A proposal: the Objectivist Audio Review magazine

[christopher3393]

"I’m being more than a little snarky here, but if you guys want a magazine or website that is truly objectivist and as unbiased as possible here is the way to do it. It wouldn't be ad supported, it have have no industry ties, it wouldn't be dependent on manufacturer loans, and the reviewers wouldn't be old guard, entrenched men. It would rely on blind tests and measurements to serve the subscribers." --- Steve Guttenberg

 

 

Interested in having a critical, reasonable discussion of the content of this video in particular. Steve raises a number of questions and doubts. I think this could be a good place to address some of these particulars.

[chrisc]

How would it be financed?   WIll it be on-line only, or print as wqell?

[wgscott]

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php

[plissken]

2 minutes ago, wgscott said:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php

 

You beat me to it...

[rando]

Philosophical clap-trap designed to bring people back to the fold.  Sorry if that is out spirit with your intent, Christopher.

 

Hardly surprising, this is not a new idea.  I can think of at least a few examples of this in recent years that came about through organic and inorganic means.  The end result is always falling into line with the existing system.  Which no doubt Mr. Gutenberg is aware of.  Even in cases where striving towards this end was not the only reason for being forced into existence.  

 

Some time back I inquired what was meant by "Outlaw Audiophile Magazine" when that term was introduced in a conversation here.  The agreed upon definitions were quite similar to what is being suggested here.  A cyclical step, refreshing the ideas in place which will grow stale and hoary soon enough.  Everyone fawns over a freshly birthed cute little animal no matter how many times it has happened before in their life.  More importantly, that natural human instinct is cheapened to sell advertisements and columns quite readily.  

[christopher3393]

1 hour ago, wgscott said:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php

 

Thanks. Wasn't aware that ASR is a already a good approximation of what Steve is basically saying.  Steve is also not so subtly suggesting that this proposal is totally unrealistic. In the form he presented it, it is unrealistic. 

 

 

 

[NOMBEDES]

Here are the RULES for said site:  (audiosciencereview)      Iron Fist, say I

Although it’s often been expressed please do not quote or publicly address red moderation messages. Any protest you wish to lodge needs to done so through our conversation system.

Public discussion concerning moderation actions are forbid, again start a conversation with me and or amir.

Ignoring this will result in posts being deleted , any protesting threads that are started will be deleted and if you persist you will be served with a reply ban and sanctions will follow.

If you decide to take quotes from the resulting conversations ( PM’s) and use my or amirs words as basis for more public protest you will be banned.

Thank you , sorry for the formality and tone here but despite me communicating this to members when moderating it seems the message needs to become set in stone here.

 

 Likes:Frank Dernie

uk, taunton

May 12, 2018

#2

When I discover Insults you can expect to see the post disappear as a. It’s rude and b. It tends to derail threads sending them to the gutter.

[plissken]

Just now, NOMBEDES said:

Here are the RULES for said site:  (audiosciencereview)      Iron Fist, say I

Although it’s often been expressed please do not quote or publicly address red moderation messages. Any protest you wish to lodge needs to done so through our conversation system.

Public discussion concerning moderation actions are forbid, again start a conversation with me and or amir.

Ignoring this will result in posts being deleted , any protesting threads that are started will be deleted and if you persist you will be served with a reply ban and sanctions will follow.

If you decide to take quotes from the resulting conversations ( PM’s) and use my or amirs words as basis for more public protest you will be banned.

Thank you , sorry for the formality and tone here but despite me communicating this to members when moderating it seems the message needs to become set in stone here.

 

 Likes:Frank Dernie

uk, taunton

May 12, 2018

#2

When I discover Insults you can expect to see the post disappear as a. It’s rude and b. It tends to derail threads sending them to the gutter.

 

I really like that approach. It doesn't shut down communication or attempt to overly censor. They are expressing the proper channels for that type of communication without it having pollute and make threads hard to follow and it seems to be working. 

[Superdad]

1 hour ago, plissken said:

 

You beat me to it...

 

I’ve yet to see ASR conduct a single blind test, so that site really does not match with the criteria put forth by the OP.

As for lack of bias there, that is laughable since Amir’s reports often start out with highly subjective judgements on value/efficacy/construction of components.

[wgscott]

Its value is primarily the measurements that are performed on various pieces of equipment (which in general are far more informative than single blind or double blind tests).

 

I would have been less likely to purchase my DAC (Teac NT-503) had I seen those measurements to begin with.  The poor quality of the DSD-upsampling was particularly eye-opening.  (I can pat myself on the back for having subjectively detected that there was something amiss with this before I saw the measurements.)

