"The Audio Critic" B.S. or what?

Well now, we have a good subject for diversity of opinion which is at the heart of the subjective/objective debate. I have alot of audio software and hardware,some of it, comparatively expensive. I have been enjoying this hobby since the early '60s. I agree that, if you believe that some intangible manifestation exist, it does, FOR YOU, exist..whether or not its existence can be reliably demonstrated to anyone else. I don't agree with many of the above characterizations of The Audio Critic (TAC). TAC, unlike many publications, has been consistent in their philosophy and has continued to call it like they test and hear it. Isn't that essentially what Stereophile(e.g.) attempts to do? I see TAC as a breath of fresh air in a room filled with emanations of garlic, onions, and occasional fruity mouthwash. TAC has consistently attempted to remove some of the mysticism and pseudo-science which seems, at times, to permeate this hobby (surely, most of you agree that these are characteristics which exist within audiophilia). Having participated in this hobby for many years with the added experience of high-end sales and as a full-time professional musician for many of those years, I long ago recognized the highly subjective nature of equipment evaluation sans any testing apparatus. The great advantage of objective evaluation is that it doesn't rely upon the very variable results of ears-only testing. Just read the Letters To The Editor section of Stereophile, or for that matter, these forums, to see the obvious disparity of opinions regarding audio hardware. Naturally, most of us prefer to have our tastes and decisions reenforced by the agreement of a perceived authority. A number of us are susceptable to what is referred to as the placebo effect. This effect essentially allows for a belief in some of our expectations having been fulfilled. This psychological characteristic, has been verified in many areas of human experience, including the subjective (and sometimes objective) evaluation of audio equipment. This is acommon human trait and I suspect that it influences all of us occasionally. This is a powerful justification for the use of the relatively consistency of the machines. The truth they reveal to us might not be preferred or even palatable. But it is usually consistent. As an example; objective testing might indicate high distortion within a component. This high distortion may be preferred (tubes?). As a matter of taste though, preference is all that is required. So, TAC is criticized by those who subjectively disagree with some of its conclusions. I would conjecture that some of those same critics, if they are owners of products by Arragon, HSU, Marantz, Sunfire, Velodyne, Legacy, Bryston, BK, Paradigm, McIntosh, Sony, and others would have agreed with TAC's favorable comments regarding some of these mfrs. products. BTW, these and other well-reputed mfrs. have indeed advertized in TAC. In addition to the dispelling of certain objectively unproveable audio mythologies, TAC attempts to demonstrate that at a certain point, money can and is being wasted on highly questionable product benefits, overpriced products of inherent lower value, and overbuilt, highly priced hardware. If you can find a copy, try to read it without bias. You might find the counterbalance of their perspective to be ultimately beneficial to you. I have. And if for no other reason, cherish it for the technical descriptions and comments of Dr. Rich. I also agree with the above comments of Jostler.

Waldhorner: You've set up a distinction between measurement and what you call "ears-only testing" that I think is misleading. TAC does do measurements (as does Stereophile), but it also does "ears-only testing." What it doesn't do (and what S-pile does) is "eyes-and-ears testing." It's the eyes that get you into trouble, if you're trying to make judgments based solely on sound. Otherwise, your comments are right-on.

I assume that almost everyone closes their eyes when evaluating gear. What is the big deal? Are we not supposed to ever view the gear before evaluation. I would love to partake in the blind auditions. I used to be able to identify any of a dozen beers or so while blindfolded when I tended bar in the mid 70's (it was a suckers bet that the local attorneys, my customers, liked to spend money on), I now feel that it was more of a gift from them to a poor college student. It was just as easy with or without the blindfold. A flavor is a flavor and a sonic signature is a sonic signature, that's the way I hear it anyway, maybe I am just too simple.

...so i would like to subscribe. Anybody have an address?

I got banned at AudioAsylum among other things because I voiced support for blind testing as a means to detect differences between equipment. Unfortunately, there is a group of hard-core zealots who think that blind testing is the worst kind of heresy. Their arguments are in my opinion blatantly flawed. Naturally many manufacturers side with them since blind testing in most cases shows that differences between equipment are a lot subtler than most manufacturers want to you to know. Likewise reviewers are scared to death that the industry and consumers may require them to write reviews without knowing what it is they are reviewing. This would expose a lot of them as charlatans and could threaten many of the cozy relationships between publishers and manufacturers. In fact, with double blind testing frequently no differences are detected. However, double blind testing in my opinion is objectionable because it's effect is to "dazzle" the mind of the reviewer, making it difficult to detect differences. Sort of like testing perfumes in a department store: at some point you can barely tell them apart. However, testing procedures can be adapted to the audio world and provide insightful results. In spite of the above, I believe TAC goes too far in its attack of almost every well-established audiophile mantra. A magazine that is in the complete opposite side of the spectrum, The Absolute Sound (TAS), is paradoxically much more entertaining and insightful. Although TAS rarely does blind testing they subscribe to an interesting philosophy: namely that in order to assess equipment you need to train yourself to hear the right things. Reason #2 I was kicked-out of AudioAsylum is that I subscribe to this view! Again, the same group of hard core zealots decries this as heresy #2. In their view the only, and ultimate, test, is your own pair of ears, whether "educated" or not. What they don't seem to understand is that while your ears (actually your brain) may think they know what they like, over time they will invariably go through this learning process and end up changing their view of what constitutes good sound. The same is often the case with wine lovers: they start unable to distinguish wine quality but over time their palate trains itself and they are able to distinguish true quality. What is the conclusion of all this? That it is indeed a requirement to educate your "ears" to be able to accurately evaluate equipment. And the best education is to listen to live music. But also, no matter how educated your ears are, unless you use a blind test, it is very likely that your judgement will be colored by the knowledge of what you are testing. For instance, if you are reviewing the $80,000 Nearfield Acoustic Pipedreams you won't stop until you find a set-up that makes them rock. Don't read me wrong, I own $15,000 worth of audiophile equipment (each piece considered high bang for the buck, which is my real mantra) and I do believe there are sonic differences even between cables. Just that the differences are not as big as some people would want you to believe. Read TAS all the same and have fun -most reviews are delightful.