Flights of Fancy Revisited
One of the pleasures of writing,
either in print or on the Internet, is receiving reactions from my readers and my peers.
Sometimes it's negative, of course, but that's useful too, as long as any objections are
well-founded.
Not long ago, during a routine search of the Internet, I
came across an opinion piece called "In Response to Ian Masters" by Mike
Silverton, who is apparently editor of an "online music review" called La Folia,
and on whose site the article appeared. Silverton, I have since learned, also contributes
to a sister SoundStage! Network site called Ultra Audio.
He was reacting to my audio article "Flights of High-End
Fancy," which appeared here November 1, 2002. Oddly, although he was supposedly
responding to me, he didn't send me his comments; I had to find them by accident. You can
find his article at La Folia.
Silverton seems to have a fairly skewed notion of what I
believe, and even of what I said in my November article, so I think some clarification is
in order. Excerpts from his "response" appear in boldface, with my comments
afterwards.
"Strict objectivists are those who believe that
measurements best determine an audio component’s capabilities: speakers, electronics,
whatever. Masters, as an established spokesman, disparages subjectivists, whom we may
characterize to Masters’ satisfaction as technically unlettered enthusiasts who
arrive at their opinions solely by listening . . . I startle no one in suggesting that the
term subjectivist is compromised by scorn."
The terms subjective and objective audio -- which I never
use -- were coined by the fans of high-end audio themselves. They are probably better,
though, than Harry Pearson of The Absolute Sound's non-word for subjectivists:
"observationalist." I did speak of subjective phrases, but that was a
plain description, not a tag.
It's ridiculous to suggest that measurements tell the whole
story, whatever the component category. With pure electronics, if they are functioning
properly, I think measurements do tell the tale, at least as far as performance is
concerned. Silverton obviously does not (see below), but as anyone who has ever actually
read one of my speaker reviews will realize, they are a combination of measurements and
extensive listening tests. Both are essential (see "Inside Our
Speaker Tests," August 2001), and an integral part of the evaluation program
developed by Floyd Toole at Canada's National Research Council, which produced the data
for my reviews (see "Canada's
World-Class Speaker Lab," November 2000).
In any event, I was talking as much about language as basic
audio beliefs in the November article, and then about the audio excesses sometimes
indulged in by esoteric audiophiles. When it comes to that, Silverton seems to agree:
"Where Masters and I concur: Much observationalist
commentary is over the top and off the wall, and it’s a state of affairs the Internet
abets."
Then a complete non sequitur, unrelated to the story
Silverton is purportedly responding to:
"Here’s the nubbin Masters’ mallet failed
to hammer into the ground [!]: Remaining with our subject [no], his
published reviews read like exercises in enthusiasm. It’s been about a year since I
last checked in, but I’d be willing to bet he’s written no pans."
I'd like to know where he's finding these reviews. Other
than two speaker reviews published on this site in 2001 (using NRC data), I haven't
written a review since 1996, and unless someone's been scanning and posting ones from
before then, they're unavailable on the Internet or anywhere else.
The "no pans" reference, besides being offensive,
has no merit -- I've published my share over the years. But it does present the
opportunity to discuss how magazines decide what to pick for review and what to publish.
One editor of my acquaintance holds that space is at a premium (in a conventional
magazine), and using it to talk about products that readers won't want to buy is a waste.
My philosophy, when I was making such decisions, is that a
reviewer should choose products that have a reasonable expectation of being good, but that
if they don't live up to that expectation, the publication should say so. The selection
process does weight things in favor of good reviews, but that doesn't mean that
unfavorable ones don't get published.
Yes, advertising has been lost because of that, but usually
only temporarily, and one industry veteran told me that he even used negative comments in
a review to sell his products. The fact that there were negatives at all proved that the
review was honest, he said, and then he turned to the favorable comments, relying on that
established credibility.
I only once had a negative review canceled, and that was
because the manufacturer pulled the product off the market.
"Consumer Reports buys what it evaluates. If
a car, toaster or nose-hair clipper has problems, they’re covered in the review. No
circumlocutions. Plain talk."
It's very strange that someone from what Silverton refers
to as his "side of the audio divide" would hold up Consumer Reports as a
model when it comes to audio reviews. The magazine may well have an enviable reputation
when it comes to strollers and lawnmowers, but most audio observers see their speaker
reviews in particular as more than a little inept. Even their now-defunct Canadian
equivalent, which used to pick up many of its product evaluation articles from CR,
wouldn't run their speaker reviews. They had speakers tested at the NRC instead.
Anyway, obtaining equipment for review from the
manufacturers -- as virtually all publications do, even audiophile ones -- doesn't
necessarily compromise it. I always felt that if there were a simple tweak that would make
a product better, the maker would have done it in the design stage, and even purveyors of
bad equipment don't usually realize its flaws.
"Masters scores some interesting points . . . If
only he’d kept a lid on his disdain. And how predictably he proceeds! In quoting
audio gurus and a psychologist, he reverts to a shopworn device: trotting out the
authorities."
I've never been criticized before for quoting experts. In
this case, a British psychologist writing in Hi-Fi News & Record Review, former
senior editor of Audio magazine Alan Lofft, and vice-president, engineering of
Harman International, Floyd Toole are likely to have some cogent thoughts on the matter.
"Fetishists. Lunatic fringe. Esoteric. Evangelical
fervor. Believer. Fuzzy argot. Mystique. Fantastic beliefs. High-end boilerplate.
That’s a whole lot of invective for a one-and-a-half-page screed."
They are all quotes from the authorities. Oh, I forgot: I
can't do that!
"Back in the '80s, before Stereo Review
folded, Masters authored a piece entitled 'Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?' based on
David L. Clark’s statistical findings . . ."
For a brief description of the tests behind that and other
related investigations of amplifier "sound" see my audio column in September 2002.
To be accurate, Stereo Review didn't
"fold," but absorbed Video magazine and changed its name to Sound
& Vision in 1999. It's still the biggest consumer electronics publication in the
world.
About the amplifier tests Silverton makes the outrageous
statement:
"We are to extract from the statistical fog that a
mass-market receiver was sonically indistinguishable from several high-end amps, including
a Mark Levinson . . . I’m sorry, that won’t do. Because I say so. Because I know."
The case for the prosecution rests.
...Ian G. Masters
ian@mastersonaudio.com
|