 

I like to look at the actual data -- the primary measurements, and to make up my own mind.  I fully understand the difference between that and subjective commentary and interpretation.

 

[plissken]

5 minutes ago, Superdad said:

 

I’ve yet to see ASR conduct a single blind test, so that site really does not match with the criteria put forth by the OP.

As for lack of bias there, that is laughable since Amir’s reports often start out with highly subjective judgements on value/efficacy/construction of components.

 

ASR deals in the objective measurements and as far as I know that's the closest to what Steve is talking about. It's a start and it keeps vendors honest (whether they are intentional or simply don't know any better). 

 

I'll have to disagree with the value aspect being highly subjective. When you have two like components about equal in feature set, in demonstrable performance, in what looks like similar build quality and components, then value isn't subjective at all. 

 

A $15,000 2018 Honda Accord has more value than a $30,000 2018 Toyota Camry with both having roughly the same level of amenities. 

[crenca]

1 hour ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Thanks. Wasn't aware that ASR is a already a good approximation of what Steve is basically saying.  Steve is also not so subtly suggesting that this proposal is totally unrealistic. In the form he presented it, it is unrealistic. 

 

 

 

 

43 minutes ago, Superdad said:

 

I’ve yet to see ASR conduct a single blind test, so that site really does not match with the criteria put forth by the OP.

As for lack of bias there, that is laughable since Amir’s reports often start out with highly subjective judgements on value/efficacy/construction of components.

 

34 minutes ago, wgscott said:

Its value is primarily the measurements that are performed on various pieces of equipment (which in general are far more informative than single blind or double blind tests).

 

I would have been less likely to purchase my DAC (Teac NT-503) had I seen those measurements to begin with.  The DSD-upsampling was particularly eye-opening.

 

I like to look at the actual data -- the primary measurements, and to make up my own mind.  I fully understand the difference between that and subjective commentary and interpretation.

 

 

I would not say ASR/Amir is a "good" approximation of what Steve is saying (which, just to note, is a bit of a strawman that the old guard regularly tears down).  Let us call it a "so/so" step in the direction which "objectively" challenges the subjectivist review status quo of Audiophiledom.   I would point to @Archimago site as a "good" step in the right direction. Like @randosays it appears almost all efforts/good intentions up in the status quo sooner or later however.  ASR in particular is Amir's baby which he uses to beat his very subjective horses.  

 

As a proponent of a consumer oriented adjustment to "what's good for the industry is good for Audiophiledom" status quo, I think we need to be a bit more creative than Steve's Consumer Report strawman.  Thankfully internet forums such as this one have created a communication network for proactive consumers, such that the old guard review establishment is no longer THE source of information.  Their efforts to hold on to their turf are in vain because it is exactly as Steve says:  they can not be trusted for all the reasons he states and more (much more).  IF for example the @The Computer Audiophile were to cave in to what is in fact enormous pressure from his "peers" to censor/shape this forum into yet-another-mouthpiece of the status quo, then sooner (rather than later) another forum would pop up in its place.  The open internet is simply too big for the old guard to ever reign back in.  

 

What would a real consumer oriented Audiophile information source which actually bucks the current "system" look like?  Does it have to be Consumer Reports clone, or can it be something else?  How will it maintain its principles with integrity over the long term?  All excellent questions.  I don't know all the answers, but I submit that what folks like @Archimago & @The Computer Audiophile are already doing (however limited they are currently) is indicative of the real future of High Fidelity, at least any High Fidelity that proactive consumers want to be a part of.

[plissken]

Just now, crenca said:

ASR in particular is Amir's baby which he uses to beat his very subjective horses.  

 

Which horses are those?

[crenca]

1 minute ago, plissken said:

 

Which horses are those?

 

I see two main ones:

 

1)  his personal brand biases

 

2)  his subjective idiosyncrasies on the meaning of objective measurements

 

This means that ironically Amir has not escaped the subjectivist trap that he explicitly dislikes.  Not that the site does not have its uses, and @wgscott has the right idea of course.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

 

 

I would not say ASR/Amir is a "good" approximation of what Steve is saying (which, just to note, is a bit of a strawman that the old guard regularly tears down).  Let us call it a "so/so" step in the direction which "objectively" challenges the subjectivist review status quo of Audiophiledom.   I would point to @Archimago site as a "good" step in the right direction. Like @randosays it appears almost all efforts/good intentions up in the status quo sooner or later however.  ASR in particular is Amir's baby which he uses to beat his very subjective horses.  

 

As a proponent of a consumer oriented adjustment to "what's good for the industry is good for Audiophiledom" status quo, I think we need to be a bit more creative than Steve's Consumer Report strawman.  Thankfully internet forums such as this one have created a communication network for proactive consumers, such that the old guard review establishment is no longer THE source of information.  Their efforts to hold on to their turf are in vain because it is exactly as Steve says:  they can not be trusted for all the reasons he states and more (much more).  IF for example the @The Computer Audiophile were to cave in to what is in fact enormous pressure from his "peers" to censor/shape this forum into yet-another-mouthpiece of the status quo, then it sooner (rather than later) another forum would pop up in its place.  The open internet is simply too big for the old guard to ever reign back in.  

 

What would a real consumer oriented Audiophile information source which actually bucks the current "system" look like?  Does it have to be Consumer Reports clone, or can it be something else?  How will it maintain its principles with integrity over the long term?  All excellent questions.  I don't know all the answers, but I submit that what folks like @Archimago & @The Computer Audiophile are already doing (however limited they are currently) is indicative of the real future of High Fidelity, at least any High Fidelity that proactive consumers want to be a part of.

 

Hi Crenca - We're getting there. As my brother Dave takes over more of the business side of CA it frees me up to focus on writing and steering the community. I no longer have to talk to advertisers or potential advertisers. it's quite freeing and feels great to have the separation. To that end, a great way forward and something that we do, is hire writers and tell them they have free reign about that which they write and what they say.

 

The writers for CA have nothing to gain by maintaining the status quo. My only requirement is that they are honest and feel good about their articles. If they are happy with what they've written, I believe others will be as well. 

 

I've said many times before, I'd hire ten @mitchco's in a heartbeat. 

 

In addition, I look at people reading our articles as giving their precious time to us. So, we better give them something back for that time. Whether that's knowledge, help, entertainment, or something else doesn't matter to me, but we better deliver something. 

 

CA will never end up as a status quo publication. That's a dead end and extremely uninteresting to me. I like to push boundaries and I understand how the internet works. I'm actively working to expand our base of writers on both the subjective and objective side. I enjoy reading both type of articles and believe there's a place for both on CA. The trouble is finding good writers. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Let's. not make this thread another referendum on ASR/Amir. We've beat that horse too many times around here. 

[rando]

On 6/29/2017 at 8:15 PM, Sal1950 said:

"Outlaw" along with "Underground" etc,  were terms used to describe audio print media back in the day that, in the main, started out free of advertising and supposedly were more free to review components without outside pressures.

On the list of  "MainStream"     were Audio, Stereo Review, High Fidelity --------

The Outlaws were Stereophile, TAS, Audio Critic, IAR,  --------------

Of the Outlaws, as here, there came a bit of a split between them. Some took a mainly subjective slant, others a objective one. Little is left in the Hi Fi print media of the objective approach, the most glaring exception being John Atkinsons measurement tags on some reviews at Stereophile.

What "one might have discovered in "outlaw" print" is exactly what you find in this thread. Divisive approaches to putting together a Hi Fi.  LOL

 

Not sure if I established relevance to CA where nobody else was considering it.  In any case I will chance a second OT-oken notification to bring Sal's quote over because it feel it is very relevant.  Also because with CA celebrating a decade on the web it doesn't hurt to look forwards (or back).  

 

57 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The writers for CA have nothing to gain by maintaining the status quo. My only requirement is that they are honest and feel good about their articles. If they are happy with what they've written, I believe others will be as well. 

 

I've said many times before, I'd hire ten @mitchco's in a heartbeat. 

 

In addition, I look at people reading our articles as giving their precious time to us. So, we better give them something back for that time. Whether that's knowledge, help, entertainment, or something else doesn't matter to me, but we better deliver something. 

 

CA will never end up as a status quo publication. That's a dead end and extremely uninteresting to me. I like to push boundaries and I understand how the internet works. I'm actively working to expand our base of writers on both the subjective and objective side. I enjoy reading both type of articles and believe there's a place for both on CA. The trouble is finding good writers. 

 

What will CA end up as?  

[christopher3393]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Let's. not make this thread another referendum on ASR/Amir. We've beat that horse too many times around here. 

 

+1

[jabbr]

5 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

"I’m being more than a little snarky here, but if you guys want a magazine or website that is truly objectivist and as unbiased as possible here is the way to do it. It wouldn't be ad supported, it have have no industry ties, it wouldn't be dependent on manufacturer loans, and the reviewers wouldn't be old guard, entrenched men. It would rely on blind tests and measurements to serve the subscribers." --- Steve Guttenberg

 

There are sites that are more clearly "objectivist" & devoted to measurements (ASR has been given as example), and also sites that are more "subjectivist", there are sites that are tailored to headphones, there are sites where certain manufacturers maintain an active presence. There are also sites which are more purely technical e.g. DIYAudio and in which subjective impressions are not as well tolerated.

 

A problem with any site that is too specific is that the discussion can get limited to those who share the same viewpoint. This can be good but it can also be limiting. This site has more of a cross-pollination of ideas and viewpoints. I would safely assume that if all the objectivists wanted a purely objectivist site, they would participate only in any of the "objectivist" or technical sites.

[Jud]

3 hours ago, wgscott said:

Its value is primarily the measurements that are performed on various pieces of equipment (which in general are far more informative than single blind or double blind tests).

 

I would have been less likely to purchase my DAC (Teac NT-503) had I seen those measurements to begin with.  The poor quality of the DSD-upsampling was particularly eye-opening.  (I can pat myself on the back for having subjectively detected that there was something amiss with this before I saw the measurements.)

 

I like to look at the actual data -- the primary measurements, and to make up my own mind.  I fully understand the difference between that and subjective commentary and interpretation.

 

Apologies for the momentary OT: That's why if I were using that DAC, I'd do the DSD modulation outboard.  I realize you like using room EQ software.  Don't know if A+ will work with that and upsample the result to DSD yet, but HQPlayer might.  That (convolution and DSD upsampling combined in HQP) requires a fairly stout computer.

 

On topic again: Yes, it would be nice to have something devoted to measurements.  Do you think this would be entertaining/interesting enough to stay afloat?  (Don't know what Archimago is doing about finances, and I'm supposing the range of equipment available to any one individual who'd want to do this is limited.)  Regarding blind testing, that doesn't feel terribly valuable to me.  I agree that I'd prefer to see measurements.

 

What I'd really love to see are reviews that are critical and entertainingly written (that was The Absolute Sound for about 5 minutes in the early days before it took advertising).  I don't care about subjectivity.  As with the subjective threads on this site, you learn soon enough whose taste you share/trust, and whose you disagree with.

 

The other thing that would be valuable to me is entertaining and informative explanation and/or deconstruction of manufacturer marketing.  Does the circuitry in that amp or its class of operation make a difference to anything, and if so what?

 

That's a lot of expertise in service to a very small niche market of audiophiles, so difficult for me to imagine it happening.

[christopher3393]

7 minutes ago, Jud said:

What I'd really love to see are reviews that are critical and entertainingly written (that was The Absolute Sound for about 5 minutes in the early days before it took advertising)

 

Is taking advertising generally harmful to the critical quality of an audiophile mag.? Is suspicion of bias the greatest problem with accepting (or even soliciting) advertising? Is this more an issue of reader perception than of actually affecting reviews with biases?

 

 A somewhat related issue: what are the pros and cons of long term loans? Do these usually go hand in hand with advertising?

[look&listen]

44 minutes ago, Jud said:

As with the subjective threads on this site, you learn soon enough whose taste you share/trust, and whose you disagree with.

Is the Art of the Online Audiophile! 

[Jud]

2 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Is taking advertising generally harmful to the critical quality of an audiophile mag.?

 

Going by the history, I'd have to say yes in the high end audio world. The NY Times, Wall Street Journal, etc., can afford to have a few advertisers PO'd at them.  There are fewer advertisers to choose from in audiophiledom, and news that you've given someone a poor review travels fast in a small fraternity.

[Jud]

By the way: "Objective" can be branding and marketing as well.  My Facebook feed contains a Massdrop-sponsored ad for NwAVGuy's Objective 2 headphone amp that starts with this modest objective statement from someone who apparently works in the hardware/software engineering field: "Literally the best value headphone amplifier in existence."

 

 

[lmitche]

As far as I can tell it would be a magazine with little or no content. The objectivists here never seem to try anything, let alone measure something they have tried and publish the results. Even the manufacturers seem reluctant to measure anything and share results.

 

Instead a constant barrage of elistist ridicule from objectvists pepper these pages. I don't think these people could organize something as complicated as a magazine and deliver it on a regular basis. Objectivists point to science as the way forward, but forget to experiment. At least us so called subjectivists, (I prefer empricist), do experiments, make observations, and look to others to corroborate our findings in a cooperative way.

 

If we leave progress in this field to the so called objectivists nothing would get done.

 

Larry