoring the factual evidence in favor of whatever hare-brained idea sprung into this head. :-) ]

"Of course, that hypothesis flies in the face of your belief system, Mr. Krueger."

So if you feel this hypothesis lacks merit, Mr. Krueger, what is incorrect about it?

"And on your suggestion that one needs to be an audio engineer to judge audio engineering, this was addressed by George Bernard Shaw a century ago:'You don't need to be a carpenter to judge the quality of a table," he wrote. ie, a product should be judged an on well it performs its core function, not on how it is crafted.'"

This directly addresses the criticism you expressed, Mr. Krueger. Why do you feel it not worth responding to, if you raised the subject in the first place? And why, in general, do you so actively avoid answering the questions that are put to you?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1133 –
Quote from: honestguv on
In order to become an audiophile, a person has to be both lacking in intelligence and a bigot.


And you know that, how, "honestguy"?

It is relevant to point out that according the last readership survey, performed by a third party to avoid any suggestion of bias, 95% of Stereophile's readers have a  bachelor's degree or higher. Doesn't that count as "educated"? Why, 4 of my reviewers have PhDs in scientific or related areas. Perhaps they are not "audiophiles," as you would define them :-)

And if you define "bigoted" as someone who ignores factual evidence in favor of their own unsupported beliefs, we have seen a great deal of examples of this in recent postings from HA posters, not the least of whom is one Arnold Krueger. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1134 –
Mr Atkinson, your quotation of George Bernard Shaw is as pointless and disingenuous as the creationists' use of Einstein's "God" quotations. Surely engineering requires specialized knowledge, and a table doesn't really require too much engineering, don't you think?

And actually, a carpenter might just be able to discern more subtle properties of the table that are real, while some others would be claiming in their tablephile magazines that some particular table makes dinner taste better.

I and some others seem to disagree with most of what honestguv is saying, and I particularly disagree with the sutpid and bigoted part (doesn't mean they're the opposites either). But your mentioning
Quote
It is relevant to point out that according the last readership survey, performed by a third party to avoid any suggestion of bias, 95% of Stereophile's readers have a bachelor's degree or higher. Doesn't that count as "educated"? Why, 4 of my reviewers have PhDs in scientific or related areas.
does, again, smell like the creationists' tactics of all those "scientists" who deny evolution.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1135 –
Quote from: honestguv on
Quote from: krabapple on

> Maybe I'm just showing my age, but for decades, the audio journals *were* the 'normal
> places'.

Not sure what you mean by journal. Academic/technical journals are a reliable source of technical information but consumer audiophile magazines generally are not.



Back in the day, Stereo Review, Audio, Wireless World, and High Fidelity were reliable sources of information about audio. In the very early days Audio magazine was quasi-functional as the journal (intentional small j) of the AES.


Quote
Quote

> Are you suggesting that if Stereophile were to adhere to HA's standards of proof, that
> consumers would be deprived of the opportunity to buy and sell 'overly foolish' goods?


If Stereophile was to become like HA then they would lose almost all their current audiophile advertisers and readers. A smaller audiophile publication is then likely to benefit from an influx of new advertisers and readers and become the
leading audiophile publication.


It might be interesting to speculate on what would have happened had JGH followed up on his musings in http://www.stereophile.com//asweseeit/121/index.html.

It should be noted that there is no evidence that anybody at Stereophile ever actually used the ABX equipment we provided them for its intended purpose. So much for an open-minded investigation of the alternatives.


Quote
Quote

> I think at least some wholly sensible discussion has already taken place, and
> continues to. Did you miss it?



It would seem so. I have seen no balanced discussion on the pros and cons of the current audiophile industry on HA or other audio/audiophile sites. The odd post but not a discussion.


The above puts a very unfair burden on HA to meet undisclosed standards for "balance". My opinon is that the audiophile industry is split into two areas - one pursuing good sound via good science, and the other pretty much totally out of control in their pursuit of the once almighty dollar.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1136 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
More expression of a belief not supported by the evidence, Mr. Krueger.



Again John you have repeated your first egregious intellectual deception by stripping out my authority for my statement.

I suggest that you take a quick refresher course in reading, and then reread my post in its entirety.

I'll even give you a hint - scan for the text "AES Fellow".

John, if you can't find the authority that I cited and that you removed so that your post would appear to have any validity at all, I will be forced to humiliate you before the HA community by reposting it.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1138 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
More expression of a belief not supported by the evidence, Mr. Krueger.


Again John you have repeated your first egregious intellectual deception by stripping out my authority for my statement.

