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: lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali (Read 97033 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #100 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
But you haven't eliminated all variables and the result may still be a false negative, thus not transportable. All you can conclude is with _that_ recording_ with _that_ hardware and _that_ testing protocol, no difference could be identified to a given degree of statistical certainty. But you haven't proved anything concerning sample rate _alone_.

Yes, additional variables that will only lead to further degradation are going to result in false negatives.

This was more or less my point earlier, but it would appear that you would rather dodge the subject.

BTW, in our "unreal" world of requiring objective measurement to demonstrate that differences in sound quality aren't a figment of your imagination, there is no such thing as a false negative.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #101 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote


I don't think that you are completely honest here. You know the basic procedure: Compare a plain 88.2 kHz record to a time synchronized 88.2 kHz -> 44.1 kHz -> 88 kHz record. If that shows, that no difference can be heard under double blind conditions, you already have very solid results and it doesn't get any more complicated than that.


But you haven't eliminated all variables


John, you are again not being fair or honest with us. You say that something is true with absolutely no supporting detail or independent support. You expect us to bow to the authority of just your personal word over us, which of course is a very arrogant and insulting thing for you to do since you have no authority over us.

Quote
and the result may still be a false negative, thus not transportable.


Again John, just you saying so does not make it so. It appears to me that you have been dealing with poorly-informed people who have suspended disbelief so long that you are incapable of holding a decent conversation with people who have not pledged allegance to your religious leadership.

Quote
All you can conclude is with _that_ recording_ with _that_ hardware and _that_ testing protocol, no difference could be identified to a given degree of statistical certainty.


If we followed your logic John, we'd have to destory every home in the world with an atomic bomb to prove that atomic bombs can destroy homes.  As long as there is one home that hasn't been destroyed, we really don't know for sure that it can be destroyed by an atomic bomb, right? Why that house may be the perfect house and undestroyable!

So it is your claim John that the benefits of so-called hi-rez recordings completely and totally lack generality, such that you cannot specify a recording or a test system where they are effective without us first testing thousands or millions of recordings and systems?

Quote
But you haven't proved anything concerning sample rate _alone_.


One positive test outcome John, is all it takes. Isn't your continual backpedalling away from your past published claims, and your present obfuscating about test producedure sufficient evidence to cause us to believe that not even you John Atkinson have any faith at all in your past claims about their effectiveness?

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #102 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
But you haven't eliminated all variables and the result may still be a false negative, thus not transportable. All you can conclude is with _that_ recording_ with _that_ hardware and _that_ testing protocol, no difference could be identified to a given degree of statistical certainty. But you haven't proved anything concerning sample rate _alone_.

Yes, additional variables that will only lead to further degradation are going to result in false negatives.

This was more or less my point earlier, but it would appear that you would rather dodge the subject.

BTW, in our "unreal" world of requiring objective measurement to demonstrate that differences in sound quality aren't a figment of your imagination, there is no such thing as a false negative.


It's not just our world where there are no false negatives. In the world of science, every experimental outcome obtained under relevant and documented circumstances is true as far as its inhrent truth goes.

I find it tremendously curious that John can't simply provide us with one of his hi-rez recordings and specify a test environment where his claims about the effectiveness of hi rez recordings would be clearly and unambigiously heard. Not one of the great many at his disposal. Apparently such recordings and equipment has never darkened the hallowed doors of Stereophile.

Apparently, the rigorous standards of generally-accepted standards body publications such as BS 1116 are not sufficient.

John is implicitly telling us that if you have an audio system and trained listeners that conform to the relatively lofty standards of BS 1116, he has no cofidence that one of his recordings would support his published claims.

One has to ask what sort of shakey technology demands such an exceptional listening environment and listeners that not even John Atkinson can specify what or who it is, for hi-rez recordings to be effective!

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #103 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
But you haven't eliminated all variables and the result may still be a false negative, thus not transportable. All you can conclude is with _that_ recording_ with _that_ hardware and _that_ testing protocol, no difference could be identified to a given degree of statistical certainty. But you haven't proved anything concerning sample rate _alone_.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Then you simply don't trust to science. There is always one more variable to make up.

