HiFi Answers used to be the most 'dark side' UK magazine. 50% useful info
mixed with 50% wacky stuff. I remember they kept going on about some magic
bits of sticky tape or something invented by Peter Belt. These had to be
stuck on just about anything and everything to get a better sound. Seems
like he's still around.....
www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/787/index1.html

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Cessna172
wrote:

"Serge Auckland" wrote in
:


he goes on about how "Stage depth was slightly foreshortened" Give
me a break, it's a resistor! how can it "foreshorten" anything?


Maybe you need to make the next electronic scientific breakthrough, and
find out why this effect is happening.


Indeed. And the first step would be to see if we could determine if the
assertion by the reviewer was produced by any actual change in the sounds
coming from the audio system - or was either produced by some other cause,
or was simply a delusion.

To do that, the reviewer would need to engage in a suitable test. Yet they
never do....


Either that or stop concentrating on the electronics and take another
look at the human mind.


The "human mind" may well be a factor. What is less clear is if the actual
sounds produced by the audio system are... :-)

The above is yet another example of the "faith based" approach which often
appears in magazines. They try something, decide they hear a 'difference'
then *assume* (indeed *know*) that the item is changing the sound.

Then they do no test with would check to determine if they are either:

A) making a mistake and thinking the sound altered, when it might be their
imagination *or a change in their hearing*.

B) that the sounds changed, but for a reason that had nothing to do with
the actual item or mechanism they think is the 'cause'.

Given this, why accept what they say?

The failure to test their assumption/idea makes it a 'belief' and the
insistance that no test or check of the above possibilities should be done
or is needed makes it a 'faith'. They then expect readers to accept what
they say on the basis of "It is so because I say so. I am a reviewer. I
have golden years. Believe!". This is the basis of 'faith' as used in
religions, etc.

Yet the scientific method exists, and can be applied to test their belief
to see if it actually is supportable, or is wrong. i.e. we could check to
see if they are mistaken. We could also check to see if any change they
think was due to the resistor was actually due to something else.

But these tests/checks can't be applied because they refuse to put their
'faith' to a test... As true belevers, they know they are right. Thus the
rest of us have no real idea if they are correct, or if they are talking
drivel.

You may be prepared to accept whatever you read in magazines simply 'on
faith' that the reviwer/writer must be correct.

I do not share this view. Indeed, I have often found that a statement in a
magazine is either factually incorrect, or mis-states the relevant physics
or engineering. I have also often found that my opinions about things
differ from those printed. I would be suprised if this has never happened
to you.

Given this, why would you accept what they say?

Slainte,

Jim


'Accept' is obviously too strong, although this is a body of evidence -
empirical field data that is often mirrored in similar 'tests',
conducted with a degree of comparison (the reviewer's own system
usually), and accompanied by certain measured data. They put their ideas
to the test in the sense that their reputation depends upon user
experience of what they write. IOW there *is* a case, which varies
between 'instantly dismissible' to 'highly persuasive'.

My view is that manufacturers (or more precisely their marketing people)
make what they predict people will want, and this all becomes
manufactured consent. Sadly, with the possible exceptions of improved
materials, convenience, ergonomics and engineering, very few benefits
arise - it's the audio experience that has changed.

And on the OP's point - anything by HiFi World ('the expert's audio
magazine', ahem). I subscribed for a year and from memory failed to draw
anything useful from it. And vaguely related, most reviews of LCD TVs.

Rob

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
[snip loads]

'Accept' is obviously too strong, although this is a body of evidence -
empirical field data that is often mirrored in similar 'tests',
conducted with a degree of comparison (the reviewer's own system
usually), and accompanied by certain measured data.

That is fair enough - provided we have established good reasons to accept
that the reviewers *can* reliably distinguish one component from another.
Alas, their simply asserting this would not suffice to establish this. Thus
repeated tests where they had to rely on the sounds alone would be more
useful as a basis. Unfortunately, they rarely do tests of that kind.

It seems reasonable to at least consider what they say, though. Although my
experience is that I, and others, often disagree with opinions in
magazines.