I suggest that you take a quick refresher course in reading, and then reread my post in its entirety.


I did. You were saying that an AES Fellow, by whom I assume you mean David Clark, agrees with you concerning the number of non-engineers operating in high-end audio. I noted that fact, observed that it is in conflict with my own experience, which is greater than David Clark's at least in this area, and address your point directly. Why is it  "egregious intellectual deception" for me to do so?

I note, BTW, that you yourself snip sections of others' posts that you do not feel worth addressing, as do many others, including one of the moderators, "greynol." Why do feel it is "egregious intellectual deception" for me to do likewise?

So, to return to the questions of mine that you have been ducking, Mr. Krueger:

"While some designers in high-end audio are not engineers, the majority of them _are_ engineers." [This is an observation based on my own experience having been an audio magazine editor for almost 27 years, Mr. Krueger, which I am sure even you would admit is more extensive relevant experience than your own, other you would be doing my job :-).]

"I note with interest some HA posters' tendency to construct castles with foundations of sand, vide, the recent agreement that Stereophile's inclusion of measurement data in its equipment reports is window dressing to delude the gullible into trusting the magazine." [I don't see that this needs to be supported. The relevant message were all posted in this thread in the past 4 days.]

"Yet might it just possibly be that the measurements sidebars that I work so hard to write perform a valuable function: that they allow readers to distinguish between those questionable products that are based on a shaky knowledge of audio engineering? That even if the readers are technically naive, the explanatory text I write about every product's performance allows them the necessary insight? That the inclusion of measured perfomance data is one of the reasons Stereophile has become dominant in its field by whatever metric you care to name." [Again, this is an example of someone like Mr. Krueger ignoring the factual evidence in favor of whatever hare-brained idea sprung into this head. :-) ]

"Of course, that hypothesis flies in the face of your belief system, Mr. Krueger."

So if you feel this hypothesis lacks merit, Mr. Krueger, what is incorrect about it?

"And on your suggestion that one needs to be an audio engineer to judge audio engineering, this was addressed by George Bernard Shaw a century ago:'You don't need to be a carpenter to judge the quality of a table," he wrote. ie, a product should be judged an on well it performs its core function, not on how it is crafted.'"

This directly addresses the criticism you expressed, Mr. Krueger. Why do you feel it not worth responding to, if you raised the subject in the first place? And why, in general, do you so actively avoid answering the questions that are put to you?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1139 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
It might be interesting to speculate on what would have happened had JGH followed up on his musings in http://www.stereophile.com//asweseeit/121/index.html.

It should be noted that there is no evidence that anybody at Stereophile ever actually used the ABX equipment we provided them for its intended purpose.


You have lost me, Mr. Krueger. I thought it clear from the article you referenced that J. Gordon Holt did indeed try out the ABX Comparator that he wrote about. The review sample was returned following publication of the report, which is before I took over from Gordon as editor in May 1986.

Quote
So much for an open-minded investigation of the alternatives.


As you know you are aware of, Mr. Krueger, having asked me about these tests on r.a.h-e a few years back, I had used an ABX box owned by Ken Kantor/AR for tests he organized of the audibility of absolute polarity in 1984. After I joined Stereophile in 1986, I asked David Carlstrom and David Clark several times about Stereophile purchasing an ABX Comparator by letter (there was no fax or email back then). I never received any response to my letters and eventually, David Clark, whom I knew through meeting him at AES conventions, advised me that the ABX company was folding and that all he could advise me was tor try to purchase a secondhand sample. Which I never could find.

For the blind amplifier tests I organized in 1989, I used a switching arrangement that I fabricated myself, as you are also well aware, Mr. Krueger, having asked me about it several years ago on Usenet.

This is all ancient history so I am not sure why you are dredging it up, Mr. Krueger, nor do I know why you forget the answers to questions that you have already asked me.
 
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1140 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
You were saying that an AES Fellow, by whom I assume you mean ----------, agrees with you concerning the number of non-engineers operating in high-end audio.


No, ----------- raised the issue and illustrated with many examples that he was intimately familiar with.

Quote
I noted that fact,


Eventually.

Quote
observed that it is in conflict with my own experience, which is greater than David Clark's at least in this area, and address your point directly.


John your alleged experience is tainted by the fact that you've got any number of dogs in this fight. Furthermore, your track record for identifying technical expertise is highly suspect given that you hired Harley as your chief technical guy.

Quote
Why is it  "egregious intellectual deception" for me to do so?