Of course, all it takes to prove your side of the argument is _one_ recording, _one_ hardware setup and _one_ testing protocol. This should be particularly easy if the difference is apparent (which to you it seemingly is). If you don't do this, all your claims about this subject are as valid as someone saying there are aquatic pink elephants that all turn into herrings the moment someone looks.
"We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #104 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote
Didn't they know this was a 'demonstration' of the effects of mp3, or a comparison of some sort?


Not before they came in. They did know in the first "learning" dem, though they did not know what was to follow. With the subsequent blind presentation, they had no idea to what they were listening to until after it had concluded, as I said before.


Quote
And how could one know from this  whether there was *progressive* subjective difference?


Because that is what most of the listeners said they had perceived in the subsequent discussion.



So, let me see again if I have it straight...they were given a 'dem' about possible artefacts of data reduction (involving showing/playing difference tracks..possibly at high dBs? Or did only G. Massenburg do that?) ...and then you played them the Frankenstein track that started with lossless 'hi rez' and ended with a 2003 vintage 128kbps encode.  No spoken intro, just something like, 'Now listen to this'.  And then afterwards you asked them something like 'what did that sound like'? And during the 'discussion' some number of people said something like 'well, it started out great, but sounded worse and worse".

Close?

Quote
Quote
How would you know , from this demo, that listeners thought , e.g., Redbook was inferior to hi rez? Or 320kbps inferior to Redbook?  Versus , say, 320 vs 128 (the comparison most likely to be within reasonable bounds of audio memory in your 'demonstration')?


There was no way for anyone to identify when exactly the degradation set in, but that was not the point. All I was interested in was whether or not listeners detected the progressive change in quality.



Did any of the listeners note a three-stage reduction in quality?  Did any just note that it sounded worse at the end than at the start?

Quote
Quote
So this leaves basically just a few issues (besides the whopper of a premise that this was a 'demonstration' of anything serious about mp3s): 1) codecs used for lossy, and 2) what sort of expectations the listeners had, and how results were related to the presentation.  I might also add ,how the results were tallied.


You have this annoying habit, Mr. Sullivan, of asking questions that have already been answered. I know you stated yesterday that you don't bookmark my postings, but do you really _not_ remember the answers I have offered you in the past? Again, there was _no_ tallying of results. All I did was ask the listeners what, if anything, they had perceived during the prior 5 minutes or so of music.


So very sorry to have annoyed you, Mr. Atkinson. But I am trying to keep all the pertinent facts at hand; absent links, the alternative is to restate them here.  It can't hurt, and can certainly help, from a reader' POV.

Now, let me see if I have it finally straight:

-you don't think the number of listeners who replied ...and how they replied...matters as much as the fact that 10 groups of 20 'audiophiles' were involved

-you seem to think your 'teaching demo' (which may have grossly exaggerated the audible effects) did not load any expectations into the 'audiophile' audience during the 'single blind listening demo'.

So, any recordings of this event?  I'd love to hear the actual back and forth between yourself and the audience.  I'll even count the numbers of respondents and classify their responses for you, if you like.
 

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #105 –
Quote from: greynol on
in our "unreal" world of requiring objective measurement to demonstrate that differences in sound quality aren't a figment of your imagination, there is no such thing as a false negative.


Really? No such thing as  a Type II error? That the results of a bias-free test may still have failed to identify a real difference? Color me ( and the professor I learned statistics from)l amazed.

Thank you for the clarification.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #106 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: greynol on
in our "unreal" world of requiring objective measurement to demonstrate that differences in sound quality aren't a figment of your imagination, there is no such thing as a false negative.


Really? No such thing as  a Type II error? That the results of a bias-free test may still have failed to identify a real difference? Color me ( and the professor I learned statistics from)l amazed.

