Stereophile complains it's readers are too informed.


erik_squires
I was lucky with my speakers...

Tannoy dual gold for 40 years...(400 canadian dollars in 1975)

Now for the last 5 years, Mission cyrus 781....( 50 dollars bought used)...

They are very different but the 2 are musical, with more power to fill the house with the Tannoy and a very subtle equilibrium with the Mission... I cannot compare them because they were in vastly different rooms, and connected to very different audio system... but i loved the two dearly and loved the Cyrus, the best Mission ever create...

British rules!
I think you're safe as far as being informed, Erik. "Its" is the word you were looking for in your thread title.
Every audio journalist's dilemma must be whether to tell the truth, or to 'wriggle around' in the hope of being entertaining whilst not getting slapped by the advertising department. Sometimes they might even manage to do all three, but alas not every product can be the outstanding one.

If Austin does decide to go further and dispense altogether with those pesky technical measurements, which can only get in the way of good fiction writing, then he could also risk sinking the ship. I've no doubt that those measurements are the main, perhaps even only reason why many still subscribe.

It would no doubt be a big gamble, but then again the magazine's founder J. Gordon Holt was not averse to taking a few risks himself. However, as Austin points out, these are different times, and Holt's philosophy of subjectivism is under increasing pressure now.

On the other hand, "Holt's Law," the theory that the better the recording, the worse the musical performance—and vice versa, sadly still seems relevant today. 

We all know Stereophile only exists for marketing purposes, pushing products to potential buyers, thus keeping dealers and manufacturers happy. But marketing demands readers. Lots of them.

Austin's predecessor, John Atkinson was more like an oiled up wrestler, slippery enough to ever avoid being pinned down or forced to submit in the face of hard evidence or fact. Deception by omission and obfuscation was simply a way of life for him.

It now seems as if Austin, like his predecessor, also has no intention to protect, inform, or steer customers away from bad products or manufacturers. By his own words, the opposite is more likely in fact.

Good work Jim. But hey, you don't need to get too despondent, there is a way out here. It's rather simple too.

Instead of all this schizophrenic contortion trying to please incompatible demands, why not just drop the act and admit to all and sundry that your magazine is very little more than a work of pure fiction? 

That way you won't hurt any newbs, and since most of the long timers already know, you might even sleep easier.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/hoisted-your-own-petard
Essentially, when opinions, statements, or beliefs are stated that seem in conflict with a limited, linear world view, anxiety, trepidation, and at times, aggressive hostility results.   
What an interesting thread. In some posts, so much ill will ascribed to Stereophile (corporate marketing shills!), without much reflection on why someone may read an article (is it for a science-based evaluation? is it mere adult entertainment? is it a mix of hobby reading and looking for casual inspiration where to consider an upgrade?) or even more fundamentally what the magazine purports to do, or even what its realistic limits may be.

Even when Stereophile finishes with something like a "highly recommended" in the conclusion, I don’t believe they have ever written "buy this without doing your own listening, trust us!"... which of course would be folly.

The personal responsibility to understand your own preferences, and do the work to do your own listening, will never go away. No Stereophile article, ASR review, or forum post eliminates that. But they can certainly inspire in terms of directions where to look.

Hopefully one gets an understanding relatively early if one is one of those ’kooks’ (who may like low powered horns, tube DACs, or other non-traditional measuring things) or can more safely rely on what a measurement/ASR review say, and thus which source is a more reliable indicator of where they will find bliss.

