November 2014 Stereophile Disappointment

Dr Tinear

AK Subscriber
Subscriber
It didn't take long for Stereophile to disappoint me. The November issue is only the third one in my two-year renewal, and already I'm finding fault with the opinions of the staff writers.

Take Art Dudley's "Listening" column on page 43. Please. AD wastes 2-1/2 pages setting up and demolishing straw men in an attempt to discredit blind testing. In the process he completely ignores the question of how to compensate for expectation bias in sighted subjective testing. He also fails to draw the essential distinction between art (the music he uses to evaluate equipment) and technology (the equipment itself, which should be designed to function as a perfect copy machine rather than a musical instrument). His remarks include several paragraphs of gratuitous name-calling aimed at those who are skeptical of sighted subjective evaluation of audio equipment. I was neither convinced nor impressed by this screed, though it did leave me wondering why Stereophile allocates page space for AD's opinions.

I was also disappointed by Sam Tellig's evaluation of the La Rosita Alpha New streaming DAC. ST quotes La Rosita's Web site, at which their ad writer opined that digital audio was a step back for reproduction of music because of the need for separate recording and playback time bases. Hello? Doesn't ST or La Rosita's PR hack realize that analog audio also uses separate time bases at both ends of the recording chain? The nature of the time base is different for analog, of course; instead of a word clock derived from a crystal oscillator, an analog time base is a rotating capstan on a tape transport or a rotating platter on a record lathe or playback turntable. As anyone who's ever listened to a 45 RPM record played back at 33-1/3 can tell you, skew between analog time bases can definitely upset timing cues in the music (not to mention such other important factors as pitch). The time base skew doesn't need to be this severe to degrade playback; more subtle speed errors or speed inconsistencies (wow and flutter) can still wreak havoc with analog playback. I was surprised and disappointed that a writer of ST's experience bought the explanation from La Rosita and missed this elementary point.
 
In Defense of Art Dudley

Personally, I trust Art Dudley's sonic judgement more than any of their other scribes. And I enjoy his curmudgeon-like style, as well.

Art seems to listen more like I do, and to hear more like I hear, for what that is worth, in this highly subjective and unusually opinionated pastime of ours.

I think he was not objecting to the blindness of blind testing, so much as the quickness with which it is almost always conducted. And I don't regard that quickness as a "straw-man" at all. Art seems to take more time and care in his reviews than many, and I think this is an asset. He knows and shares his priorities with regard to sound quality, so others may appreciate the basis for his opinions. He is also willing to give unfavorable opinions of gear, which is kind of rare in this segment of journalism.

As for separating the music from the technology, you seem to be saying that "high fidelity" should be the sole arbiter of sound quality. Art, along with many folks in our hobby, seems to be in the "musicality" camp, and that is fine with me, as enjoyment of music is the end-goal of the hobby for most of us, which is as it should be, IMO. Even Michael Fremer acknowledges this perspective, and will readily point to qualities in cartridges and phono preamps that would appeal to one camp or the other.

To be sure, one person's musicality may be another's low-fi, but I don't think there is much danger of Art saying that any old receiver and some white van speakers sound wonderful, or as good as it gets...

I like Sam Tellig's writing, but his sonic opinions seem flippant, in comparison.

To complete the picture, I enjoyed Stephen Miejas too, while he lasted. I hope he doesn't regret leaving.

Peace.

:music:
 
I think you are going to be disappointed in any magazine that covers our hobby these days. The days of the objectivist magazine seems to be gone and with it all those magazines that grew out of the post war High Fidelity movement, Audio, High Fidelity, Stereo Review, all gone. You won''t find their like, at least in the US or the UK. Only the subjectives remain. At least Stereophile provides measurements for their reviews except for columns like Art's and Sam/Tom's. And if you think Stereophile is bad, read TAS. Absolute drivel.

Personally I like Art's columns. He's a decent writer, which most of the audio writers of today, aren't. He is opinionated but he isn't obnoxious. Frankly if he was a novelist I'd be a real fan.
 