Thank you for the clarification.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

You have not carefully read TOS8 or you do not understand it. It is there only to remove false positives. If a person claims to hear a difference between A and B under a certain condition, it is implausible if not impossible that just the effect of making him unaware of which is which in any other way than hearing the recordings causes a false negative.
"We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #107 –
He's just being evasive again.  I'm sure removal of my "BTW" was not unintentional, not to mention his failure to directly address the common sense points that have been raised by other people.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #108 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
I did post a link to an article on this subject earlier in this thread, Ethan - http://www.stereophile.com/reference/23 - which examines this subject in considerable detail.

But that article is full of the same misuse of those words:

Quote
What many listeners fail to note is that weaknesses in the audio chain can give rise to errors which, in combination, suggest that the musical pace has become slower

I've never noticed audio equipment having any effect on musical tempo.

Quote
The ear has an extraordinary ability to recognize playing which is not on or aligned to the beat. This includes deliberately time-shifted or syncopated playing, as unmusical errors here quickly destroy meaning.

Again, this is not a function of the gear.

And it goes downhill from there.

So I'll take that as a No, that you're not interested in collaborating on a video where we could explain this stuff properly? It's a shame because this sort of clarification is really needed, and coming from different angles (yours and mine) we could provide a real service to the audio community.

--Ethan
I believe in Truth, Justice, and the Scientific Method

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #109 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Really? No such thing as  a Type II error? That the results of a bias-free test may still have failed to identify a real difference? Color me ( and the professor I learned statistics from)l amazed.

But what is "real" difference? There are so many differences that are inaudible.
Convert your favorite piece of music from 24 bit to 16 bit (with dither) twice. Dither adds random noise so you'll get 2 different WAV files. If someone cannot distinguish one file from another, is this false negative?

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #110 –
Quote from: stephanV on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: greynol on
in our "unreal" world of requiring objective measurement to demonstrate that differences in sound quality aren't a figment of your imagination, there is no such thing as a false negative.


Really? No such thing as  a Type II error? That the results of a bias-free test may still have failed to identify a real difference? Color me ( and the professor I learned statistics from)l amazed.

Thank you for the clarification.

You have not carefully read TOS8 or you do not understand it. It is there only to remove false positives. If a person claims to hear a difference between A and B under a certain condition, it is implausible if not impossible that just the effect of making him unaware of which is which in any other way than hearing the recordings causes a false negative.


I read it but no, I did not fully grasp the implication that it gives a free pass to tests that may throw up false negatives. Just because a test may be double-blind does mean _by itself_ that it is free from either Type 1 or Type II error, particularly when the effect being tested for is small, inconsistently audible (ie, there is a dependency between its audibility and another variable, such as the program etc) or both. The test needs to be free from both kinds of errors, if it is desired that it be scientifically rigorous. I can't believe that you are arguing this point. If HA subscribes to scientific rigor, then it needs to be judged by the appropriate scientific tenets. You can't pick and choose just those aspects of rigor that align with your beliefs.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #111 –
Quote from: krabapple on
So, let me see again if I have it straight...they were given a 'dem' about possible artefacts of data reduction...


Yes. With unfamiliar recordings played on an unfamiliar system in an unfamiliar listening room, a learning session is pretty much essential.

Quote
involving showing/playing difference tracks..possibly at high dBs? Or did only G. Massenburg do that?


No, that was George Massenburg. Any reference I have made in this thread to difference tracks involved some dems I did last year.

Quote
...and then you played them the Frankenstein track that started with lossless 'hi rez' and ended with a 2003 vintage 128kbps encode.  No spoken intro, just something like, 'Now listen to this'.  And then afterwards you asked them something like 'what did that sound like'? And during the 'discussion' some number of people said something like 'well, it started out great, but sounded worse and worse".

Close?


But no cigar. I described what happened is precise terms. I refer others to that description.
 
Quote
Did any of the listeners note a three-stage reduction in quality?  Did any just note that it sounded worse at the end than at the start?


As I wrote, most listeners felt that there had been a degradation. That was all I felt necessary. given the premises underlying the presentations that  I have described in earlier postings.

Quote
Now, let me see if I have it finally straight:
-you don't think the number of listeners who replied ...and how they replied...matters as much as the fact that 10 groups of 20 'audiophiles' were involved


I have not said anything like that. I refer you to my previous posts.

