John Atkinson no longer editor of Stereophile.

John Atkinson has set a high standard as editor for the most read hifi magazine of the last twenty or more years. I have disagreed with some of what he has posted on occasion, but I have always respected him and his opinions. John has always replied respectfully to readers and critics, when explaining his personal experience and beliefs.

When discussing various subjects-hifi, I have asked a couple of industry insiders about what John is like in person and the response is always that he is a gentleman. I think that we would all welcome that kind descriptor.

Thank you for so many enjoyable years of HiFi reading John!

(I have subscribed since 1989)

 

That's my view as well. I put the anti-measurement folks in the same category as flat-earthers. Clearly someone on the gear-making front cares about measurements, because there is gear out there at a variety of price points (especially in digital audio) that measures very well. There's also an influx of overpriced garbage seemingly every year, which does not measure well. Recently I saw some measurements for a ~$4,000 DAC that measured worse than a CD player from the late 80s. Obviously there is a market for this kind of stuff or it wouldn't be selling, but if anyone thinks that's a good use of money I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

 

This sentence made me laugh --- last night, I watched a Netflix show on the "Flat Earthers" --- it was the first real exposure to this movement. I had heard the term of course and allusion to the group --- but it never really registered until I saw that show. Holy smokes Jethro!

Anyway, not surprised you and I think alike on this topic....... Reagan used to espouse "Trust but Verify"......... I like that from an engineering perspective and extend it to "Trust your ears but nothing wrong with verifying, and breaking the tie with data"

 

An interesting thread, for sure.

As someone that has spent much of his life building his own speakers, investing in better measurement gear like a Clio system, I find it amazing how very small adjustments to microphone location can impart pretty drastic changes to an impulse response curve.

Far more than, for example, introducing a little EQ at 2k.

I find it interesting that repositioning a mic can have such a profound effect when nothing has actually changed signal-wise, compared to an actual signal change (introducing that 2k EQ).

And I'm absolutely pro measurements, don't get me wrong. I use AudioTools on my iPhone with a calibrated mic to evaluate my system's (including my listening room) overall performance.

But I think some people are absolutely fooling themselves with regard to what measurements can tell them, and how they go about measuring.

 

Perhaps they tell you nothing about their "house sound"; however, compare the same measurement to a cart where the HF or LF rolls off considerably within the audio band. That to me would be very useful information and a confirmation that I would simply have to move on from a cart with such distinct roll-off, regardless of it's "house sound". Also while similar, these two measurements are not the same. Depending on where you prefer your cart to be "near flat" these graphs could be used as a starting point and/or baseline in conjunction with similar data from other carts.

 

Great video. I love Audio Note but I'm pretty sure it's a cult like Linn.

 

Come on in, the water is nice and warm

 

Knock yourself out.

Neither of these graphs give the listener any indication about the sound signature of either cart.

Which is why I looked up the graphs on these two carts to use an an illustrated example, how graphs tell you really nothing about how something is going to sound.

The reason that I picked these two carts as an example is that the cartridge body is exactly the same on both carts, the only difference being the stylus.

Not from these graphs can anyone tell the the Black is more organic rich and detailed than the Bronze. Neither caould you tell the the Black also picks up more surface noise than the Bronze, so many prefer the less expensive Bronze for this reason. Even Ortofon claims that many user's will find the Bronze more musical.

Oh, and the Black has much more solid deep bass than the Bronze.

You are more than welcome to analyse specs and graph's to your heart's content.

When you are ready to put together a world class audio system, try listening to your ears instead.

 

Sounds right up my alley!

 

More from Peter Qvortrup - Peter Qvortrup: High Fidelity, the Decline of the Decades | Part-Time Audiophile

"In 1948-49 the single most important negative development, after the abandonment of the single-ended triode, and the introduction of negative feedback – invented in 1928 by Telefunken – was the 1947 Williamson article in Wireless World that launched the foundations of the single most important theory now ruling audio design: Specifications as a measure of sonic quality.

"This theory was quickly picked up by great marketers like Harold Leak, Peter Walker (of Quad), A.Stewart Hegeman, David Hafler and countless others.

This was, in my opinion, the most damaging single-theory to be imposed on audio design. This suggestion that sound quality, and measured quality (as exemplified by distortion, bandwidth, and noise measurements as we know them) are directly related to sound quality became the most compelling theory going. Why? Because it is very simple, and its very simplicity makes it the most powerful marketing tool ever handed to the audio industry. It provides the manufacturer with “proof” that his audio product is “better” than the competition. What more could you want?"

Harold Leak and Peter Walker were just "marketers"?

From a manufacturer, I want a proven track record, reliability, value for money, transparent pricing, a national dealer network, good warranties, affordable service costs. How many reviews comment on those issues?

 

Pretty much none!

Funny, those are things that I look for also.

 

A few thoughts from Kondo San on the same direction:

"There is no means for measuring sound quality. Wider frequency band and lower distortion are desireble, of course. Distortion and frequency response figures have been utilized as a criterion for judging sound quality, and this was a by-product of transition era from SP to LP records.

The criterion for sound quality depends on manufacturer's and user's sensibility.
My personal yardstick for judging sound quality is Toscanini's "Un Ballo in Maschera"(*)."

Source: TNT-Audio inter.views Kondo San of Audio Note Japan [English]

 

Perhaps you didn't understand me. Skip the character assassination and assumption that I don't already use my ears.