Because your first response was completely deceptive, your second wasn't much better and finally we have your third, in which you are deceptively trying to create the impression that you did it right all along.

Quote
"While some designers in high-end audio are not engineers, the majority of them _are_ engineers." [This is an observation based on my own experience having been an audio magazine editor for almost 27 years, Mr. Krueger, which I am sure even you would admit is more extensive relevant experience than your own, other you would be doing my job :-).]


Irrelevant.  I was talking about a defined subset of high end designers, while you are generalizing.

Quote
"I note with interest some HA posters' tendency to construct castles with foundations of sand, vide, the recent agreement that Stereophile's inclusion of measurement data in its equipment reports is window dressing to delude the gullible into trusting the magazine." [I don't see that this needs to be supported. The relevant message were all posted in this thread in the past 4 days.]


You've never effectively rebutted anybody's comments on that topic, JJohn. Simple denial, according to you, doesn't count.

Quote
"And on your suggestion that one needs to be an audio engineer to judge audio engineering, this was addressed by George Bernard Shaw a century ago:'You don't need to be a carpenter to judge the quality of a table," he wrote. ie, a product should be judged an on well it performs its core function, not on how it is crafted.'"


Irrelevant on a number of grounds. First, not all carpenters build tables. In this day and age, almost none of them do. Another is that functionality is not the only grounds for judging fine carpentry. When it comes to fine carpentry, appearance matters a lot. Another is that productivity is an important quality of a professional carpenter, but you can't tell how long it took to make a table by just looking at it. Bottom line, just looking at tables is an incomplete means for judging professional carpenters.

Quote
This directly addresses the criticism you expressed, Mr. Krueger.


LOL!


 

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1141 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
It might be interesting to speculate on what would have happened had JGH followed up on his musings in http://www.stereophile.com//asweseeit/121/index.html.

It should be noted that there is no evidence that anybody at Stereophile ever actually used the ABX equipment we provided them for its intended purpose.


You have lost me, Mr. Krueger.


Not at all. You seem to have your responses in good order, of a kind.

Quote
I thought it clear from the article you referenced that J. Gordon Holt did indeed try out the ABX Comparator that he wrote about.


You get to be wrong.

Quote
The review sample was returned following publication of the report, which is before I took over from Gordon as editor in May 1986.


So then John you have no direct knowlege of excadtly what JGH did  with the comparator, right?

It turns out that JGH spent considerable time on the phone with an ABX company employee, preparing his review. I even seem to recall that when the equipment was returned, someone who packed it for shipment noted that it appeared that it had never been unpacked.

Quote
So much for an open-minded investigation of the alternatives.


As you know you are aware of, Mr. Krueger, having asked me about these tests on r.a.h-e a few years back, I had used an ABX box owned by Ken Kantor/AR for tests he organized of the audibility of absolute polarity in 1984.

The article we are discussing was published in 1982. Therefore, an alleged ABX box that you may have seen in 1984 would be irrelevant.

Quote
After I joined Stereophile in 1986, I asked David Carlstrom and David Clark several times about Stereophile purchasing an ABX Comparator by letter (there was no fax or email back then). I never received any response to my letters and eventually, David Clark, whom I knew through meeting him at AES conventions, advised me that the ABX company was folding and that all he could advise me was tor try to purchase a secondhand sample. Which I never could find.


That is regrettable. However, that was 1986, which is about 4 years after the article I mentioned. Still irrelevant to the state of things at Stereophile at the time that I commented on.

Quote
For the blind amplifier tests I organized in 1989, I used a switching arrangement that I fabricated myself, as you are also well aware, Mr. Krueger, having asked me about it several years ago on Usenet.


ANow 7 years after 1982 and JGH's article.

I neither advised nor consented to any amplifier tests that you have ever done, John. Your repeated avoidance of orthodox subjective bias-controlled testing techniques is well known.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1142 –
[quote name='krabapple' date='May 20 2009, 16:32' post='635773']
> If you find this idea exasperating, may I ask what on earth you are doing on HA?

Exasperating? I am mainly observing the audiophile phenomenon plus a bit of interest in home audio.

> Why do you claim to speak for all audiophiles?

I am unaware of having made the claim.

> Hwo do you know their values and beliefs globally differ from mine?

Because they hold audiophile beliefs and you do not. One gets to choose whether sound, sound perception and the performance of audio equipment is governed by magic or by rational scientific knowledge. Regardless of the label (no audiophile is going to call it magic) you cannot believe in both.

> Would you call J. Gordon Holt -- founder of Stereophile, and recent advocate of DBTs --
> something other than an audiophile?

