What exactly is the mission statement of the Absolute Sound...today?
Elliot Goldman -- Tue, 08/18/2009 - 11:10
I believe that Mr. Pearson defined the course and direction of the publication way back in the beginning. I read so much now that really has nothing to do with this path.
I would like to see each reviewers input on this "goal". Are we in fact looking for the truth or just what we might prefer today?
If something is coloring the sound BUT I like it is that truely the absolute sound?
What are the parameters of review as defined by the people that are writing them?
How do we trust the process when we don't know what the real goal is?
What?
Elliot:
Perhaps we would provide better answers if your concerns were enumerated, but I'll take a crack at your stated question as posed in the thread title:
The mission of The Absolute Sound is to help readers enjoy music. Subsidiary to this, but also important, is to help readers enjoy the audio hobby (selection of, appreciation of and tuning of equipment).
The core methodology we use is objective observation of equipment performance based first and foremost on comparisons with the sound of live music (the absolute sound).
While your question is stated in terms of mission, your clarifying questions seem to pertain to the question of methodology. We have spilled many words on this, but here is a basic statement regarding methodology that we've used recently for people unfamilar with the founding documents of TAS:
We try to describe the sound of the equipment relative to the sound of live music. Why? The idea is that live music is a known thing to which all readers can relate. It is also the most meaningful standard, a factor which can't be overemphasized. That's because we want music to sound like music.
While relative performance between products can be helpful if you are interested in those two products, it isn't as helpful otherwise (because you generally don't know of or care about the reference). We try to do both kinds of comparisons (to live music and other products), but we use the live music reference as a starting point because it is more universal and more meaningful.
In short form, our reference (in Playback, AVGuide, HiFi+ and TAS audio reviews) is "the absolute sound". The absolute sound refers to the sound of unamplfied music played in a real acoustic space. So putting it together: the primary reference we have for judging the quality of equipment we review is the sound of live music, that is, the absolute sound. We need a reference (a measure) to judge things, and this reference needs to be known and stable (a guitar is always a guitar, so we can use it as a reference for communication now and in 5 years).
Harry Pearson, who came up with this idea, wanted to start with the end in mind. He claimed that we want music reproduction systems to come as close as possible to re-creating the sense of the live musical event. Since instruments in acoustic spaces, particularly unamplified instruments, have defined (and importantly for the reviewer, learnable) sounds they form the fundamental reference for determining if components are doing their job. This approach isn't without its difficulties, but most if not all other approaches have even more problems because they lack a clear and/or meaningful reference.
The purpose of the reference to live music is to explain where/how a piece of equipment is flawed or accurate and to articulate the magnitude of those flaws relative to a meaningful standard. We aren't judging the music, we are judging the ability of the equipment (and recording of necessity) to create a virtual reality facsimile of the music (the standard). Ideally, we would add, then, a comparison of these flaws and accuracies between two or more pieces of equipment (which two or more is the source of endless practical complication).
Perhaps it is obvious from the above, but one really can't simply compare pieces of equipment. For example, if I say that speaker X has more mid-bass than speaker Y, it isn't useful because you don't know if speaker Y is deficient, accurate, or overpowering in the midbass relative to the sound of live music (unless you own speaker Y). We think it is safe to say the comparison with live music, while valid, isn't perfectly useful either because readers want to know if a given product is the best you can get for your money. We continue to work on ways to help with that.
I made the text referring to what you may be articulating as "the goal" in bold. Hope that helps.
Dear Tom,
First thank you for your answer.
My concern is that there now seems to be three standards for review and not one.
The original recipe as defined by Mr. Pearson
The mic feed theory
and the newest as stated in a blog on site that if it sounds good and I like then what the heck.
This seems to be extremely convenient so there is a standard for everything. Is the purpose of the magazine and the site to be a marketing vehicle for the products and to provide everyone with a good and interesting review then lets tell everyone. I was discussing this subject with some of my clients and some industry members and none of us could think of the last negative statement made about anything published. I dont believe that every product, including the ones I sell, is perfect in every way.
Is this the future 3 standards?
Thanks,
Elliot
I don't think the three concepts you mention are actually as different as they may appear.
First, let's take the mic feed theory. An often unstated flaw of the idea of usng the absolute sound as a reference in its simplest ("does it sound like live music?") form is that we have to use a lot of recordings to intelligently guess at what went on between performance space and microphone (really, to neutralize those effects). Similarly, we have to guess what went on between mic and disc. If the recordings we use for evaluating equipment have a systematic bias in these areas (performer to mic and/or mic to disc) then we are really praising equipment as ideal which has the inverse bias. There are times when you'd want this, and the absolute sound (simple version) works fine as a reference, and there are times when you wouldn't. I think the mic feed theory is an endeavor to compensate for this problem. The goal is still reproduction that sounds like music, but this is a methodological thought experiment to see if we can get closer to understanding what equipment is doing and predicting how it will behave for the consumer.
Second, I think what is often characterized as the "if I like it, then it is good" school actually is something different. I would prefer to think of what we (TAS, AVGuide, HiFi+) are considering in this area as the "virtual reality school". This school is thinking about whether certain kinds of errors (and certain kinds of accuracies) mix together better or worse to create a sense of virtual reality. The "schools" we're talking about here are not schools of reviewer's preferences, they are schools of thought about what strategies deliver a useful approximation of the absolute sound. In thinking about things this way, one ends up realizing that on a given parameter one may accept or even desire an inaccuracy to generate a higher sense of overall virtual reality.
A simple example of this comes from my recent headphone work. There I argue that one strategy involves the idea that headphones should have slightly elevated bass level to compensate for the lack of impact from moving air on the body. Two "wrongs" here do make a greater VR presentation when done well. Once again, the goal is music that sounds as much like the live event as possible, but the VR school acknowledges that all components have distortions and that the mix of them may matter.
Lots and lots and lots of near reference, close to reference and equal to reference products out there these days........I guess everyone figured out the secret formula into making these audio components? May be the price differences is for the materials and looks of different products or is it just for status symbol?.....because I sure hear "reference level" in way too many product reviews ranging from $2K to $100K of the same catagory of audio equipment. especially for these last few years. Now if something is one of the best in its price range I understand that, but a 1.5K product outcompeting products 6 times its price only gives an impression that:
1: Audio components are priced in a rediculous manner that is to make quick money on inferior products or that too much emphasis is on the materials and looks and not much effort placed on the Sound quality(which is/should be the selling point of high end products). Looks should be for mass market products.
2. There is some issue with the reviewing process because the awards and stuff is going off the wall all over the place. How can a toyota corolla outshine an Accord, Lexus, MB550, Bentley, Ferrari..........I mean they are all in such vastly different class of products.... No one would believe if HP said that the new corolla holds its own against the Ferrari, but I wonder if people believe that the VPI classic holds its own against Clear audio statement turntable, or that Cambridge 840C holds its own against Simaudio moon Supernova CD player..........These types of reviews/information is hard to digest for an average reader of TAS.
A few thoughts:
1. There have been many theories posted here about the near impossibility of expensive gear outperforming moderately priced gear. While each listener will have to decide "how much" better expensive gear is (if at all), we have consistently argued that given a larger budget one can probably produce higher performance. That is not the same as saying expensive gear is always better. But we do not believe, nor are we trying to say, that a Corolla is the same as a Ferrari. Nor are we saying that every Ferrari is better than every Toyota in everything.
2. We have tried to highlight equipment that passes the "show me better for less" test. That means, generally, that when discussing equipment we are thinking of it in the context of other equipment available for that price (roughly). This may lead to the appearance of Corollas equaling Ferraris. Sorry if that happens, but check Editor's Choice which lists products by price that we feel meet this test.
3. There is a lot of product out there. We work hard to find the 10 or 20% that seems to have the most promise. So, our reviews come from a skewed pool, which should mean a high percentage of product we cover has merit. We don't get to it all, but we aren't (we can't) reviewing everything because spending limited space on products we think are bad isn't wise.
4. There is enough good product out there that a substantial part of our focus is on characterizing the way products perform. This is not ranking, but rating. If you like, a BMW M3 and a Mercedes C63 are both very good sports sedans, but they are also very different. We'd like to help you choose, but that choice won't be on the dimension of better and worse.
Tom - As the owner of a 2009 BMW M3 Coupe with DCT, I take great offense to you mentioning the Mercedes-Benz C63 in the same sentence. (LMAO)
However, that reference underscores the point so eloquently made by Anonymous and less so by Elliot - but nevertheless made. TAS was not designed to be Motor Trend or Car and Driver. The BMW M3 / MB C63 analogy would be valid if the BMW M3 was the reference, to wit : the M3 was live music and we were comparing the MB C63 to the M3 to see how it measured up to that reference. What MT and C&D do is what we are complaining about as the shift ( no pun intended) in TAS. Those publications offer measurements, specifications, and opinions on various driving flavors for various drivers - knowing that while one size may not fit all- some size will eventually fit somebody and the strengths of one may actually be a deficiency for another. All of which is valid ( for them) because in the absence of a reference, as to motor vehicles, the right vehicle is a matter of taste , a personal blend of power, handling, creature comforts, driving ability, space requirements, cargo handling, etc. The decision is just picking from an individual automotive smorgasbord of great cars what you like best and need most. Maybe that is the TAS of the 21st century.
Having read TAS since the early 70's- that trend insults the mission statement set forth by the founder ( and adopted by JWC, PHD and others) for reviewers writing in TAS.
Moreover, there appears to be a certain disingenuousness in alternately ratifying the ABSOLUTE SOUND as defined by HP and then bastardizing it with JV and others postulating the existence of acceptable alternatives such as mic feeds and what sounds good, and with seemingly continual and subtle contradictions to the mastheads lofty goal. While perhaps in an effort to distinguish themselves from HP and his posited target they simultaneously want us to believe they are still similarly aligned. If TAS and some or all reviewers want to disavow or move away from the search for components and systems that best recreate the sound of live music- or if they want to establish additional or alternative missions - then so be it- but at least be forthright and have each reviewer or TAS as a whole say that directly and explain their respective listening criteria in evaluating and also why the old target is no longer singular.
Allis -- Glad to have supplied some humor for your day.
TAS certainly isn't C&D or MT. I can't speak for them, but if you really want to understand our position for TAS, it may help to understand how the car analogy holds. First, if the M3 were the reference (defined as "the goal" discussed above) that is precisely when my analogy wouldn't hold. That's because the C63 is, by definition, an inferior M3. It may be quite similar, and thus not very inferior or the C63 may be very different and thus terribly inferior. The point isn't about the specific cars here, the point is about the logic of how we do things. We don't use other products to set the standard (other products do provide a useful context for what is possible and for what you can get for your money).
Secondly, in the case of cars as in the case of audio, it is possible to have a conceptual reference (goal), not a reference in terms of other products. In the case of cars, our automotive publication Winding Road defines the conceptual goal as "driver involvement". The editors have defined the constituent elements of driver involvement, and then they do their best to evaluate cars against that standard. In this evaluative system it is possible that:
-- the M3 is much more involving than the C63 or vice versa
-- the M3 is approximately as involving as the C63
When the second case applies (as I believe it does here -- I've owned both and driven review versions of both many times), we believe the job of the reviewer is to describe the character of the car so that the reader can understand which approach to driver involvement best suits his or her taste, usage pattern, or other needs. I want to be clear and emphatic: this is not a case of lacking a standard. We don't leave the standard of evaluation up to whim and taste. The situational factor comes in when the performance level is about the same and a tie-breaker is needed, and even in that case the reference criteria are used, it is just that the elements of the reference criteria may get weighted differently for different situations. It is a case of providing useful information when raw ranking doesn't help. And, I should say, when a ranking isn't desired for purposes of buyer reassurance.
In the audio world, the absolute sound is the standard. But it can happen that two products do not differ primarily in terms of how close they come to the absolute sound, but differ primarily in where they come close and where they do not. We could simply supply our opinions on which essentially equal approximations are better, but that wouldn't be based on overall proximity to the absolute sound (because the assumption here is that the two products are about the same on those grounds). Using our opinion and our situation (rather than articulating what the product does) doesn't make much sense to us in a world of intelligent readers with a) specific musical tastes, b) specific psychologies of musical cues that signal "lifelike" and c) with dealers who can demonstrate products so that they can hear some of the characteristics we're describing.
Note that as an industry matures, one would expect that wholesale performance differences would become less frequent and that alternative approaches would become prevalent. Similarly, with complex phenomena, one would expect that reasonable people could come to different conclusions about the proximity of different equipment to the goal, once within a certain range of performance.
This may be disconcerting for those who want the comfort of having "the best for the money". If that's the issue, I'll think about whether that can be addressed. It may also be disconcerting for those of us who started in the audio hobby back when manufacturers were few and performance differences were huge, and progress was stepwise. If that's the issue, it may be that we're between a truth rock and a reader desire hard place. I've tried to address this by explaining our methodological expansion (considering whether there are alternative coherent strategies at any given time to approach the absolute sound). Maybe we just have to get better at articulating this.
I take it from all of this that we might do a better job of trying to separate the two aspects: closeness to the absolute sound and character. We should be able to work on that.
C'mon Man you can't have it all three ways.
You are in the wrong business you should be doing town meetings for health care. This is the problem today NO one will take a stand and make a commitment to anything.
You have answered my question however let's not offend any manufacturer becasue if we do we can't make any money. I thought the magazine was looking for the truth and to advance the state of the art but that is just a pipe dream I see.
Sam also has a good point where there are no standards there can be no value either,
Thanks,
E
Elliot -- Our stand is very clear: the mission and the goal are what matters, not the methodology. We happen to think Harry's original methodology is useful; but it isn't a religion, it is a tool. A methodology is an approach to getting at a truth or more likely (in a complex field) getting at a better understanding of what is going on. Anyone who has worked in scientific fields knows that generally there isn't a single methodology that reveals all. Having uncritical, slavish devotion to a particular methodology is stupid.
I've enumerated three variants on the absolute sound idea, because it makes sense to explore ways to improve the methodology. That's not trying to have it three ways, that's exploring three ways to make one basic, general idea work. That's the stand you take when you're committed to the mission. There might be flaws in each variant (almost certainly), but it would contribute more to the dialog if you'd offer some criticisms of the logic rather than imagining that there is some ulterior motive at work. I've taken your question seriously and given you our considered answers; attacking us is uncalled for, given the ethical content it is vicious, and as far as I can tell it is not fact-based. Sorry if you're having a bad day.
Let's take my coverage of the Magico Ultimates. In that blog, I observed that the Ultimates present instrumental sounds from a perspective that seems more like what you'd experience if you were very close to the stage. What is wrong with considering whether this might be closer to what is actually on the recording (i.e. closer to what the mics captured)? Why does actually thinking about the chain of events suddenly make us charlatans?
I also offered an example above from my headphone work. I think the logical alternative to what I said is that all errors are equal. The latter isn't my experience, or the experience of most of the staff. For example, most reviewers I know would much more happily give up 6 db between 20hz and 30hz than accept a 6 db peak from 6khz to 9 khz. Moreover, if all errors are equal, how do we count them to net things out between components? Alternatively, if we accept that all errors are not equal, why is it unreasonable/unethical to ask how the mix of errors affects our proximity to the absolute sound?
Dear Tom, I am not having a bad day but thanks for your concern. I think that you need to have a basis or a standard on which to use as a foundation for reviewing products such that the readers can understand. I do realize that the state of the art is a moving target and has the last few years moved more quickly than it has in the past. I believe that the standards, like Harry's foundation for the magazine in his case has never changed and that music is music and the sound of instruments are the sound of instruments. If the magazine and its website have changed the standards then you need to explain them upfront so that we the readers understand what the heck is going on.
I was not trying to be vicious by any means however it is hard to swallow that there are never any negative comments about any components published. Are you asking us to believe that every product works, looks, and proforms without any issues 100 percent of the time? This is not the audio world I know. If Mr. Valin, Mr. Harley and Mr. Pearson ( and others) are using different standards to write their reviews how are we the readers supposed to process this information without knowing to what standard they are addressing.
BTW there was a time that standards were a religion and maybe I am just a audio traditionalist but I miss those times,
Thanks
Hi Tom,
I'm glad to see that you've approached this query seriously. Regarding The Absolute Sound (the sound and the magazine):
As a simple matter of having a universal standard, an acoustic instrument played in an acoustic space has an essential character that is unmistakable. You can argue until you're blue in the face about this hall, that instrument, the other musician, the barometric pressure, the kind of microphone used. Ultimately, though, I think these are meaningless so long as we have the grasp of what a live instrument sounds like played in an acoustic space. If you don't have that frame of reference, you're not going to be able to opine on the sound of live music. Luckily, a large majority of your readers do have that experience, and many are also musicians, amateur to professional.
So when HP established this standard, it seemed to be the best possible reference. Given a variety of recordings of acoustic music, which components (and combinations thereof) made it seem as if the listener was hearing the real thing. Once you establish that principle, the conversation about "mic feed" becomes meaningless. The conversation about processing becomes meaningless. The conversation about error becomes meaningless. Because the standard has with it a universally recognized "X" factor that, while elusive, remains a reasonable target given what we're attempting to accomplish with this stuff.
We want the system to provide us with a convincing simulacrum of a live event, so using live acoustic music as a reference point (and as reference discs) seems to be the only plausible way of giving reviewers and readers alike a universal standard that can also be universally understood. Sure there are differences in halls, mics, recordings, masters, etc., but across a variety of discs of live acoustic music there remains an "X" factor that is common to all, that is the universally recognized cue that we're listening to someone playing an acoustic instrument in a live space, and by adopting that sound as The Absolute Sound, Harry Pearson provided us with a reference we could all understand and relate to.
What I see happening now at your magazine, especially with JV's incessant "besting" of every damn thing that flies through his parlour, is an abject compromising of an ideal that once made The Absolute Sound a resource for those who were seeking more than just simple euphonic pleasures. We didn't want to listen to equipment, we wanted (and still want) to listen to music. And when the real "best" equipment is put together in a system, and that system is fed with great recordings of wonderful music, the system disappears, the listening room disappears, time disappears, and we're at the venue listening to a living musician play right in front of us.
But you can't get there if you don't have that Absolute Sound as a singular reference.
So, I think as a whole (and as a business matter) The Absolute Sound has matured and possibly stabilized. But I do miss the days when HP was in charge, and the standard was understood and portable. I'm entertained by your magazine, but I'm not edified. When JV writes his next best column every month, I get a bittersweet chuckle because I can't take him seriously. The Absolute Sound, as a magazine, has also lost its "X" factor, and that's a damn shame considering the surplus of credibility you inherited (and squandered).
Dear Sir,
That was a great letter. If the standard has become "it sounds nice " then I see no purpose, for me, to read or advertise in it.
Bravo Anony!
I give you a standing ovation. ( I still go to live music and I know what a standing ovation means)
Thanks, Elliot and Anonymous. I can simplify this: the standard is the absolute sound. Nothing I have written above suggests otherwise, and I'm sorry if it seems that way. A reasonable person can ask questions about what exactly that means, and epistemological questions about how you would know if the component under consideration was actually getting closer to the absolute sound, but I can see that those questions are troubling to some.
Just for clarification: virtual reality = simulacrum
It seems that there is another issue about positive review and techological progress. I've attempted to address that, but I'm not sure I fully understand the problem. If you want more negative reviews, we can publish them. I'd like to understand how that helps, so that we can do it well.
Hi Tom,
I think you've managed to deflect a bit from the main portion of the complaint, which has something to do with JV's variety of standards which he has enumerated on his latest blog entry, for which he was taken to task. Reviewing so much top gear that sounds so different from each other, and somehow arriving at the same or similar conclusions (it's the BEST!) has become exhausting. He defends this by simply saying there are different versions of The Absolute Sound ... which I believe I've demonstrated (and Harry demonstrated many years ago) that there isn't. There's the sound of live, and then there's everything else.
And so while you may say that your standard is The Absolute Sound, it seems that - as an editorial policy - TAS (the business) has chosen to play fast and loose with its definition, to the delight (I'm sure) of all the companies that benefit from the new, broader standards.
It's not that we're looking for negative reviews, but rather more conservative application of stricter and more portable standards - and a believable series of reviews. JV's reviews read like well-crafted advertorials, and given his broad definition of the many Absolute Sounds he has permitted himself to indulge in there's no real and useful criticism going on. There's just well crafted prosaic descriptions of expensive stuff. And by stuff I mean STUFF. The pinnacle of achievement has been obscured by the crowd of pretenders slipping in under the wire with permission for be "The Absolute Sound" in performance by virtue of tickling the reviewer's fancy. It makes for great copy and content provision, but it's not the well-considered, deeply crafted critical level of observation and journalism that i used to enjoy back when The Absolute Sound wasn't just a brand, but was a credo and a promise to the readership made by an incredibly careful and considerate reviewer named Harry Pearson.
The Absolute Sound doesn't, for me, have any other meaning aside from the closest approximation of the sound of live, un-amplified, acoustic music. All else stems from that anchor, because if you get that right - you can easily get everything else to follow.
Thanks for the clarification. JV hasn't been mentioned so far in this thread, and my clairvoyance headset is in the shop for repair (it never worked, actually, so maybe I should just return it for a refund). Referring to a lack of clairvoyance as a "deflection" is an imaginative interpretation. Hoist on my own petard am I, since I've too often declared a shortage of imagination in our society.
I may not have read the blog you are referring to. I assume it is his "let's call the whole thing off" series? If so, I think we first have to say that the purpose of blogs, in part, is to allow editors to articulate early thinking on ideas, issues and products. We should be careful about confounding blogs with the overall policy and direction of our publications. The benefit of blogs is something like the benefit of market research -- it allows the editors a chance to discuss things with a broader group. This can be particularly important when one's product is communications-based. I can't tell you how many times I've thought I had written something with near perfect clarity, only to find that it confused many readers. Also, some ideas just aren't right; putting them out there can be helpful.
That said, I don't read JV as saying there are multiple "absolute sounds". I read him as saying there is one "the absolute sound", but that real equipment generally does not come close to a perfect rendition of live music and so we are faced with questions about the overall strategy used to approximate it. Any strategy will give up some aspects of similitude and perform well on others. Another strategy will have different gives and gets. None of this means all strategies are created equal, and it certainly doesn't mean that all executions of a strategy are the same. But it allows that there could be two or three good strategies. As we discussed above, this seems disturbing to some people. It would be nice if equipment lined up neatly on a good/better/best continuum of accuracy. But the experience of many reviewers is that reality isn't that simple. We could force fit reality into our desired world, but that seems dishonest to say the least.
The issues you raise are important for readers to understand:
If you believe that the absolute sound provides the standard by which things are judged, as we do, and
If you think all approximations to the absolute sound come from a single strategy and thus are always better or poorer approximations of the goal, then
You will tend to see many reviews as simply (and tiresomely) repeating that another piece of equipment is the best (or very good).
OTOH
If you believe that the absolute sound provides the standard by which things are judged, as we do, and
If your experience is that the absolute sound is complex and there are multiple stategies for approaching the absolute sound (with seemingly irreconcilable tradeoffs, as least at current SOTA), then
You will tend to see the descriptions of JV and others as an endeavor to describe the stategy employed and rate the execution of it; you will see multiple "bests" as being description rather than rating; and you'd see this as naturally coming from the existence of multiple strategies and parameters (and progress) -- i.e. this is what you'd expect
There are risks to each approach. One aligns with reality as we know it, though the other may deal with purchase anxiety better.
Damn! well said sir. I need to hire you LOL
By the way, it is not that we are looking for bad reviews it is however the critcal distinction between components and the standard that is in my opinion required of the critic and reviewer. To say I like it is not enough for the reader to follow and understand and give us some music to illuminate your points by, this is a useful tool and one which we can try in our own systems to further understand. It was done like this at one time but hardly anymore.
Elliot -- thanks for the clarification. I'll repeat - I think the concept at hand is not "I like It", but something else. We'll work to clarify what JV and I are experimenting with. As for musically examples, they usually are there and could be expanded. Take a look at the Playback review format to see if that helps (there is a specific section for musical examples).
For participants who haven't read the original, although JV writes many more contextual words (and anyone who has been quoted out of context will know how annoying it is), here is the full phrase he wrote, which I perceive is the offending one:
"What might be called the “as you like it” school of high fidelity, [aims for] a facsimile of the way we idealize or remember the sound of instruments and vocalists, based on life experience and recordings."
First, this is a thought experiment. If you're not interested in R&D, only finished product, don't pay attention. Second, you can't reduce the idea above to "I like it". JV essentially does that, but I think his summary is a poor representation of the idea (that's R&D for you). "Memory similitude" might be closer, but too high-fallutin'. In any event, I think there is interesting thinking here that could be developed.
Hi Tom,
I think his phrase was simply emblematic of something that many of us have noticed about his "catholic tastes" : you cannot arrive at so many "bests" from so many differently-performing products without compromising the strictness of the credo and ideal.
Tom - I really wish you'd stop playing White House Press Secretary and spinning the issue to defend JV. I'm certain he has many endearing attributes, but what has become obvious is the broader and softer criteria that has enabled so many products to be classified at such a high level of achievement regardless of their faithfulness to the strict founding credo of the magazine. I think if TAS were to return to its roots in this way it would be much more valuable as a resource to readers, even if it is a little less valuable as a resource to manufacturers. It would make the magazine that much more deserving of our trust.
It seems that Anon and Elliot are card-carrying members of the Anti-Thought Society. They seem unable to distinguish between the singularity of a goal and the multiplicity of ways to attack the goal. That, or they have a hidden agenda.
I've recently head the Wilson Maxx, the Magico M-5 and the Sound Labs. They sound quite different, but it isn't so easy for me to think of one as closer to the sound of music and one as farther. They each get close on some things, and are far away on other stuff. Where they are close and where they are different varies from speaker to speaker. While I initially thought of these as just different problems with different products now I wonder if there are some patterns here. do these patterns work well with some kinds of music? Is there some other idea behind what these famours designers have chosen to do?
I'm tired of an industry that can't explain how it goes about its business in musical terms. I'm tired of an industry that feels it must act like there are no engineering tradeoffs at work. I'm not that dumb. I live in the real world. I go to work everyday and have to figure out how to make tradeoffs. When I go to work, I have to follow a plan and I realize that plan has pros and cons and that there are other plans that have virtues and vices.
What I'd like TAS to do is to explore those differences in ways to make equipment sound like music. Help me figure out which might lead to long term satisfaction (we're talking a lot of money here!!). HP, if I remember, addressed this at the level of particular parameters, but he rarely talked about the overall things that I think Tom and JV mention. That probably made sense when the tecnology was less developed. But now I'd like a better way of thinking about this, and if TAS can help, great. I'd even enjoy the process (like the good old days when HP was trying to unearth the right language to describe what he heard).
Discman,
I disagree with your assessment, but I respect your right to be wrong. ;-)
But Hidden Agenda? Crap. Please. Conspiracies are best left to the birther movement, ok? My agenda is open and, I hope, clearly articulated - I think that the old TAS was much more valuable than the new TAS. It's just an opinion, I'm not alone, but I may not be in the majority. I think what TAS has become in recent years equates to a collection of advertorials occasionally interrupted by advertisements with very little critical writing going on. I don't mean critical as in "negative" but critical as in deeply observant and evaluative. JV is a writer. Perhaps even a writer's writer, given some of the turns of phrase he chooses. But I do not think he has the faculty for careful and considerate criticism, given my reading of his reviews over the last few years. Again - just my opinion, but I kind of like my opinion because I know I can trust it.
So there you go.
You simply make assertions and cast aspersions. You don't work with the ideas being offered. You post under "Anonymous". You posit unstated motivations for otthes and then recoil when people wonder what you're up to. That's usually the Anti-Thought Society or a hidden agenda at work. I'm just sayin'.
Well i might come off as fairly strong in my opinion, but I'm not casting aspersions. The ideas being offered are, to my mind, massive compromises that injure the the mission statement of the magazine - and my very strong feeling remains that this mission statement, taken as a credo and an unshakable standard, is precisely what lent the magazine the most credibility while under the leadership of HP.
It's because I loved this magazine once, considered it the equivalent of an audio bible, and I'm deeply saddened to see that the surplus of credibility the present leadership inherited seems to have been frittered away, given the endless stream of Bests, and given that JV is the guy from whom so many ultra-expensive Bests are emanating, he becomes somewhat of a poster boy for the overall illness I regard as having overtaken the magazine.
I think that the magazine could possibly return to greatness, to "bible" status - but for now it seems frail to me, as if it has surrendered. It has no more bite, it just seems like an audio tabloid. I don't mean that in a vicious way - but almost in the same emotional category as a son or daughter watching as parents age into infirmity, their faculties withering every day, their vitality gone. It's troubling and saddening and frustrating to watch - and the powerlessness that comes with it is all the more maddening.
Except in this case there is hope for recovery, so I push on as many buttons to sound as many alarms as possible in the hopes that the "powers that be" remember what made this magazine great, and apply those principles once again.
As for being anonymous: If I posted as "Arnold" would you think me any less anonymous? Or if I posted as "Digiman" ? "Mordred"? "Drummerboy"?
I post anonymously as do you and zead and countless others - it's a good habit on the internet, and I don't begrudge anyone else for indulging in good habits. The magazine personalities aren't anonymous - but that's what gives this site the value it has. If they were anonymous, too, would you bother?
Arnold Mordred The Digiman Drummerboy
Arnold -- we'll work on the credibility bit, though we'll need to understand the issue better I think. I have to say that I still don't understand how characterizing the sonic strategy used by equipment makers compromises the mission of the magazine. This is additional description of how and how coherently a product approaches the absolute sound. If the idea of clearly articulating that products fall short of this and make well or ill considered tradeoffs is a massive compromise, I'll simply say that's a twist on my understanding of standards. Perhaps our credibility in the past came from simplifying what was going on.
I will also look into the issue of "Bests". My intuition is that this problem statement is oversimplifying what JV is saying, but then again maybe we're overcomplicating our message.
Hi Tom,
I do appreciate your consideration here, as I've been a fan of the magazine for decades and lately I've been realizing that I remain on subscriber roles more out of habit and loyalty than anything else. At which point it became sort of obvious how different the magazine has become and how much I missed the "old ways" - because the reviews were about a standard of music reproduction, whereas I get the very strong impression that the magazine has become more about gear worship. Nothing wrong with that per se, I guess. It just doesn't seem like the mission statement of the magazine is being served if the magazine becomes about gear worship.
My loyalty to the mag was deeply felt because of the mag's loyalty to the strictness of the standard. Without the standard, it doesn't hold my fascination.
Thanks again,
Drummerboy
Arnold -- To answer your question about posting anonymously, I'd say it is much preferred to post with some name. My experience on internet forums is that a user name a) indicates you intend to be an ongoing member of the community, b) allows the community to get to know you from a variety of posts on different threads, and c) helps the users of a thread follow your ideas across multiple posts. When you post as Anonymous, none of that happens. You could be 5 people if you post 5 times. You could be a troll. You don't have to post using your traditional name since presumably no one knows who you are anyway (assuming you aren't in the industry), though Mordred strikes me as an awesome user name!
While I understand your reason for wanting me to post with a "handle" of some sort I don't see how an anonymous handle gives anyone any more comfort than the handle Anonymously. As for using Mordred, I'm fascinated by Arthurian legend - but if I were to choose, I'd probably take Gawain instead ...
However, "Anonymously" remains self evident enough.
I explained the reasons for more comfort in detail above. As usual, you seem to disagree but you can't articulate your reasoning. It all works out.
"As usual, you seem to disagree but you can't articulate your reasoning."
I suppose that I don't feel the need for a reason, and that's my reason. I'm comfortable, and so it meets my criteria.
Tom
thanks for your posts above..your writing style may not be as colorful as JV but it highlights the point very clearly..and so i've come to the following conclusion...Elliott & Anonymous can't be satisfied...so stop trying...this is not a conversation where folks are listening...this is a conversation where folks minds are made up......it just takes up time and space..nothing else. MY opinion.Respectfully!
Zead ... your mind *isn't* made up?
You always seem to be a pot calling the kettle black.
And an ass kisser. ("I mean that in a good way ..." - Dom Irera)
Your welcome Anonymous
My mind is made up Zead I am looking for a clear standard and the continuation of a pathway developed over a long period of time. THe tour guide Mr. Pearson has somehow been pushed aside and we have a new driver to the so called bus. His trip is rather diverse and unclear as to where he is going and how he is going to ge there. I think that some other posters feel the same way and to that thought we are called names. The fact that we dont agree with the course or the fans, such as yourself, makes us ___________________ fill in the term .
If one ignores history one is doomed to make the mistakes of the past over and over.
Respectfully and your welcome,
E
Hey ELLIOT, i hear you loud and clear...i'm also asking that you hear ME loud and clear: I'M enjoying this ride of surprises and frontiers unknown in home audio experience.i'm enjoying the fact that TAS has been bold enough to take the initiative..in areas of sound production when other magazines were treating new technologies as SATANS OF AUDIO.........there's all this talk about HP in a manner of indifference to RH....as if somehow RH has taken the magazine to some lesser plateau.......well let me tell you RH was hired because he had a vision ..a vision of continuing HP's mission but HIS WAY! He's done an excellent job...as far as i'm concerned. And it's not just in audio decisions only but just the overall advocacy towards expanded relationships especially within an industry that appears to pride itself on insularities.........TAS entire AVGUIDE ewxperience is excellent by any standards on the web...especially when you consider how small the number of audiophiles there are..........You yourself Elliot mentioned in a post earlier that your main bread and butter is "HT" well get this it was TAS that was willing to have such conversations...wasn't it?..Correct me if i'm wrong. If my memory serves me right....RH led a lot of issues through his provocative and thought producing articles...in terms of new frontiers in audio.....so how is the mission lost?
And finally Elliot..i love reading TAS because it has writers like JV & RH & STONE & CORDESMAN & GREENE."I LOVE GREENE" .he's always objective! He really opened me up to the issue of the room..long before the industry was addressing these issues Robert was opening my mind to these new frontiers of sound that were possible if one addressed the issues of one's room.........I love reading Neil because he tries always to get the best sound out of modest packages......you need folks like Neil on the way up.......so for the names i didn't call it ain't personal...what's important is that we spend all this time bashing the magazine ..which sometimes is warranteed.......but at the end of the day.when i'm tired and i go to B&N..what adds some sparkle to my day is re-reading some TAS article that i've already read or pull up STEREOPHILE and reading some thing from my other fav...WP......
So YES! I beg to disagree...Respectfully..Keep up the good work RH and the bunch! everyon's never gonna be pleased....that's just life.
And please! don't let the descriptive terminologies of the writers become stigmatized in any way...because then i'd have to find something else to read.........Respetfully Zead.
Interestingthread, thanks all for the conversation.
I would like to add a neurological perspective that mioght help us all. I have been doing some research on the brain and music (following a reading of the excellent "Music the Brain and Ecstacy" by Robert Jourdain). As we all know, neuroscience as a discipline is in an early growth phase, sparked in large part by new and improved imaging techniques (fMRI, EEG etc) that allow us to "see" how the brain reacts to different stimuli. Because music is produced in time, time is an integral component due to the ephemeral nature of the music (as opposed to photography where you can compare images side by side). And the brain seems to react differently to the same piece of music depending on factors and causal relationships we don't fully understand (caffeine,alcohol, sleep, prior suggestion/bias, visual and other cognitive inputs, and perhaps most importantly what you hear prior to listening to a piece of music). CONTEXT REALLY MATTERS TO HOW THE BRAIN PERCEIVES AND PROCESSES THE MUSICAL INFORMATION. By definition, listening to the same music twice in succession (so called AB comparisons) are highly unreliable as the context for the brain changes every time you play the piece. It is analagous to changing the callibration of the measuring instrument (the brain) every time you listen. In my opinion, the only way to objectively examine a component is to live with it for a while and make continued comparisons under different listening contexts to create holistic impressions of how the sound feels compared to how the live event makes you feel.
It is also true that music is a highly complex data stream that is magically transformed by the ear-brain system into music in the brain. Thanks to the laws of physics, it is unlikely that we will reach HP's ultimate destination anytime soon. If that is so, we can imagine different components and systems providing increasingly closer facsimiles of the musical event but from slightly different perspectives. The proverb regarding the blind man attempting to describe an elephant comes to mind. If there are a 100 variables at play in reproducing muisic, two component may get 80 of them "right", but they could be a different 80 variables. A little bit of intellectual humility is well advised.
Given all this, it is not only possible but highly likely that multiple components can approach the ideal but sound different from each other. I think JV has it right. Compliments to TAS for attempting to be open to criticism and constructive discussion on this and many other issues.
This IS an interesting thread, one I've been waiting for for years. I'm afraid I agree more with Elliot: the magazine is an okay read, but hardly riveting as it once was. What's missing is that, in days of yore, one actually LEARNED something from reading the magazine. Not now. One can read an entire issue and "hear" what the reviewer sees, but learn nothing. The Nola Viper Reference review is a case in point: what, EXACTLY, did one learn about the component from that review??? It rambled, but I knew no more than I knew when I started the article. and I OWN Vipers. Too many reviews leave me unfilfilled and empty. It's like unreciprocated love. Hopeful but constantly disappointed.
Conversely, I DO like JVs reviews as well as Gader's. And Hp's still the bomb, but otherwise.....eh. Reviewer write that the highs are "grain-free" without ever revealing if the violin section sounds like many violins or just sounds "grain-free." The whole focus on the upper-midrange has all but died out, and this is, supposedly, a critical range of reproduction.. Would one know this from reading TAS any more? Not really. It's just a nice magazine, but, and I hate to say this, it's lost its ability to stimulate. One doesn't leave the magazine in a reflective state of mind. One just leaves.
I just read JV's review of the M5 and found it said a lot without saying much at all. Considering the buzz around the M5 you would think more about the speaker's sound rather than the evolution of technology and such. Frankly I was hoping for more, or better. For example, compare the review of the Revel Salon Ultima by RH and then to the review by JV of the M5.
But this thread shows to me the inherent ignorance of most who have been into music listening for too long- you are forgetting that EACH listener has TASTE. Some like music rich in the bottom end, some in the top end. Whether you admit to it or not it is a fact. Add in hearing acuity and you can see why some hear things others do not.
I am a staunch believer that the use of equalizers and tone controls to be extremely important. I equalize. Some recordings get more adjustments than others, and some get little, if any. It seems to me that the high end eschews EQ's but then expects it in the equipment (or lack thereof). And do not forget that there is PLENTY of equalization happening at the recording end. Very few are unequalized or unprocessed. And this is why I use EQ's. Some recordings are rich, lovely. Diana Krall comes to mind. But my other tastes need "work" as I SEE FIT. There is no absolute sound except in the ears of the beholder. You cannot expect uniformity with sound and sound perception when the very equipment needed to perceive it, the ear/brain system, is unique to each person. You cannot get conformity with uniqueness. This is why psychology is not an exact science. Your ear is its own EQ and tailors the sound by the outer shape of the ear as it collects the sound to be funneled into the ear canal. It is funny no one seems to realize this and expects some standard of absolute sound when there is no way to actually define it. ABSOLUTE sound? No. EXCELLENT sound? Yes.
I will continue to use EQ's despite some thinking it colours the sound and adds distortion. Perhaps even phase shift. But speakers that are out of distance to the ear by even a FRACTION will have phase shift at some frequency. Equipment for playback adds distortion, albeit today very small. Every speaker colours sound, some more than others. So having laid the foundation of showing that everything we have will alude the "absolute" of sound I can old do why I can to get the BEST possible sound out of MY system to what I think sounds best. What you think sounds best will differ but it will not change our passion for either. I do not have an absolute favourite food or restaurant, but many preferences that I indulge depending on mood and want. Music is no different.
Food and drink lovers ,without a reference standard , use their individual taste.
Music is unlike food or restaurants.Many of us demur on the "sounds good to me" school.
Music lovers have a singular reference standard and it is - not taste.
While reviewers may have preferences in areas of particular strengths and weaknesses of performance
they ought to be able to , and SHOULD, quantify a product/ systems overall proximity to the only real reference.
Otherwise, as Dean Martin sang "Everybody loves somebody sometimes".
I'm sorry we haven't been more successful in clarifying this, but perhaps this will help for those who really want to think about it.
The following statements are NOT the same:
1. Reviewers should evaluate audio components based first on how closely they approximate the sound of live music (the absolute sound). When components are of approximately the same overall level of accuracy, reviewers should characterize the nature of each component's approach to live sound. This characterization serves as an aid for users trying to determine which group of inaccuracies will best approximate live music for them, given their choice of music and their perceptual apparatus.
2. Reviewers should evaluate audio components based on arbitrary factors such as personal taste or opinions of what sounds good.
Similarly, the following statements are NOT the same:
1. Music is an exceedingly complex phenomenon. Different listeners are bound to focus on different aspects of music (no one can process all that information). In addition, it is likely that different listeners have different perceptual apparatus (hearing/brain structure/memory). As a result, different listeners will effectively hear the same music differently, though their goal remains to have music sound like music. Much of this "hearing" difference comes down to having different "realism triggers" and "realism inhibitors"; that is, two listeners hear the same sounds but they don't prioritize all the aspects of the sound the same way.
2. Listeners have different taste in music and what they like in musical reproduction is really just a matter of opinion. Listeners don't necessarily have the goal of music sounding like music.
In each case, statement 1 aligns with the approach HP started working on and which the entire TAS staff is trying advance. In each case, statement 1 aligns with the use of standards (the reference to the absolute sound). In each case, statement 1 recognizes that simply judging the level of accuracy of a component is insufficient to fully help the actual buyer. In each case, statement 2 has nothing to do with what we're trying to accomplish.
If I read the comments above correctly, there is a confusion of type 1 statements with type 2 statements. I want to be clear that they just aren't the same, if you have any doubt about what TAS' philosophy is.
Again, if I read the comments correctly, there is a concern that a) if TAS admits that within a certain range of accuracy, personal factors must drive component selection then b) TAS suddenly has abandoned the use of a reference. We do not think b follows from a. There are several reasons for this. First, the reference is critical to determining the basic level of accuracy of a component. Second, the reference is critical for characterizing the ways in which two or more equally accurate/inaccurate components perform.
To summarize, it is no longer sufficient to simply try to evaluate "overall" how accurate a component is. That's still part of the process, but additional work is needed.
Hope that helps.
Hi Tom-Thanks for the thoughtful and well reasoned post. I agree with your two (2) type 1 statements and I am buoyed to know that you get it- but I am less sanguine about their utilization by TAS writers in toto as many seem to have wandered off the farm in order to pursue hyperbole. Perhaps your comments will help with their return.
Perhaps you can help us understand the "wandering" with some examples. I am hopeful that what appeared to be wandering within the assumption of a type 2 philosophy, will turn out to be staying at home within the broader context of type 1 thinking. But I'm sure we've wandered at times, and examples can help keep the focus.
Post new comment