They put their ideas to the test in the sense that their reputation
depends upon user experience of what they write. IOW there *is* a case,
which varies between 'instantly dismissible' to 'highly persuasive'.

I would agree. Alas, we often have little evidence to use to assign a
location on that scale to a particular review comment. And in my experience
I disagree with them about as often as I agree. So I would get similarly
reliable 'views' by tossing a coin. :-)

An additional snag is that unless we use *their* system in *their*
listening room, and play the same selection of music, it may be largely
irrelevant if we would have agreed with them if we'd been with them at the
time. Too many other variables.

Thus the problem is often not that you can be certain that what they say
is wrong (although this is clear in some cases). The problem is that you
often have no way to tell if they are providing useful info, or irrelevant
nonsense.


Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:56:39 +0000, Cessna172
wrote:

"Serge Auckland" wrote in
:

he goes on about how "Stage depth was slightly
foreshortened" Give me a break, it's a resistor! how can it
"foreshorten" anything?

Maybe you need to make the next electronic scientific breakthrough, and
find out why this effect is happening. Either that or stop concentrating on
the electronics and take another look at the human mind.

First, you have to determine if the effect is real, or just typical
reviewer's bull****. You seem unwilling to concede this possibility.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

One thing's for sure - you don't *ever* want to fly with 'Cessna 172'
except under visual flight rules. He's clearly going to fly straight
into the ground in fog, as there's no way he'll believe his artificial
horizon when he *knows* that he's really climbing........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in
:

One thing's for sure - you don't *ever* want to fly with 'Cessna 172'
except under visual flight rules. He's clearly going to fly straight
into the ground in fog, as there's no way he'll believe his artificial
horizon when he *knows* that he's really climbing........

Boy, am I glad I rely on what my ears are telling me and not a meter. I
must get so much more enjoyment out of my music.

I think anybody that understands flying, will follow what the artificial
horizon is telling them - any debate would have to wait until they are on
the ground. Sitting in front of a log fire with a drink and dimmed lights,
one can't relax just a little and smile.

--
Cessna172

In article ,
Cessna172
wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in
:

One thing's for sure - you don't *ever* want to fly with 'Cessna 172'
except under visual flight rules. He's clearly going to fly straight
into the ground in fog, as there's no way he'll believe his artificial
horizon when he *knows* that he's really climbing........

Boy, am I glad I rely on what my ears are telling me and not a meter. I
must get so much more enjoyment out of my music.

That seems fine if it suits you. :-)

However I also seem to enjoy music a great deal via the audio systems I
use. And my experience is that not only being able to 'read a meter', but
being able to design, test, and understand the kit has been very useful in
allowing me to produce systems that allow me to thoroughly enjoy the music.

It seems a strange attitude to imply that somehow *not* being able to 'read
a meter' or understand the kit allows someone to "get more enjoyment out if
the music" than if they did. It is not my experience. Nor that of various
people I have known who design equipment, either as professionals or as
enthusiasts. I think you would find that most of the people who produce
the equipment we use both 'use their ears' and 'read meters' to aid
them.

BTW One thing I have found interesting over the years is just how many
professional scientists and engineers play instruments and love music.
Being able to 'read a meter' does not seem to stop them doing this.

Forgive my bias, but I tend to prefer education to ignorance, and
understanding and skill to inability. I also tend to prefer to regard
claims which seem to conflict with my experience and understanding with
some caution. My experience is that these preferences pay dividends in
terms of musical enjoyment, as in other areas... :-)

However YMMV. ;-

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

"Cessna172" wrote in message
.222
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in
:

One thing's for sure - you don't *ever* want to fly with
'Cessna 172' except under visual flight rules. He's
clearly going to fly straight into the ground in fog, as
there's no way he'll believe his artificial horizon when
he *knows* that he's really climbing........

Boy, am I glad I rely on what my ears are telling me and
not a meter.

This is essentially an "excluded middle" argument. The only options are not
just sighted listening and meter reading.

There is a reasonable middle ground - listening subject to reasonble
controls on significant variables like playback levels, time-synching, and
with bias controls.