Interesting Article about the Audio Press

G

Guest

Guest
<font color='#000000'>Gene- This subject is not new to those of us who have tried to do any critical reading about audio for quite a while. When I was moving from my old largely budget 2 channel system to a relatively good quality 5 channel my best resouces were my brother who had already made the jump and provided a good second set of ears to comapre notes with, audioreview which helped set up a list of comparably priced models to consider and audioholics. Your buying guides were well written, up to date, and unbiased. Like most of your users, I knew the basics of audio but the HT differences were mystifying at first. In this regard, audioholics was particularly heplful.

The article mentions Richard Hardesty's Audio Professional Journal which I discovered late in my search process. His early issues were very good. His comments on room acoustics,EQ and speakers were well done. His later stuff on source equipment and preamps have gone off the deep end of high esoteric gear without adequately explaining why one should do this. He has hinted that when he gets to the subject of wire he will advocate that wires matter (translation spend a lot).

Finally to come to my point, I am wary of the increased advertising you have begun to accept. I realize you have to make a buck like all of us but there is a fine line to tread. The River Cable white paper- is that a review or an add? It's not clear to me and that illustates the fine line. Another example: I know you like RBH speakers and have given them good to glowing reviews and they advertise heavily. Their new product seems impractable and I cannot image how they could image well at that size with so many drivers. You claim otherwise; I won't argue, I haven't heard them. I tried to find an RBH dealer nearby when I was shopping, but I couldn't and they didn't answer my emails. (I don't seem to be alone in this regard based on other forum entries seen here.) You have such a great site. Even the appearance of bias can damage your credibility so please be careful.</font>
 
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
<font color='#000000'>Dan;

Thanks for your feedback and insights.

1) Regarding River Cable White Paper
It is not a review, it is a featured article they wrote. &nbsp;We offer manufacturers dedicated sections of the site as part of an advertising package. &nbsp;The paper does make some good points, but there are some issues with it as well. &nbsp;The authors notion about capacitance and flat cables is a bit off. &nbsp;I will be addressing this in my review of the cables coming soon.

2) RBH T system
It is certainly a large system with a low WAF. &nbsp;However, if you have the room and an understanding wife, IMO its rewards are endless. &nbsp;There are good reasons for the numerous drivers all of which I documented in my review. &nbsp;If I didn't feel the product performed excellently, I would have not written so much about it. &nbsp;You have any idea how long it takes to write a review like that?

I understand your concerns about advertising and keeping the site objective, but realize this:
1) The endless hours we dedicate on this site provides little &nbsp;monetary return for us after factoring in all of our costs. &nbsp;
2) We pay all of the site expenses and never charge readers to download our articles or access any part of the site.
3) WE don't accept banner ads from companies whose products we don't believe perform well and/or are a good value for the dollar. &nbsp;
4) WE NEVER tell people to BUY anything.
5) We encourage readers to take all reviews with a grain of salt (even ours) and use them for informational purposes only. &nbsp;In fact, its even in our disclaimer:

Reviews Page &amp; Disclaimer</font>
 
A. Vivaldi

A. Vivaldi

Audioholic
<font color='#000000'>Hi Gene, that was a great article. It's frustrating to know that there's some really good audio gear out there but the enviroment is so polluted and obscured that the only way one can find it nowadays is through luck, or expensive trial and error.

This is a stupid question, but would you accept donations from members? I'm not suggesting that this should become a &quot;pay only&quot; site, but one that would accept voluntary donations. I agree with Dan that your recent advertising is a little disturbing. Even though you really believe in their products for now, some of them may go rapidly down hill in the future. The fate of the &quot;good reviewer&quot; that the author warned about can easily happen to you and yours also. It'd be well worth the occasional cost to me to have truly unbiased reviews, considering how much I could stand to lose!