I would describe him as an audiophile if he signed up for irrational audiophile beliefs and something else if he did not.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1143 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
People have a right to be lied to?

Not sure about the right but it is close to the point I have been failing to get across.

If audiophiles want to believe in magic, do not want to believe in science and are happy not to push their beliefs onto others it is hard to see a problem. If people like Arnold B. go off to their forums and repeatedly post stuff about science they do not want to hear then he is out-of-order. Not because what he posts is incorrect but because they do not want to hear it.

I also find it hard to see much wrong with earning a living from supplying nonsense to audiophiles if that is what they want to buy. Most of it looks like acceptable fantasy to me rather than unacceptable lie. This of course rests on where the line is drawn and people's judgment is obviously going to differ. I think the line, as expressed in current laws, is about right.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1144 –
In the UK, if it can be demonstrated that an advertised claim is wrong then the claimant has to change the advertisement. That's why we have the Advertising Standards Authority - to whom anybody in the UK may make complaint as and when necessary.
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848 --scale 0.5 | FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S- (having set foobar to output 24-bit PCM; scaling by 0.5 gives the ANS headroom to work)

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1145 –
[quote name='krabapple' date='May 20 2009, 16:36' post='635774']
>> Why do you consider the lack of evidence to support claims about the betterness of luxury
>> goods a significant problem?
>
> If they're not true, is that not a problem for the proponents and sellers of the 'less good'
> goods, whose performance is being falsely impugned?

I would wholly agree that distinguishing products based on whatever audiophile reviewers use when the products cannot be distinguished based on the sound impinging on their ears is at best a lottery and at worst... But the point I was failing to make was that in the absence of a rational basis claims for "better" do not have much meaning for those that have signed up for a rational view and so are not going to cause significant problems.

>> Obviously it matters in more important areas but when considering the selling of expensive
>> audiophile equipment to audiophiles who want to be told stories about the magical properties
>> of audiophile equipment?
>
> I might just as well ask, why does it matter to you that it matters to me?

Why does what matter? Whatever, the answer is that it does not matter to me beyond satisfying my curiousity. Probably. Depending on the subject.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1146 –
[quote name='Stereoeditor' date='May 20 2009, 18:13' post='635821']
> And you know that, how, "honestguy"?

By observing the audiophile phenomenon and chatting to audiophiles.

> It is relevant to point out that according the last readership survey, performed by a third
> party to avoid any suggestion of bias, 95% of Stereophile's readers have a bachelor's degree
> or higher. Doesn't that count as "educated"?

Probably if any of it stuck but I used the word intelligent. The inability to reason in a rational manner is what enables people to adopt irrational beliefs.

> Why, 4 of my reviewers have PhDs in scientific or related areas. Perhaps they are not
> "audiophiles," as you would define them :-)

On the supply side there is no requirement to sign up for audiophile beliefs. I don't for a moment believe you hold most of the audiophile beliefs associated with your publication but it is nigh on impossible to know who actually believes what from the outside.

Audiophile is not a wholly satisfactory term for those that have signed up for irrational audiophile beliefs but I am unaware of a more precise one. It does have the benefit of being the term audiophiles use to describe themselves and is a term that many that have signed up for a rational view shy away from because of the associations with irrational beliefs.

> And if you define "bigoted" as someone who ignores factual evidence in favor of their own
> unsupported beliefs, we have seen a great deal of examples of this in recent postings from HA
> posters, not the least of whom is one Arnold Krueger. :-)

It isn't quite how I would define bigoted but it was indeed the postings from the HA side that raised my interest sufficiently to post.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1147 –
Quote from: honestguv on
Not sure what you mean by journal. Academic/technical journals are a reliable source of technical information but consumer audiophile magazines generally are not.



I mean the ones you buy at the corner magazine shop or subscribe to at home, not the ones you get at the engineering library. 
For decades, that's where audio consumers got their 'best' information about audio. Nowadays in the US we're basically down to Sound & Vision and the 'high end' rags.


Quote
Not sure many new places have become well established. Peoples experiences with the many new sources of information on the web is that the presence of disinformation tends to greatly reduce the value of the good information.


Exactly the sort of signal/noise problem I allude to.  There have never been 'many' places for the layman to get scientifically-grounded information about audio. 


Quote
> Gee, why do I expect things that claim to be true, to be true, if I haven't *paid for
> them*?

Naive I guess. Perhaps your view will change when you get older.


Gosh. I'm in my late 40s now, grandpa.