The best Stereophile mag I have is the one they sold last year that had all the recommended components from that last decade in one issue. I canceled 10 years ago because no matter how good something was 2 years ago it seems they say the next big thing is 4x's better and everyone needs to go out and spend $10k on it. Wish they promoted the good budget level items half as much as they promote the $10K + items. They should have a disclaimer on the cover that they cater to Lawyers, Corporate Raiders, and Professional Athletes who are looking for bragging rights.
 
I think you are going to be disappointed in any magazine that covers our hobby these days. The days of the objectivist magazine seems to be gone and with it all those magazines that grew out of the post war High Fidelity movement, Audio, High Fidelity, Stereo Review, all gone. You won''t find their like, at least in the US or the UK. Only the subjectives remain. At least Stereophile provides measurements for their reviews except for columns like Art's and Sam/Tom's. And if you think Stereophile is bad, read TAS. Absolute drivel.

Personally I like Art's columns. He's a decent writer, which most of the audio writers of today, aren't. He is opinionated but he isn't obnoxious. Frankly if he was a novelist I'd be a real fan.
Interestingly, at least to me, I have had to opportunity to read, at least in part, likely every single issue of Stereo Review, High Fidelity and Audio from 1970-1990 and beyond. I also have read most from the late 50's into the early 60's (mid to late 60's audio equipment holds very little appeal to me.) I actually have hundreds of photocopies of reviews from all those magazines of my favorite gear or special pieces. Certainly, of every monster receiver, as that was my passion at the time.

Except for a little bit in Audio, none of those reviews told me the one single piece of information I needed: how did that piece of equipment sound. Other then speakers, there were almost no comments on the sound at all. Sadly, this lead me to a time consuming, and cash consuming, search for the audio I liked to listen to, rather then helping me put together a system I liked and enjoyed.

I did enjoy the measurements, although back then I put much more weight on them then I do now. For the most part, by the time the late 70's came around, no quality equipment failed to live up to its specs, so I guess all the testing did work to keep them honest.

I later found magazines like Andrew Marshalls Audio Ideas Guide worked much better for me then the mainstream mags. Not that it was perfect, but Marshall was clear enough in describing what he heard, that I could guess through his reviews whether I would like a piece of equipment or not (generally, his preferences and mine were opposite. If he liked it, I wouldn't.). To that, he added the measurements he could (being a one man show). In particular,I always liked his speaker measurements.

Given the option, and not having almost any gear disastrously fail testing in decades, I'd much rather read a good review of how something sounds, then see how something measures. If I want numbers, for that I can look at the spec sheets.
 
In addition to writing the editorial on blind testing, Art Dudley also wrote the review of the Air Tight ATM-1S amplifier. He really loved the sound of it. John Atkinson tested it and concluded that it was so bad that the test sample must be defective. No matter where a person sits on the subjective/objective continuum, this was not Art's finest hour. Like others, I generally enjoy Art's writing, and can only suggest that you read more of his work before turning away.
 
The audio magazine I like best is, UHF, Canadian magazine from Québec, in English.
UHF has very decent and knowledgeable writers.



Took me while, but finally got it, must be my age. :D
 
Last edited:
Reminder: this forum has very specific rules that are unique to it. Please read the rules before posting.
 
When we are talking about subjective opinions, I can only trust someone who proved to have the same opinion as me on evaluated things in the past. Something like if I know that 10 times I had the same opinion as reviewer, then I can trust his opinion on 11th item. Objective measurements like JA publishes, give me an opportunity to qualify or disqualify some things from consideration. I do believe that if device's measurements are bad, it will unlikely sound good. Though opposite is not true, and devices with good measured parameters are not always sound good.
 
The audio magazine I like best is, UHF, Canadian magazine from Québec, in English.
UHF has very decent and knowledgeable writers.



Took me while, but finally got it, must be my age. :D

UHF is a great magazine. I have them going back to issue four or something. When it wasn't even called UHF. :)
 
When we are talking about subjective opinions, I can only trust someone who proved to have the same opinion as me on evaluated things in the past. Something like if I know that 10 times I had the same opinion as reviewer, then I can trust his opinion on 11th item. Objective measurements like JA publishes, give me an opportunity to qualify or disqualify some things from consideration. I do believe that if device's measurements are bad, it will unlikely sound good. Though opposite is not true, and devices with good measured parameters are not always sound good.

I think you are heading down a really rough road if you are looking for a reviewer who always agrees with you. A good reviewer is one who can describe in detail what he or she hears, and then it's up to you to decide if you like it or not. In other words, regardless of whether THEY like it, a well written review will let you decide if YOU like it.

Art Dudley is certainly a reviewer who can do this. The man might just be the best audio reviewer of our time.
 
its all info-tainment, like the Daily Show or Bill Maher's Real Time; facts embellished with fanciful prose skewed to a specific demographic . . . no cause to get yer knickers in a bunch . . . for my money, the reviews in Audio and Stereo Review were of far more value and pertinence to society in general and audio- aficionados in particular . . . it seems to me that Stereophile, whether intentionally or not, just makes people doubt the quality of their equipment choices and their ears . . . still, I have a sub to Stereophile, but hey!, I don't run with scissors!! . . . unless Sam or Art reports it will help 'cut' thru 'haze' :D
 
its all info-tainment, like the Daily Show or Bill Maher's Real Time; facts embellished with fanciful prose skewed to a specific demographic . . . no cause to get yer knickers in a bunch . . . for my money, the reviews in Audio and Stereo Review were of far more value and pertinence to society in general and audio- aficionados in particular . . . it seems to me that Stereophile, whether intentionally or not, just makes people doubt the quality of their equipment choices and their ears . . . still, I have a sub to Stereophile, but hey!, I don't run with scissors!! . . . unless Sam or Art reports it will help 'cut' thru 'haze' :D

Not being a smart-ass here, but what was the value and pertinence of the Stereo Review reviews? They gave a brochure like overview, listed a bunch of specs that 90% of the readers didn't understand, and then spent no time on the one thing that actually mattered to people - that is, how the equipment sounded.
 
sound smound-I buy MY amps by the pound! [how did the Behemoth 5000 dual double filtered discrete hybrid tube /mosfet amp sound?.....like it weighed 500 lbs!]
 
I think you are heading down a really rough road if you are looking for a reviewer who always agrees with you. A good reviewer is one who can describe in detail what he or she hears, and then it's up to you to decide if you like it or not. In other words, regardless of whether THEY like it, a well written review will let you decide if YOU like it.

Art Dudley is certainly a reviewer who can do this. The man might just be the best audio reviewer of our time.
When reviewer describes what he hears, it may not match what I would hear from the same gear. That is why initial correlation check is needed.
 
When reviewer describes what he hears, it may not match what I would hear from the same gear. That is why initial correlation check is needed.

Again, a good reviewer describes what it sounds like. I've heard enough of the same gear as Art Dudley, for instance, to know that his descriptions are spot on. That's what makes him a great journalist. It doesn't mean our tastes are the same, but our experiences with similar equipment certainly have been. And the more gear I have experienced, and I have experienced a LOT of gear, the more accurate I find his reviews to be. In my experience, educated, knowledgable listeners all hear the same thing. Their preferences might vary, but their experiences are the same.

What I have never experienced is any correlation between measured specs of a properly operating piece of equipment, and how it sounds. None of the specs in the review I have of the SX-1980, for example, prepared me for how bad it actually sounded. The specs might tell me how an amp might work with a pair of speakers, but it sure won't tell me how it will sound with them.

So what I don't get is what correlation check Stereo Review gave. How are you better off not knowing how some gear sounded?
 
Since 1990 I've been an avid reader of UHF, although half or more of the audio equipment under review are way above my budget.
Other mags of interest for me are, Stereophile, The Absolute Sound, (lots of us will miss Mr. Pearson) and a few French written mags from Québec, Mag TED, Mag Son et Image, to name a few.

Agree or disagree with their opinions,and their results, I still enjoy reading them.
 
"how the equipment sounds" has been cited more than once in this thread and is a very subjective conclusion, as stated in previous posts, that SHOULD be decided by the actual listener . . . now, I enjoy the mastery of the English language exhibited in Stereophile reviews; I learn at least one new adjective per issue! . . . I even enjoy the ramblings about the reviewers spouse, or cats, that often appear within those reviews (more of a dog man myself, cats, like some folks, are a bit pretentious) . . . I can't really relate to all the esoteric descriptors used by some reviewers; I have no "golden ear" nor have I been schooled in critical listening- I DO know what I like and how I like it to sound however . . . so, for me, and I reckon lots of others, the specs published in SR and others provided a good base from which to start an equipment search; lowest distortion, more/less tone effects, waveform replication, price, etc. . . . and if I didn't understand a particular spec, which apparently most of us didn't, I found out about it and moved on . . . I do recall seeing tutorial articles in SR, Audio and S-phile that did/do explain testing and the results obtained . . . that said, and I shall say no more on that subject, this is my opinion, there are many like it, but this is mine, and if you DONT like of agree with me, so be it, just say so without the incredulity I sense in some responses . . . now, go spin a record or something for chrissake! :thmbsp:
 
Last edited:
"how the equipment sounds" has been cited more than once in this thread and is a very subjective conclusion, as stated in previous posts, that SHOULD be decided by the actual listener . . . now, I enjoy the mastery of the English language exhibited in Stereophile reviews; I learn at least one new adjective per issue! . . . I even enjoy the ramblings about the reviewers spouse, or cats, that often appear within those reviews (more of a dog man myself, cats, like some folks, are a bit pretentious) . . . I can't really relate to all the esoteric descriptors used by some reviewers; I have no "golden ear" nor have I been schooled in critical listening- I DO know what I like and how I like it to sound however . . . so, for me, and I reckon lots of others, the specs published in SR and others provided a good base from which to start an equipment search; lowest distortion, more/less tone effects, waveform replication, price, etc. . . . and if I didn't understand a particular spec, which apparently most of us didn't, I found out about it and moved on . . . I do recall seeing tutorial articles in SR, Audio and S-phile that did/do explain testing and the results obtained . . . that said, and I shall say no more on that subject, this is my opinion, there are many like it, but this is mine, and if you DONT like of agree with me, so be it, just say so without the incredulity I sense in some responses . . . now, go spin a record or something for chrissake! :thmbsp:

No, how something sounds is not really a subjective conclusion. It is simply a description.

There is an established and understood language used to describe sonic qualities. As in any other group sharing experiences, language has grown to facilitate this. Once you understand the language it becomes easier to determine if you subjectively will like the piece of equipment on review.

It is really not different then saying food is salty or sweet or spicy. Once you understand the language, it becomes easy to describe your experiences and understand other people relating theirs.
 
Stereophile does a much better job of presenting the objective measurements of gear but still relies much more heavily on listening (as it should be) when judging gear. Stereo Review might as well have been a technical journal of specifications. I never got anything out of any review ever done.

I've been blessed with listening to LOTS of loudspeakers in my life, fewer but still a good many amplifiers and preamps. More of a guess of how a loudspeaker might sound can be made from a few good measurements. That's one area where Stereophile is particularly informative....cabinet resonance, frequency response and a broader range of tests that might suggest response times, etc. Still, I wouldn't be able to hazard a guess as to what one speaker sounds like, based on these charts, unless I had listened to a broad variety of speakers and compared what I heard to what the test results measured.

Listening is still the gold standard but in the recent issue I took one look at the graphs of the NOLA reference loudspeakers and thought to myself, based on many years of listening and comparing measured responses, this is not a loudspeaker I would enjoy. John Atkinson felt much the same way when I read the article though he was much kinder about it.

Amplifiers and digital sources are another matter altogether. I can no more tell you how an amp or source will sound by the graphs than I can fly (I can't). I CAN tell you, from the descriptions of some very knowledgeable and experienced posters and reviewers where I share some common experience I have a good guess as to how something might sound and whether it will appeal to me. Their descriptions, in common terminology, as Erik points out, begins to paint a picture of the nuance of the electronics.

I do, however, succumb to peer pressure occasionally, thinking I should like a particular amp or preamp when someone has clearly stated, in the common vernacular of the audio nut, that something sounds lush and warm when I clearly, based on my own experience, love detailed and precise. :D

Some reviewers I trust more than others based on shared experience. Most of my audio life I identified with Sam Tellig. Recently I find more in common with JA. Hopefully with more experience (and a lot more dough), Art Dudley will become a voice I can depend on as well. :music:
 
Back
Top Bottom