I agreed with you on your basic premise. I wrote as much... in terms of sonic signature.

However, if a graph shows a severe deficit somewhere in a cart's frequency response, one has no reasonable expectation of that cart passing frequencies not represented. A tweeter is not gonna wallup you with a 20Hz slam. It won't measure that. And, it won't give you that sound.

 

There are times when "measurements" can be written about in such a way as to pump up a product without having any major impact on the sound quality.
Personally I like to read the measurements reports in Stereophile because they often mention some odd characteristics that do affect the sound or reliability.

Do you feel the same way about speaker measurements? Even though hearing is believing, a speaker's measurements reveal a great deal about them and I find them valuable. No speaker review is complete without measurements IMHO.

 

I think that is one area where J.A. did a good job. That is, talking about his own perceptions compared to what he is measuring. Sometimes he'd say something that measured was imperceptible while listening, for example. He does a good job, glad he will continue measuring and commenting on his measurements.

 

Where do you get that?

I just said, knock your self out.

Anyone who wants to judge the sound of an audio component by reading or looking at graph's and specification's, has my blessing.

I personally don't see any point to it, so I refrain from using these thing as meaningful metric's, but that's just me.

I neither mean, nor do I have any reason to insult you, which I don't believe that I have done.

I do gather your point that IF there was a big ugly wart present on the graph, then that big ugly wart would also appear in you audio chain. I would think that would be rather obvious.

Before buying a piece of gear, I don't ponder my next purchase by going, "eenie meenie miney mo", I do read the review portion of reviews. If there happens to be a general consensus about some huge flaw in a product, it will more likely than not, be pointed out in a review, rather than me picking through pages after page of graph's and stat's.

If something is a piece of crap, it is a piece of crap, it happens that little details like this don't remain hidden after a few reviews.

I just don't happen to care anything at all amount measurements. That is just my personal take.

They are totally unnecessary to me. If there is a flaw in a product, I will find it out by listening to it, if that flaw was not already pointed out in previous reviews.

I'm sixty four years old and have never in my life purchased a product based on measurements that were contained in reviews.

I guess I can safely continue on my uninformed path. They say, ignorance is bliss.

 

Actually speaker measurements are the worst, IMO.

So many things depend on how a speaker will sound, as say, compared to a phono cartridge.

A phono cartridge is not influenced by the turntable's position in the room or room treatments, if any.

You can take several different styles of speaker's, and look strictly at the spec's, without actually knowing what type of speaker the spec's that you are looking at belong to. You (at least me) would therefore have no clue one, what that speaker might sound like or what kind of amplifier that you should be using with it.

These are things and expertise, that you gain only by actual first hand experience with many different types of speaker's and different types of amplifier's.

You can study theory at any ivy league university and still come away with out a clue as how to match a speaker with a particular amplifier.

I have many years of experience doing what I do. Other's don't and never will have this experience, because they never try these types of things for themselves.

 

Sadly, at 64 years old , it will be more difficult for your ears to detect flaws. Nobody is suggesting that measurements should be the sole basis of a purchasing decision. There are many factors (including looks, reliability and build quality) that should influence which products that you buy. I am very wary of small to medium hifi companies that make a wide range of products and change models regularly.

 

Since humans hear in the time domain more than the frequency domain, that's probably true. And smoother deviations are probably more benign than spiky ones, which tend to indicate resonance. I think a lot of the typical measurements like frequency response and distortion and crosstalk and so on are probably only truly "bad" if they have some significant aberration. For instance you can hear -60 dB of harmonic distortion, but not -90 dB (this came about trying to use a not-clean-enough analyzer to test large woofers for coil centering. I think - 80 was not audible either).

 

Probably a long time coming....he is getting up there so to speak, so a move to semi retirement makes sense. SP was always a good balance between objective and subjective. JA-1 was able to create a magazine that is a hybrid of HiFi News and Record Review and the old JGH review style. SP remains unique in this respect. I hope JA-2 builds on what he inherited rather than backing away, or implementing overseer mandated simplification. A cynic would point out that both JGH and HP suffered after buyouts. Both were kept around as emeritus trophies, but left shortly thereafter....

There was considerable discussion of this topic in other forums; consensus is that JA-2 was probably the best choice without having to go outside of the magazine. Herb, Art, Mikey were all deemed not quite suitable for a variety of reasons.

 

I guess than it must be time for all the old timer's like SH to hand up their spur's.

If you accept the simple premise that no system is perfect and that there are many flaws in any system, then it becomes simply a matter of deciding which flaws you do or do not choose to have dominate in your system.

 

If everything that measured great sounded great, and everything that measured bad sounded bad, then measurements would be worth their weight in gold.

But it doesn't, and it doesn't... so they aren't.
.

 

What you’ve pointed out is that this sort of frequency response measurement is largely meaningless at the resolution at which it was originally presented. Increase the measurement resolution and differences will become obvious. I’m not suggesting you should change your position on the matter, only that people who take the the time to look closely at some of the measurements (standalone or comparative) presented by product makers will discover that the resolution that was used is a factor of marketing presentation rather than an informative technical statement.

The argument I personally have with the many of the measurements presented to help market some products is that the measurement resolution is of no real use in forming an accurate technical opinion about the product. If enough audiophiles, over time, are subjected to enough marketing measurements for enough products it stands to reason that they’ll eventually completely devalue any considerations of measurement during the product purchase decision-making process. It’s unavoidable, and for good reason.