At the end of the day, we all have our own objective function in this hobby (the best ’measured’ sound?, what was in the mastering studio?, gear that looks nice on a rack?, gear that sounds pretty good but is physically small?, what emotionally transports us to a live venue?), but let’s be humble in assuming that our objective function has to be the same as the next persons – and thus that a single magazine (or forum, or other review website) could claim to solve that.
I have been receiving stereophile magazine since the early 80s when they were the size of a Reader's Digest that was back in the day when they actually criticized expensive products that did not measure up so here I was read it an article about a $600,000 pair of magicals and at the end of the article it says you might want to buy a couple of subwoofers to go along with it ,you got to be kidding me. The article said that these were some of the greatest speakers out there and I'm thinking to myself for $600,000 it should  wash my car and do the dishes for me to hear them say that I might need to buy some subwoofers I I don't know if I'm from another planet or what that kind of money that's speaker better do everything
Kish, lots of people don’t want the responsibility of their own decisions. If they believe they chose poorly, some will try to place all blame at everyone’s feet other than their own. I see it in my business as well. Some take issue with reviews on products they, nor most of us, could never afford to own. For some it’s because of personal biases for, or against particular products, and we see examples of this behavior here in this forum. There are many who, rather than have a proper conversation of products, feel the need to demean others who do not see their points of view. Rather than be respectful of others ideas, and choices, some feel the need to put their opinions out there as the end of the story, and anything else is fiction. Those discussions aren’t so much a conversation as much as they are preachings. 
Reviews are most useful to me when I have another review or two of the exact same product, and when all reviewers strive to both be critical of what they actually hear while disclosing their own perspective and uses of the gear. The worst situation for me is when there is a stampede among reviewers to praise new gear, all without finding one single drawback.
It’s best to learn as much as you can about products. In the same issue they review some speakers Volti Razz. The reviewer waxes poetically while JA measures a ridiculously designed speaker whose FR looks like a drawing of the Rocky Mountains. In usual fashion JA tries to make the best of the situation talking about toe in and tube amps instead of letting the measurements speak for themselves. I agree with the OP a number of years ago I would have no idea what the graphs were showing me, get informed.
Well boohoo writers should be held accountable for their statements and claims. Bias and BS vs Truth. People should be informed and challenge these writers who are slanted towards those companies and praise equipment they shouldnt be
What really incensed me about this article is that they want to wear the mantle of knowing what good speaker design is by invoking Toole and others, but past articles clearly show they have no clue.

A great example of this was the Crystal Minissimo diamond. I was so angry I wrote a blog post about it:

https://speakermakersjourney.blogspot.com/2016/09/stereophile-slanders-crystal-cable.html

The speaker was deliberately designed for close to wall placement. The measurements show it lacks a baffle step compensation, EXACTLY the way you design a speaker for wall/bookshelf placement.  This yields a neutral speaker with elevated sensitivity than youd' get otherwise.  JA measures all this, writes a half page review, where he notes he could not place the speakers as designed, and then complains they have a deliberately "tailored" treble.

Especially since JA has a penchant for a specific non-neutral treble curve.


Basically everything in this article is proven false. Not only do they not know what a good speaker is, nor do they take the intentions of the speaker designer to heart while listening. It is very hard not to read this article is a disingenuous attempt to cover their lack of either knowledge or impartiality. Pick all that apply.

There should be hundreds of comments on this post. Where the heck is everyone lambasting this pompous magazine
Erik 
I agree with you. The point of the article  I believe that to many are automatically drawn to speakers that say or they are told have a flat response. Not enough just listen to the speakers and find out they enjoy them. Flat response is great in an anechoic chamber our out doors on the patio....
The point of the article I believe that to many are automatically drawn to speakers that say or they are told have a flat response

And this is not a position I have ever espoused. I mean, I know this is what I like, but why should that influence your buying choices?  Also, Stereophile has promoted several brands as "reference" or "neutral" speakers when they clearly and audibly were not.   Don't try to sell me "neutral" speakers as the epitome of desirability one moment, then complain about this too.

Not enough just listen to the speakers and find out they enjoy them.

I think that is in fact how you should buy loudspeakers.

My issues with the article was not that reviewers liked non-neutral speakers, but that when speaker measurements varied egregiously from good design patterns they fail to bridge the gap between their measurements and observations.


Best,
E