I know I rant a lot about audiophile stuff sometimes, but It's mostly because I finally found out what worked for me and I'm afraid to take chances with new stuff because of all the deception and confusion the bastards in those magazines have caused, but with your help I'm slowly starting to lose some of my obsessive compulsive audioholic disorders. Hey! I even removed the protective plastic slip cases from my CDs recently. Who cares if I get a few scratches or fingerprints on my Jewel cases, and now I have a little more storage space to boot! Ha! Ha! Now if you can only help me with my alcoholic disorder...
</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A. Vivaldi

A. Vivaldi

Audioholic
<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is one other magazine that deserves special mention, because in many ways it is unique. That magazine is The Audio Critic. It was originally published during the late 1970's until around 1981. Then it reincarnated around 1987, with the publisher being in the speaker business during that 6 year hiatus. I was a subscriber during the first period and enjoyed the magazine quite a bit. It was very precise and to the point, and did not tolerate any scientific &quot;mumbo jumbo&quot;. It also didn't accept any advertising. I was very sorry to see it go.

The Audio Critic, in its new reincarnation, has profoundly changed, mainly because the publisher/editor's beliefs have also changed. It's still very scientifically based, which I like and it also pulls no punches, which I really like. In fact, it's the only magazine I know that breaks &quot;The Rules&quot; listed below in a consistent manner.

The new problem for me, and most others, is the editor no longer believes that any component, other than loudspeakers, can make an audible difference in the sound; a cheap (powerful) receiver will sound as good as any power amplifier; the same with CD players, cables, preamp line-stages etc. He states he can prove all this with ABX testing. He also feels analogue, meaning phono reproduction, is far inferior to any CD player and that &quot;tubes are for boobs&quot;. No, I am not exaggerating.

While I concur about the prime importance of speakers and listening rooms, I don't agree with their position on tubes, phono reproduction, and everything else sounding the same, though I do feel that the sonic differences in most cases are greatly exaggerated. Frankly, if I felt the same way the editor did about audio components, I wouldn't even bother being involved with an audio magazine in the first place. It would be too boring, and besides; What's the point?

According to their own findings and philosophy, all you have to do to get the best sound possible is to buy the cheapest receiver, CD player and cables you can find, then buy your favorite loudspeaker with all the money you saved. Further, the only improvement you will ever be able make in the future is with a better pair of speakers. Everything else must be, in effect, perfect, because it all sounds exactly the same. There is also a continually angry, bitter and negative tone to the writing that may put one off.

</td></tr></table>I see where Mr. Van Woofer gets the brunt of his inspiration!
</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rob Babcock

Rob Babcock

Moderator
<font color='#8D38C9'>It's a Catch-22; the ads do create the stirring in the mind that you're opinion may be guided by the money, even though I don't think they are. &nbsp;Credibility is based on the appearance of things sometimes, and it's difficult to appear objective when you rave a product that has a banner ad on the top of the page. &nbsp;I'm not disparaging the AH staff, just making an observation.

But on the other hand, running a site like this takes a tremendous amount of resources. &nbsp;Even disregarding the signifcant investment of time involved, the server space alone can run into hundreds of dollars per month, depending on the traffic &amp; bandwidth requirements. &nbsp;I doubt this site is quite that high yet, but it's growing. &nbsp;It's asking a lot to expect the AH guys to maintain this site at their own expense while holding down day jobs just so we can use their forum to rip their honesty!


I don't have an answer, I guess. &nbsp;At AC we do a donation drive with a Paypal link; we do this because we hate banner ads and have a clear idea what we want the site to be. &nbsp;Maybe that would work here, or maybe there aren't enough members. &nbsp;The ads do create the potential appearance of a conflict of interest, but hey, you're not forcing anyone to hang out here. &nbsp;It's a free internet- at least so far.</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
<font color='#000000'>Just so everyone realizes, with our recent partnership with Audioreview,ecoustics, and hometheaterforum and formation of the soon to be announced Home Theater Alliance (HTA), the increased influx of traffic to this site has been tremendous. &nbsp;I wish it only cost a few hundred / month to keep this site running, but it doesn't.

As for banner ads, specifically one from RBH, we have always raved about their products prior to any advertising arrangements. &nbsp;Nothing here has changed.

Its funny how nobody seems to mind the full page manufacturers advertisement &nbsp;following the typical 1 page review in the print ads, or the endless pop up banners and weekly email spamming of other audio websites. &nbsp;

Donations are always appreciated, but we don't push and they will likely not be enough to cover our expenses and allow us to do Audioholics full time. &nbsp;We tried to sell quality polo style shirts at a meager $10 profit and had little success, so what makes you think people would willingly give us money?

I would rather get the money out of the manufacturers then our readership. &nbsp;

Consider this for bias, we have debunked almost every major myth surrounding cables (more to come), yet most of our advertisers are cable vendors &nbsp;
&nbsp; How is that for a catch22? &nbsp;You will also notice the cable vendors who advertise with us make legitimate cables and no BS claims. &nbsp;We even convinced one cable vendor to remove claims of skin effect causing problems at audio frequencies.

We turned down some very lucrative advertisers (ones that advertise on every other audio website except here) because we don't believe in their products / services. &nbsp;One advertiser whose product we gave a negative review of (caused alot of controversy on the internet) has an enormous online advertising budget. &nbsp;We could have easily turned the other check, put forth the typical review, and been much richer right now.

The bottom line here is this website has consumed much of our daily lives, and has costs like any other business. &nbsp;We are pumped because we are finally doing what we love. &nbsp;But in order for us to keep doing this and dedicate the hours we have been, we need to generate money to pay the bills. &nbsp;In the future, I would like to hire more writers, but again that costs money! &nbsp;

If for any reason you feel this has jepordized our integrity, I don't think anything I say will change your mind. &nbsp;We just hope you consider what we do here to be at least as credible as all of the other audio websites and magazines that have sponsorship.</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rip Van Woofer

Rip Van Woofer

Audioholic General
<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I see where Mr. Van Woofer gets the brunt of his inspiration!</td></tr></table>

Yep! And proud of it!


Notice the author didn't say why he disagrees with their stand on the audibility of electronics, except that to agree with it would render audio mags (and perhaps by extension the hobby itself) &quot;boring&quot; and so &quot;what's the point&quot;? Well, truth is truth whether we like it or not. The fact that all competently designed solid state electronic components* are audibly identical may dismay those of us who need a reason to constantly diddle with gear and spend fortunes thereby, but for those of us who want to deploy our resources where they'll do the most good it's nice to know. And its a tribute to the engineers, designers, and theorists who have brought us to this point. In any other field of endeavor such a state of affairs would be seen as a golden age!

And at any rate, there are still good reasons to spend extra on a better than mass-market bit of gear. I've mentioned intangibles like &quot;pride of ownership&quot; and &quot;prestige&quot;. But features, ergonomics, build quality (hence reliability), the best available electrical performance (measurable, if not audible) and the ability to drive difficult speaker loads are all good reasons to move upmarket. To use the old car analogy, a Chevy and a Mercedes will both get me to work equally well, but I'd rather do it in a Mercedes (or, for that matter, my Subaru WRX!) I will seldom use my WRX's ability to accelerate from 0 to 60 in less than six seconds on the street (well, maybe on an empty on-ramp for fun!). But it's nice to have it, and I didn't mind paying for it. And if I could afford it, I woudn't mind having, say, a Porsche Boxter and an S-class Mercedes. Or a Bryston or Krell amp and prepro system for that matter. (Donations gratefully accepted)

Peter Aczel, the editor, is far from the only one who &quot;claims&quot; that ABX** testing demonstrates the above. As far as I can tell, ABX testing by everyone from EE's to average audiophiles has confirmed it. And yes, he is a bit cranky. Given the state of audio journalism it's easy to understand. He's definately a &quot;man on a mission&quot;!

I was also a fan of the oft-maligned Stereo Review. I cut my teeth way back when on their similarly scientific and objective view of audio. That perhaps explains my orientation.

--------

*To repeat myself, this assumes flat frequency response across the audio band, negligable distortion and noise, and low output impedance. Nearly all modern gear meets these criteria and they are the only things we can hear. There is no unknown &quot;X factor&quot; that affects audibility. Tube gear, and solid-state boutique gear that tries to emulate it, are exeptions.

**ABX testing is a double-blind protocol. It removes all experimenter bias. Using a switching device called a comparator, the subject is allowed to listen to fully identified item &quot;A&quot; and fully identified item &quot;B&quot; for as long as desired, and then switch to &quot;X&quot; without knowing whether it's A or B. The comparator selects either A or B randomly when in the X position, so that neither the test subject or the experimenter knows which is being listened to. A readout function in the comparator tells which one was X for each trial after the test is complete. The subject must then guess whether X is A or B. After several trials (enough to give a statistically valid result) the results are tabulated. A result of about 50% correct is considered a &quot;null&quot; result -- the same as could be gotten by sheer guessing or a coin flip. There's a plus or minus tolerance -- I don't know what it is. It is important that the levels of the two items under test be matched within 0.1dB because any greater difference is audible and the louder one is usually percieved as &quot;better&quot;, even though it is not obviously louder. This is a well-known psychoacoustic phenomenon that has been accepted among scientists for decades.

ABX testing is roundly condemned by the golden ear types, of course. When logically examined their objections are bogus.</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jeffsg4mac

jeffsg4mac

Republican Poster Boy
<font color='#000000'>Rip, has anyone done abx testing with some mid-priced av receiver vs some Krell or Levinson setup. I would really like to know if there is an audible difference. I know for a fact that I like the way some amps sound compared to others, but I can't tell you why that is. Denon's sound different that Yamaha's, not better or worse just different. Why is that? But then I have never done abx testing so I am sure I would be surprised at the results if I did, and it would probably just confuse and frustrate me more if I did. Reminds me of what Taylor said toward the end of the original Planet of the Apes film, Taylor says &quot; There must be an answer out there somewhere&quot; &nbsp;Dr. Zaius says &quot; Don't look for it taylor, you may not like what you find&quot; &nbsp;
</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
M

mustang_steve

Senior Audioholic
<font color='#000000'>I would love to see some abx testing of mid to high end recievers/amps as well.  I always felt my Yamaha RX-496 to be an inceredibly nice peice of gear, especially for my category (broke-___  
)</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jeffsg4mac

jeffsg4mac

Republican Poster Boy
<font color='#000000'>Yeah but steve are you broke or just mostly broke, I am usually just mostly broke myself.

Disclaimer, this post means nothing if you have not seen the Princess Bride.</font>
 
Rip Van Woofer

Rip Van Woofer

Audioholic General
<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Rip, has anyone done abx testing with some mid-priced av receiver vs some Krell or Levinson setup.</td></tr></table>

I've not seen any published. But then, as I said long ago here, I was mostly out of the audio loop until fairly recently. Tom Nousaine of the Audio Critic (and formerly Stereo Review, and many others) says he's been involved in several, as does the editor, Peter Aczel.

I've Googled but not found any. It may be that one would have to search back issues of audio mags, especially Stereo Review and the old Audio mag, as well as AES (Audio Engineering Society) papers.

I might get to meet Nousaine myself in a couple of months. There's an audio club here in the Detroit area, the Southeast Michigan Woofer and Tweeter Marching Society (great name!) and he's scheduled to be at the May meeting. I'm planning to attend. The SMWTMS is historically associated with the objectivist camp in audio. David Clark and others who invented and produced the first ABX comparator in the late 70s are or were members.

EDIT: There is an AES paper by David Clark titled &quot;Ten Years of A/B/X Testing&quot;, AES preprint #3167, that might be relevant to Jeff's question. AES preprints are $5 ea., available on their Website. I just ordered a copy.</font>
 
Rob Babcock

Rob Babcock

Moderator
<font color='#8D38C9'>Surely your bandwidth isn't running into the thousand$ per month?
&nbsp; If so there must be an awful lot of traffic beyond the registered users. &nbsp;Of course there would be, I just didn't realize how much. &nbsp;You must get a lot of hits from the external links.

Selling a polo at a $10 profit may not be a lot of profit, but it's still a fairly major purchase for a shirt, in one sense. &nbsp;You'd be surprised how much money we raise for AC by simply posting a drive once per year or so. &nbsp;The key is that we have a community that means a lot to us and we do it to preserve that. &nbsp;And to keep from needing advertising. &nbsp;No one wants to donate to a site that's getting revenue from advertising- no matter how little income the ads bring the perception of people is always that it you're making a mint!


I for one don't think you're &nbsp;whoring it out for the bucks! &nbsp;I still trust your reviews, guys!
</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
<font color='#000080'>These forums are not an indication for our site traffic. Most of the current intent of these forums is to support our reviews and articles.

Why would we want to expend all of this time just so we can break even?  Would you work for an employer who is willing to pay you just enough for gas and other costs associated with employment?

It is our intent to run this site on a full time basis, and getting a few donations from supportive members isn't currently an effective way to maintain our ability to provide information, and provide reviews and industry news.</font>
 
<font color='#000080'>This is a great conversation to have - we welcome it, as we try to be honest and upfront about what we do. If we don't, we're part of the problem, not the solution.

Just a real quick interjection...

We are moving forward towards hiring a marketing company to handle all of our advertising. The goal os to keep all advertising completely separate from reviews. This is common with printed publications - of which we are an online archetype.

While user donations are welcome, I don't believe we want to balance the site on the backs of our members and readers. We'd rather provide as much as possible for free (at least this is our current mode of thinking) and have advertising and sponsorships from manufacturers enable this information to be disseminated for free.</font>
 
A. Vivaldi

A. Vivaldi

Audioholic
<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
jeffsg4mac : Rip, has anyone done abx testing with some mid-priced av receiver vs some Krell or Levinson setup. I would really like to know if there is an audible difference. I know for a fact that I like the way some amps sound compared to others, but I can't tell you why that is. Denon's sound different that Yamaha's, not better or worse just different. Why is that? But then I have never done abx testing so I am sure I would be surprised at the results if I did, and it would probably just confuse and frustrate me more if I did. Reminds me of what Taylor said toward the end of the original Planet of the Apes film, Taylor says &quot; There must be an answer out there somewhere&quot;  Dr. Zaius says &quot; Don't look for it taylor, you may not like what you find&quot;  
Or How about the cheapest of any given companies line vs their best? Like the lowest nickel plated Monster Cable interconnects vs. their highest grade? Or like NADs $1,499 CD player vs their $299 one? You rarely see any of that kind of objective reviewing. Anyway I gotta say I love Rip. He's a very smart, causious guy and is one of the few classical music lovers I've met online that isn't a stuck up pretentious bastard. He's got great reason to be skeptical, given todays state of audio journalism, and I don't blame him for feeling the way he does. I agree with him on most things, but I respectfully disagree on his stance that all power amps/receivers sound the same, and I couldn't put much faith in any reviewer or publication that made such a statement. When given nation wide blind comparsion tests between Coke and Pepsi, the vast majority couldn't tell the difference. What's the matter with these people? Pepsi doesn't taste even remotely the same as Coke, just as it doesn't taste anything like Dr. Pepper, even though they're all black and have bubbles. I wouldn't say judging audio is the same as judging soda, but to judge anything on the basis of what &quot;most people think&quot; is foolhardy in my opinion, because most people suck. It all might depend on the sensitivity, mood, talents, or taste of the subject. I'll admit to Rip that I may fail a good many times in a sound test, under certain circumstances. I'd also give him the benefit of the doubt that the mass market Kenwood MC receiver I had may have been incompetently designed, and that the Carver THX separate componets I replaced it with that gave me a dramatic improvement in sound were competently designed, and the same goes for my Rotel pre-amp upgrade, or my recent conversion from NAD to Arcam. It may have been that I was just lucky in my choice of amps/pre-amps. I guess I should become an audio gambler!</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rob Babcock

Rob Babcock

Moderator
<font color='#8D38C9'>Not to throw gas on a fire, but some of the listeners who flunked the amp test were jounalists, designers &amp; musicians. &nbsp;It's interesting how so many people will use phrases like &quot;night and day difference&quot; and &quot;the difference wasn't subtle,&quot; and then can't pick out the difference reliably under controlled listening tests.

I'm not saying amps/cables all sound alike, just think that's pretty funny.
</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A. Vivaldi

A. Vivaldi

Audioholic
<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then there are the 'reviewers' who are totally corrupt. How can you tell? Look at what they 'review' and 'recommend' over an extended period of time.

There should be a consistency and continuity in an honest and competent reviewer's writing, but the corrupt are continually going in different directions;
this month a low-power solid-state amp;
next month a tube amp;
next month a single-ended triode;
next month a high-powered solid-state etc.?
and ALL of them receive &quot;rave&quot; notices.

Also- Is virtually everything &quot;highly recommended&quot;? Is virtually everything &quot;great&quot;, no matter how different in design and sound from the previous &quot;recommendations&quot;. Those are the unmistakable signs, because no experienced audiophile, &quot;in real life&quot;, ever goes back and forth like that without some ulterior &quot;agenda&quot;.

</td></tr></table>This is the only part of the article I disagree with.

What if someone wanted a simple, but high end, low watt 2-channel system with small speakers for a spare room or bedroom? Shouldn't a knowledgable reviewer be able to recommend such a system? Imagine a reviewer saying... I'm sorry Sir, but I can't recommend any of that stuff. I'm way too advanced in my audiophileness at this stage in my life to bother. Let me refer you to our entry level 2-channel guy. Or... Tubes? I don't know anything about tubes. Let me transfer you over to our tube department. How impractical for an audio magazine or website to have such limited and specific catagories! My idea of a true audiophile (one who loves ALL things audio, and that may even include Tivoli Clock Radios) should be able to know a little about a lot, not just a lot about little!</font>
 
A. Vivaldi

A. Vivaldi

Audioholic
<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
Rob Babcock : Not to throw gas on a fire, but some of the listeners who flunked the amp test were jounalists, designers &amp; musicians.  It's interesting how so many people will use phrases like &quot;night and day difference&quot; and &quot;the difference wasn't subtle,&quot; and then can't pick out the difference reliably under controlled listening tests.

I'm not saying amps/cables all sound alike, just think that's pretty funny.
Actually, I think I might have to take back my previous statements about trusting the ears of rock musicians. There was an article about five years back in a magazine whose name I can't remember were they had A. Partridge and C. Moulding from XTC listening to their music through three different pairs of speakers and had to pick which ones they thought best reproduced what they had intended. I can't remember which ones they picked as best, but they were shocked to find out that the ones they thought were the worst were very well known British speakers to them. Judging from the way they talked it seemed that they had boom boxes for systems! They didn't seem to know or care much about high end audio at all. I guess some musicians spend so much time making music that they rarely ever listen to it. Just like the 1990 remasters of the Led Zepplin catalog by Jimmy Page. You'd think his name would assure you of quality, they're ok, but these aren't the way I remember Zep sounding in my youth from the LPs. The mix on Led Zep 2 isn't even the same in some spots as on the original LP. Jimmy's ears have probably been exposed to deafening noises for so long that he probably thinks anything sounds good now.</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rob Babcock

Rob Babcock

Moderator
<font color='#8D38C9'>Pete Townsend personally oversaw the remix of the new MC SACD version of &quot;Tommy&quot;- but he's been nearly deaf for many years!
&nbsp; I've even heard him discuss his hearing loss in interviews.</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top