Quote
-you seem to think your 'teaching demo' (which may have grossly exaggerated the audible effects) did not load any expectations into the 'audiophile' audience during the 'single blind listening demo'.


Again I didn't say that.

Quote
So, any recordings of this event?


Sorry, no.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #112 –
Quote from: Ethan Winer on
I'll take that as a No, that you're not interested in collaborating on a video where we could explain this stuff properly?


Actually, I have been working for some time on a series of "rich" Web articles that does just what you propose, Ethan, based on a series of articles called "The Sonic Bridge" that appeared in the print magazine in the 1990s. I don't see the need for a collaborator, however.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #113 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
I can't believe that you are arguing this point. If HA subscribes to scientific rigor, then it needs to be judged by the appropriate scientific tenets. You can't pick and choose just those aspects of rigor that align with your beliefs.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


Just do it like Atkinson, he knows! Because a proper* sample-rate DBT can have a theoretical 0.000005 % probability of false negatives, he does the testing his way against all accepted scientific standards with a double digit probability of false positives. Just to come here afterwards and educate people about how to do it right.


*88.2 kHz vs. 88.2 kHz -> 44.1 kHz -> 88.2. kHz (with a SRC of at least SSRC's quality), time synched, same DAC, double blind. In this case the high quality sample stays untouched and only the low res sample is degraded twice. Any sane person would think, that degrading the low res source twice would increase the probability to identify a difference against the untouched hi res source. Not Mr. Atkinson! What he is trying to sell, is his theory that this would instead increase the probability of false negatives!

Understand how flawed that logic is: When comparing two identical samples (in absolutely every aspect), according to Atkinson it could increase the probability that people report them to be actually identical if you degrade one of them twice through sample rate conversion. 

Just one statistically sound and positive DBT result can show with a high probability that a difference can be audible. One negative result, of course, cannot show the same. But, as said, failure to produce just one positive result for over a decade is a clear indication, also with very high probability, that there probably are no audible differences. Please, Mr. Atkinson, just one!

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #114 –
Quote from: lvqcl on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Really? No such thing as  a Type II error? That the results of a bias-free test may still have failed to identify a real difference? Color me ( and the professor I learned statistics from)l amazed.

But what is "real" difference? There are so many differences that are inaudible.
Convert your favorite piece of music from 24 bit to 16 bit (with dither) twice. Dither adds random noise so you'll get 2 different WAV files. If someone cannot distinguish one file from another, is this false negative?


I am sorry, I have no idea. I am not trying to be evasive, as greynol seems to think, but your question is so open-ended as to be unanswerable.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #115 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
I can't believe that you are arguing this point. If HA subscribes to scientific rigor, then it needs to be judged by the appropriate scientific tenets. You can't pick and choose just those aspects of rigor that align with your beliefs.


Just do it like Atkinson, he knows! Because a proper* sample-rate DBT can have a theoretical 0.000005 % probability of false negatives, he does the testing his way against all accepted scientific standards with a double digit probability of false positives. Just to come here afterwards and educate people about how to do it right.


Stereophile makes no claim concerning the scientific rigor behind its published opinions, hence I am not concerned if those opinions are felt to be nothing more than false positives by HA denizens. (Doesn't mean I agree with that opinion, however.)  But if those same HA denizens are claiming the scientific high ground, as they are, then I certainly feel it appropriate to judge their writings by the appropriate scientific standard. Otherwise the argument devolves to a matter of opposed beliefs and I don't see the need to debate beliefs.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #116 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
But if those same HA denizens are claiming the scientific high ground, as they are, then I certainly feel it appropriate to judge their writings by the appropriate scientific standard.


You mean in the same way as you are trying to claim scientific high ground at Hydrogenaudio by word while failing to present anything but show-biz A/B setups by deed?

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #117 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: greynol on
in our "unreal" world of requiring objective measurement to demonstrate that differences in sound quality aren't a figment of your imagination, there is no such thing as a false negative.


Really? No such thing as  a Type II error?


False negative does not always mean identically the same as Type II error.