Quote
> Are you suggesting that if Stereophile were to adhere to HA's standards of proof, that
> consumers would be deprived of the opportunity to buy and sell 'overly foolish' goods?

If Stereophile was to become like HA then they would lose almost all their current audiophile advertisers and readers. A smaller audiophile publication is then likely to benefit from an influx of new advertisers and readers and become the leading audiophile publication.


Which doesn't quite answer the question I asked.

Quote
> So does the homeopathic medicine industry. Mainly monetary benefits to its sellers,
> fake benefits or problems to its buyers -- and problems to real medicine.

The audiophile industry is in the luxury goods business. The homeopathic medicine industry is not. The potential for good and harm is quite different.


You seem to have made a fetish of the 'luxury goods' category as if it should be fee to operate by journalistic rules of its own.



Quote
> I think at least some wholly sensible discussion has already taken place, and
> continues to. Did you miss it?

It would seem so. I have seen no balanced discussion on the pros and cons of the current audiophile industry on HA or other audio/audiophile sites. The odd post but not a discussion.



Feel free to cite the 'pros'.  I have already noted that Stereophile's measurements are a good thing, but as others have noted, their use in the context of an overall anti-DBT , subjectivism-trumps-all stance smacks of quackery.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1148 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
It should be noted that there is no evidence that anybody at Stereophile ever actually used the ABX equipment we provided them for its intended purpose.


You have lost me, Mr. Krueger. I thought it clear from the article you referenced that J. Gordon Holt did indeed try out the ABX Comparator that he wrote about.


You get to be wrong.


Oh dear! That's terrible.

Quote
Quote
The review sample was returned following publication of the report, which is before I took over from Gordon as editor in May 1986.


So then John you have no direct knowlege of excadtly what JGH did  with the comparator, right?


No, as I said I didn't take over from Gordon until 1986. But I did discuss the ABX Comparator, which was a hot topic back in the 1980s, and Stereophile's coverage of it, with Gordon on many occasions.

Quote
It turns out that JGH spent considerable time on the phone with an ABX company employee, preparing his review. I even seem to recall that when the equipment was returned, someone who packed it for shipment noted that it appeared that it had never been unpacked.


With all due respect, Mr. Krueger, you shouldn't resort to fabrication when logical argument fails.

Quote
Quote
As you know you are aware of, Mr. Krueger, having asked me about these tests on r.a.h-e a few years back, I had used an ABX box owned by Ken Kantor/AR for tests he organized of the audibility of absolute polarity in 1984.


The article we are discussing was published in 1982. Therefore, an alleged ABX box that you may have seen in 1984 would be irrelevant.


Why? You said "there is no evidence that anybody at Stereophile ever actually used the ABX equipment we provided them for its intended purpose." While the ABX box I used for its intended purpose in 1984 (not just saw) had not been provided to Stereophile, I did subsequently become strongly associated with Stereophile. Surely _my_ experience of using the ABX box is relevant to your statement, Mr. Krueger. Good grief, I even tried to _buy_ a Comparator once I came to the US. Or are you saying that _only_ experience with the original ABX Comparator sample sent to Holt in 1982 is relevant to a discussion of Stereophile's supposed lack of of exposure to the device?

Quote
Quote
After I joined Stereophile in 1986, I asked David Carlstrom and David Clark several times about Stereophile purchasing an ABX Comparator by letter (there was no fax or email back then). I never received any response to my letters and eventually, David Clark, whom I knew through meeting him at AES conventions, advised me that the ABX company was folding and that all he could advise me was tor try to purchase a secondhand sample. Which I never could find.


That is regrettable.


Isn't it. How might history have changed if Carlstrom and Clark _had_ agreed to sell me a Comparator!

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1149 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
However, that was 1986, which is about 4 years after the article I mentioned. Still irrelevant to the state of things at Stereophile at the time that I commented on.


Why? Did the design and function of the ABX Comparator change between 1982 and 1986?

Quote
Quote
For the blind amplifier tests I organized in 1989, I used a switching arrangement that I fabricated myself, as you are also well aware, Mr. Krueger, having asked me about it several years ago on Usenet.


Now 7 years after 1982 and JGH's article.


Of course. Not having been able to purchase an ABX Comparator, I developed my own solution for the necessary switching.

Quote
I neither advised nor consented to any amplifier tests that you have ever done, John.


No-one said you were asked to advise or consent to my 1989 blind tests, Mr. Krueger. I am merely pointing out that you are well aware of all the experimental details of these tests because you interrogated me at length on Usenet about them and it is disingenuous for you now to pretend that this is all new to you.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile