The Listening Rooms of Stereophile & TAS

[Mallette]

Aside from thier lack of room treatment...something I share with them...only Atkinson's main system looks particularly impressive. However, looking at audio equipment is like listening about paintings.

I said I learned all I needed to know about these guys level of sophistication when they talked about angling an omnidirectional mic down a bit. That's plum ignorant...

In any event, I think we can all agree that these clowns are as much audio experts as the Faux News Networks (and CNN, NBC...) news anchors are "journalists." Actually, I suppose I am being unnecessarily ugly to the news anchors.

Dave

[oldtimer]

Unfortunately, isn't that what the typical room of most people here on this forum have? And pretty much everyone else into audio?

So I guess that makes it "right" (OK) that they should be the self anoited pious experts of audio opinion and then charge people for the sham? If they're getting most of their revenue from the advertisers that support their pubications, then why charge for it at all? That's really the scum bag part of it. Makes it look legitimate (only to dummies).

My point is, since you obviously haven't "gotten it" (or maybe its just your preponderance to argue with me on nearly every post for some unbeknownst reason) is that these people make claims about the performance of a lot of very expensive and supposedly state of the art audio equipment and yet much, if not all of their listening tests take place in a very substandard listening enviromnent. An environment which in fact can never bring out the best in any of these components. And on top of that, how many people do you think that can afford that kind of price tag for audio equipment, or anything for that matter, live in a room like that? Yeah, right.

All spot on. What i would like to know is if these are really the rooms they audition gear for their reviews. Assuming they are then the emperor clearly has no clothes, and even the lesser budgeted among us know better than to throw a bunch of components together in that type of place (I have at least a few more colorful analogies for the spaces). I am not in a position to comment about what amount of money these guys make for their efforts, probably most of it goes to the publisher, but even so, see my previous sentence.

[odysseyrevolver]

[artto]

I bought this up because many years ago, long before "home theater", or dedicated listening rooms, or especially room acoustics became popular, I remember seeing some pictures that The Absolute Sound had shown in their magazine regarding their "official" listening room. This was back in the mid 80's I suppose. I wish I still had those old copies but they were thrown out long ago. At the time I had also seen some pictures of the listening room at companies like Audio Research Corporation. Even at those early dates I had my room constructed using some of the same features and principals PWK had put forth in the Klipsch Audio Papers and Dope From Hope Newsletters, as well as from my own architectural text books from school. And while the acoustic "treatment" was not as thorough and refined as it now is, I wondered how can these people evaluate supposedly "state of the art" audio equipment in rooms like that?

We human beings, have spent extraordinary amounts of time and money studying acoustics and building fine concert halls the world over for centuries, and then these clowns come along and act as if it doesn't matter, while at the same time peddling the extraodinarily expensive (and often unreliable) audio equipment that is supposed to be the best at reproducing music. And then we're supposed to pay for the priviledge of their opinion? [bs]

[N]

[Don Richard]

But where else would you find out that demagnetizing an LP improves the sound of vinyl playback?

“If you are a lover of the vinyl LP, this unit from Furutech will be one of those all-to-rare “must-have” components. There is information in the grooves that is always being obscured, minimized, and dulled by the interaction between magnetism on the disc and the electronics of the cartridge. So what will you hear? Deep, deeper into the heart of the recording itself. The difference has really shocked members of my listening panel–it’s that obvious!”
– Harry Pearson, The Absolute Sound, Golden Ear Award Issue 2011

A true bargain at only $2800.

[thebes]

Amazing pics Arrto. Aside from their mostly bad taste in decorating, it would appear they are all cheapskates or don't get paid much.

What's interesting in Kals' room the mikes are in front of the "listening couch". If he's using the mikes to eq the room using an electronic audio processor then they should be behind the couch not in front of it. Notice how close the speakers are to each other. Can't be more than six feet of separation. That' can't sound good.

In Greens room there is some foam on the ceiling and possibly some free standing panels on the sides. But what's with those obviously poorly built and resonate speaker stands, not to mention the poor off balance placement.

In Atkinson's room there appears to be a polycylinder of some sort, but on only one side of the room and nothing else. I also notice that the fuse panel is open. Gotta bet that there's no dedicated power line for the stereo setup. Nice collection of the audiophile's friend though: useless high-end cables busy distorting anything resembling sound.

I'm really quite shocked by all of this. I'm not a subscriber, but I have found some of their articles to be interesting and informative, and now I wonder, if anything they write can have any credence. Even acoustic Sounds has there own dedicated listening room. Can't understand why Stereophile wouldn't.

[thebes]

According to their 2012 Media Kit, they have 70,000 subscribers with an average income of $129,000.

http://www.hometechnetwork.com/mediakit.stph.pdf

Current introduction subscription price is $13 so about $1 million a year before advertising.

[Mallette]

The difference has really shocked members of my listening panel–it’s that obvious!”
– Harry Pearson, The Absolute Sound, Golden Ear Award Issue 2011

Dave

[ZAKO]

If those are average listening rooms for the reviewers,, They need our help...From us,,

[tube fanatic]

Unfortunately, isn't that what the typical room of most people here on this forum have? And pretty much everyone else into audio?

In my experience, Mike is quite correct in his statement. Over the years I've known very few audiophiles (and I use the term to describe listeners who are very conscious of sound quality) who had state of the art listening rooms, or even rooms which have been treated acoustically. Yet, the systems used by these folks have often been capable of spectacular sound quality (fill in your own definition of what gives you goosebumps and draws you into the music.) And in such systems, changes in components have yielded very audible differences at times. So, is it really necessary to have an acoustically perfect environment in which to judge the sound of, say, an amp costing $50k? In any event, JA's measurements are usually quite informative, and I'd imagine are truthful representations.

[neo33]

Is it really necessary to have an acoustically perfect environment in which to judge the sound of an amp costing $500?

I bet they can't tell the difference in a double blind test.

So, is it really necessary to have an acoustically perfect environment in which to judge the sound of, say, an amp costing $50k?

[thebes]

Unfortunately, isn't that what the typical room of most people here on this forum have? And pretty much everyone else into audio?

I So, is it really necessary to have an acoustically perfect environment in which to judge the sound of, say, an amp costing $50k?

Well yes, as a matter of fact.

I think anybody with 50K in his pocket is sophisticated enough to realize that results will vary according to room, synergy, etc. but there should be a common starting point. A basis for the dialogue that Stereophile purports to have with it's subscribers.

Look my room was decorated by run amok vestal virgins recycling leftover castoffs of mid to later 20th Century. My bass for some strange reason is on the ceiling. My perceptions of sound change according to my mood, (mostly sunny with variable clouds), ingestion of various illegal substances, ingestion of legal substances, sudden inexplicable urges to dance, and perfectly normal urges to play Credence while contemplating the linking with the album Autobahn and the Nihilists in the Big Lebowski, not to mention occasional changes in the phase of the moon, the quietness of the North American power grid as subtly attenuated by a faulty ac compressor in Bangalore, India.

In other words, I'm perfect to write stereo reviews for this rag, and, as a bonus, I know several big words.[]

[Mallette]

Gentlemen, I submit as I always have. There are three major factors in audio:

1. The source

2. The source,

and most importantly,

3. The source.

The equipment, room treatment, and magic pebbles play their roles, but without the Source the magic will not happen.

I'd rather listen to a fine source recording on Bose in a Basement than Krap on Klipsch in a Kathedral...

And that's all I've got to say about that.

Dave

[artto]

Gentlemen, I submit as I always have. There are three major factors in audio:

1. The source

2. The source,

and most importantly,

3. The source.

The equipment, room treatment, and magic pebbles play their roles, but without the Source the magic will not happen.

I'd rather listen to a fine source recording on Bose in a Basement than Krap on Klipsch in a Kathedral...

And that's all I've got to say about that.

Dave

As you probably know, I only half agree with this statement. From my point of view BOTH the source AND room are equally important.

And as evidence, let me submit Mike's (Dr. Who) own observation. He brought a recording (Nightwish "Century Child) over to my place when he first visited here (about 8 years ago now?). He was extremely disappointed in how this favorite recording of his sounded on my system. I gathered that it sounded satisfactory (maybe even "awesome") on his system at home. Yet other music which he was familiar with such as "A Life" (a Mark Levinson recording) apparently was astounding and gave hime the impression of being transported to the place (of the recording) (which by the way, happens to be a "Kathedral").

After the source and room being of the highest order, then of course one needs reproducers (transducers ~ speakers) capable of producing an acoustic wave front that is capable of fooling the ear. The electronics in between are a distant last.

Furthermore, the issue with "speakers" is that regardless of type or size, they are interacting with the room boundaries as well as what is in the room. This becomes increasingly problematic as we reduce the size of the space from "concert hall" to "living room".

And as the frequencies get lower and lower, the more the room affects the sound from the speakers. Furthermore, even though we "live in the midrange" if you define the musical audio range as 8, 9 or 10 octaves, about one-half of that is in the bass range.

On the other hand, even though "nothing's perfect" in audio reproduction, the "up side" of all of this is that it doesn't have to be. The ear is actually very forgiving, and our brains along with psychoacoustics tends to fill in the rest, depending on your preferences, experience and imagination. For if things needed to be that perfect for us to recognize anything from moment to moment, we in fact never would. Sort of like Dr. Jacob Bronowski's "range of certainty".

So, back to my original point. What's the point in listening to $100,000+ systems in a room that is not capable of revealing what these systems (or the recording/source) are supposedly capable of producing? The chain is only as strong as the weakest link. The fact of the matter is that Stereophile and TAS have some very weak links indeed.

[tube fanatic]

Something which I didn't spot in this discussion is the level at which the judgment of sound quality is made. The impression one has at 95 db is going to be quite different from that at 70 db. The reviewers at the various magazines don't seem to specify the levels at which they make their subjective determination of the sound. I remember having a demo of the B&W 801s when they first came out. At low levels they sounded like crap to me; yet at significantly higher levels they were great (in that particular room.) A friend has a pair which he drives with a Krell boat anchor of the same vintage and they sound awful at all levels in his room. Statements about sound quality are far too subjective to be of any use to others. So, regardless of how acoustically wonderful a room may be, it still comes down to what the individual experiences with a particular piece of equipment in their room. I don't see any other way around this issue.

[thebes]

Gentlemen, I submit as I always have. There are three major factors in audio:

1. The source

2. The source,

and most importantly,

3. The source.

The equipment, room treatment, and magic pebbles play their roles, but without the Source the magic will not happen.

I'd rather listen to a fine source recording on Bose in a Basement than Krap on Klipsch in a Kathedral...

And that's all I've got to say about that.

Dave

Now, now my friend you are off topic.

Again.[]

I'm sorry, Dave, but pure random chance means these guys have a variety of very well recorded, perhaps stellar, music available to them,.They are evaluating components as a pathway to the source. Yes, audio nirvanna. IE in your nomenclature its The Great Kaleidoscopic Organ in the Sky. ( plays really low too).

Look, music is subjective. Not too hard to argue that point. But this subjective?

How can they even take the measurements they publish in their rag. Maybe because when all else fails you should label it scientific, knowing that you lesser mortals can't understand that stuff.

Truly the Emperor has no clothes.

Hey Arrto, Dr.Who's NIghtwish is killer music, but compressed like crazy. Still wonderful gonad music appealing to our inner "let's get some because we are feeling more alive than we ever have been before". Its good to be alive and young music. I'm sure he's popped his cherry by now, and spends his days devoted to string quartets.

[DrWho]

Unfortunately, isn't that what the typical room of most people here on this forum have? And pretty much everyone else into audio?

So I guess that makes it "right" (OK) that they should be the self anoited pious experts of audio opinion and then charge people for the sham? If they're getting most of their revenue from the advertisers that support their pubications, then why charge for it at all? That's really the scum bag part of it. Makes it look legitimate (only to dummies).

My point is, since you obviously haven't "gotten it" (or maybe its just your preponderance to argue with me on nearly every post for some unbeknownst reason) is that these people make claims about the performance of a lot of very expensive and supposedly state of the art audio equipment and yet much, if not all of their listening tests take place in a very substandard listening enviromnent. An environment which in fact can never bring out the best in any of these components. And on top of that, how many people do you think that can afford that kind of price tag for audio equipment, or anything for that matter, live in a room like that? Yeah, right.

Hmmmm, I think that may have been taken the wrong way - not arguing at all (or at least not trying to). I think we agree on more than you realize.

Maybe I can write out my thoughts in longer form since I've got some time to kill right now...

Having visited probably hundreds of systems by now over the years (thanks to all the cool people on the forum), I think it fair to say that the majority of those rooms were closer to that of the reviewers than that of a dedicated listening environment - not saying either is necessarily better than the other, but the forums are flooded with the same level of descriptive words about all sorts of various components.

The critic in me could just rule out anything that doesn't go to the nth degree, but I truly believe the majority of audiophiles really enjoy the hobby. And I believe they hear a difference when they say they do (that's a whole nother discussion though). I brought it up more to question the idea of speaker/room resolution limits, and what things can we truly hear despite a poor acoustical environment? For example, when listening in the nearfield, it's not hard to get a decent ITD and low enough Haas kicker to be able to really focus in on the direct sound. The semi-reverberant behavior will be the same when comparing two amplifiers, so I don't think it's too crazy to consider that things like amplifiers could be compared in rooms like those. I would still agree that it's like talking about the shininess of a polished turd, but at least you'll know which polish works best, haha.

[Don Richard]

After the source and room being of the highest order, then of course one needs reproducers (transducers ~ speakers) capable of producing an acoustic wave front that is capable of fooling the ear. The electronics in between are a distant last.

That sums it up nicely. Now let's look at what Robert Harley, editor of TAS, in his Complete Guide to High End Audio says:

"For the following exercise, I assembled an imaginary 2-channel system of the components I'd choose if my audio budget totaled $10,000. This hypothetical system follows a traditional audiophile approach. Here are the costs per item:

Preamplifier................................$2000

Power amplifier..........................$2000

Digital source.............................$1300

Loudspeakers............................$4000

Interconnects and cables.............$700

Total........................................$10,000

$700 for interconnects and cables, zero for the room? The guy is a heckuva writer, it's too bad that so much of what he writes is total BS.

[George O.]

Wasn't this photo used in cropped form on the cover of Feng Shui Digest last March? The pink paint representing the female yin energies, of course.

[artto]

Unfortunately, isn't that what the typical room of most people here on this forum have? And pretty much everyone else into audio?

So I guess that makes it "right" (OK) that they should be the self anoited pious experts of audio opinion and then charge people for the sham? If they're getting most of their revenue from the advertisers that support their pubications, then why charge for it at all? That's really the scum bag part of it. Makes it look legitimate (only to dummies).

My point is, since you obviously haven't "gotten it" (or maybe its just your preponderance to argue with me on nearly every post for some unbeknownst reason) is that these people make claims about the performance of a lot of very expensive and supposedly state of the art audio equipment and yet much, if not all of their listening tests take place in a very substandard listening enviromnent. An environment which in fact can never bring out the best in any of these components. And on top of that, how many people do you think that can afford that kind of price tag for audio equipment, or anything for that matter, live in a room like that? Yeah, right.

Hmmmm, I think that may have been taken the wrong way - not arguing at all (or at least not trying to). I think we agree on more than you realize.

Maybe I can write out my thoughts in longer form since I've got some time to kill right now...

Having visited probably hundreds of systems by now over the years (thanks to all the cool people on the forum), I think it fair to say that the majority of those rooms were closer to that of the reviewers than that of a dedicated listening environment - not saying either is necessarily better than the other, but the forums are flooded with the same level of descriptive words about all sorts of various components.

The critic in me could just rule out anything that doesn't go to the nth degree, but I truly believe the majority of audiophiles really enjoy the hobby. And I believe they hear a difference when they say they do (that's a whole nother discussion though). I brought it up more to question the idea of speaker/room resolution limits, and what things can we truly hear despite a poor acoustical environment? For example, when listening in the nearfield, it's not hard to get a decent ITD and low enough Haas kicker to be able to really focus in on the direct sound. The semi-reverberant behavior will be the same when comparing two amplifiers, so I don't think it's too crazy to consider that things like amplifiers could be compared in rooms like those. I would still agree that it's like talking about the shininess of a polished turd, but at least you'll know which polish works best, haha.

Mike, I agree entirely.

And let me also state that I realize not everyone has the desire, motivation, need, or deep enough pockets to "take it to the limit". Hell, even I've been working at this in the same room for over 30 years!

But what's the point in putting a Briggs and Stratton/Powerglide drive train in a Ferrari 458? Is it really still a "Ferrari"? (well, yes, and no) It is going to perform like a Ferrari? Hell NO.

Lets take another analogy. How would you feel, as a performance car enthusiast, if you found out that the editors of your long time favorite high performance car rag all drove around in something like a stock 1978 Chevette or a 1953 Ford pickup? And furthermore, that the Ferraris, Corvettes and BMW they "test" drove and reported on were only driven back and forth on their 60 foot gravel driveway and around the block in their neighborhood for a test drive. It's just like the streets most everyone else drives on, right?

Now, what if someone buys a Ferrari 458 and all they ever drive it is to the grocery store once and a while on "regular" streets just like everybody else does? And even if I think its a waste of a fine car and money thats perfectly fine by me. It's their car. It's their money. But this same person is by no means qualified to give an opinion regarding the car's performance, much less get paid for doing so, and then charging others for the privilage of his opinion (yikes).

If someone wants to stick a $250,000 speaker system in their 12'x16' bedroom that's their preogative (IMHO, that's also their problem). But personally, I don't think they have any business telling me nor anyone, how good it sounds. To me, that's a rather warped set of values and priorities, none of which have anything to do with the quality of audio reproduction.