Furthermore, the alleged Type II errors that we hear about from golden ears are not proven facts, but just hypothetical wishes and dreams.

Quote
That the results of a bias-free test may still have failed to identify a real difference?


A test that fails to detect a real difference is not bias-free.

Now getting back to the chase John, why can't you provide us with unambigious evidence that high rez recording techniques provide even a different sound, let alone a better sound. 




lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #118 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: greynol on
in our "unreal" world of requiring objective measurement to demonstrate that differences in sound quality aren't a figment of your imagination, there is no such thing as a false negative.


Really? No such thing as  a Type II error?


False negative does not always mean identically the same as Type II error.


Others disagree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors

Quote
Now getting back to the chase John, why can't you provide us with unambigious evidence that high rez recording techniques provide even a different sound, let alone a better sound.


As I said in the message to which you originally posted, Mr. Krueger, a group of AES illuminati are working on exactly that project. Why am I obliged to duplicate their efforts?  In the meantime, I shall continue to make my recordings - recordings with sound quality that others claim to appreciate - with high sample rates and bit depths greater than 16. The only people to whom I need to prove anything to concerning those recordings are myself and those who employ my services.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #119 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: greynol on
As an act of good faith, feel free to conduct some double blind tests, Stereoeditor, even if they're personal tests.


Why do I have to? I haven't violated Tos#8 by posting personal opinions concerning sound quality to this forum. Yes, my published opinions on the benefits of high-resolution _have_ been posted to this forum, but that was done by Arny Krueger, not me. I don't see that his doing so obliges me to suppoort those opinions on HA. Otherwise, I would be vulnerable to every troll on the Internet.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


Whoa, I always try to be civil, but you're saying you can't be arsed to take the (relatively little) time to do ABX testing in spite of having spent hours at the keyboard on HA. Perhaps no TOS#8 violation as such, but bad faith aplenty. And if the assertions of HA members are little better than those of internet trolls, then -- without meaning to sound nasty -- why are you bothering to post here in the first place?

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #120 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: ShowsOn on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
I did do this demonstration at the 2008 Rocky Mountain Audio Fest. I showed that the difference between 88.2kHz/24-bit data and a Red Book derived from those data was only audible at the listening position if you boosted its level by 24dB. So the question devotes to: Does adding something that is inaudible on its own to Red-Book audio result in something that is perceived as being [of] higher quality? The answer may not [necessarily] be "no."

This explanation sounds like an argument from ignorance.


Ah, what would  HA be without the usual ad hominem stuff. All I am doing is trying to get people to put aside their preconceived notions and think a little more deeply about this matter.

LOL! Well done mate. You can't demonstrate why your conclusions are sound, so you pretend that my reply was an ad hominem argument. That in itself is an ad hominem argument against me, because it completely misrepresents what I asserted, which is simply that you are drawing conclusions without there being any evidence for you to draw such conclusions.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #121 –
Quote from: greynol on
He's just being evasive again.  I'm sure removal of my "BTW" was not unintentional, not to mention his failure to directly address the common sense points that have been raised by other people.


I'm a bit distressed that people with something of real value to offer are spending so much time on this thread. I guess they're so involved in the topic that they're not really seeing how useless the discussion is. Or it's just the old story of red rags and bulls.

Anyhow, people, you are, in all seriousness, wasting your time. Atkinson is a weaselling troll. He's an intelligent, well educated, and articulate troll, but that just makes him a bigger time-waster. If you think about the kind of responses he's giving, and the failure to to engage with the serious content of the debate(s) (which people have remarked on, several times, in this thread), you'll see it. Unless it's giving you some kind of perverse pleasure, the world will be well served if he's just ignored.

No, this is not ad hominem; it's a serious characterisation of the mode of argument employed.

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #122 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
I read it but no, I did not fully grasp the implication that it gives a free pass to tests that may throw up false negatives. Just because a test may be double-blind does mean _by itself_ that it is free from either Type 1 or Type II error, particularly when the effect being tested for is small, inconsistently audible (ie, there is a dependency between its audibility and another variable, such as the program etc) or both. The test needs to be free from both kinds of errors, if it is desired that it be scientifically rigorous. I can't believe that you are arguing this point. If HA subscribes to scientific rigor, then it needs to be judged by the appropriate scientific tenets. You can't pick and choose just those aspects of rigor that align with your beliefs.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

So you still don't get it. It does not give a free pass, because the person already claims to consistently hear a difference under a certain condition. Nothing prevents that person to recreate that condition under a DBT. If you do not understand why it is almost impossible to get a false negative this way, I'm afraid you do not know one thing about scientific rigor or tenets.
"We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."

lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #123 –
Quote from: MichaelW on
I'm a bit distressed that people with something of real value to offer are spending so much time on this thread. I guess they're so involved in the topic that they're not really seeing how useless the discussion is. Or it's just the old story of red rags and bulls.

Anyhow, people, you are, in all seriousness, wasting your time. Atkinson is a weaselling troll. He's an intelligent, well educated, and articulate troll, but that just makes him a bigger time-waster. If you think about the kind of responses he's giving, and the failure to to engage with the serious content of the debate(s) (which people have remarked on, several times, in this thread), you'll see it. Unless it's giving you some kind of perverse pleasure, the world will be well served if he's just ignored.

No, this is not ad hominem; it's a serious characterisation of the mode of argument employed.


Calling Mr Atkinson a troll is probably taking things a bit far. This is something of a hostile environment for the man and he's hardly likely to convert HA members to Stereophile readers. That in and of itself deserves some kudos, at least compared to those who hide behind their editorial pulpits.

But I also agree with you. Is the editor of an audio magazine's duty of care really to educate their readers, or to reinforce their belief systems? My guess is it's the latter. This is understandable - unless it's an academic journal, people choose to read something that supports, not challenges, their own feelings toward a subject. No one reads Hot Rod magazine to learn about hybrid technology or electric cars for example, and if an editor of that magazine suddenly turned 'green', the readers would probably see red.

Magazines frequently run features that border on challenging the beliefs of the readership, usually when it becomes almost inevitable not to do otherwise. Photo magazines were singularly resistant to the ingress of digital imaging (because the readership was openly hostile to the concept) but then quickly changed direction to embrace digital, when it became clear film photography was dying off in the consumer sector. Those self-same magazines that suggested for decades that you spent the winter in the darkroom suddenly discovered the horrors of an army of readers flushing away gallons of toxic chemicals down their respective sinks. But no one challenges the fundamentals - you'll never see a feature like 'why a cellphone is the box brownie of the 21st century' or 'why camcorders are better than DSLRs for most people' in a photo magazine - because that would disenfranchise the regular readers.

Which is why those who read Stereophile see it as an authority on sound, while we see something more concerned with presenting the perception of authority.

Curiously, I do think this is reader-led, rather than advertising-led, because of magazines like Hi-Fi Critic in the UK. This relies on subscription and takes no advertising, yet holds to precisely the same audiophile mind-set seen in all the other magazines. Were it to challenge this mind-set head-on, I suspect it would have no subscription base.


lecture: Critical listening/evaluation - a path to the future of quali

Reply #124 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Stereophile makes no claim concerning the scientific rigor behind its published opinions...


IME Stereophile is reliatvely unique among modern secular publications in that it routinely publishes opinions that grotesquely and shamelessly violate our society's norms for scientific reasonbleness and correctness, while making a big show out of its scientific correctness.

Normally, enthusiast magazines publish opinons that are factually true or at least reasonably close to being true.

For example, if a camping magazine publishes an opinon that a water purifier purifies water, there is an excellent possibility that the device in question will in fact take bad-tasting swamp water and make it safe and pallatable.

However, if Stereophile publishes an opinion that an interconnect or speaker cable will make your audio system sound better, there is an excellent possibility that no such thing will ever happen. Furthermore, there is an excellent possibility that there no known scientific means by which such a thing could ever happen.

Perhaps Stereophile should take its lead from Analog Science Fiction magazine and bill itself as a journal of Science Fiction and Science Fact!