Celebrate!

how is SM doing with his newest "gig" ?

John,

I hope you are not retiring any time soon. Need to have measurements and insight.

In the interest of journalistic ethics Stereophile should probably point out a few simple facts;

1- sound quality is unrelated to the price of a component. A properly designed one thousand dollar amplifier will usually sound exactly the same as a thirty thousand dollar amp. There's nothing mysterious about power amps. They're pretty simple devices.
2- all digital components sound exactly the same. This is the defining characteristic of digital technology. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand what digital fundamentally is.
3- speakers are far and away the most important component. No other link in the chain even comes close.
4- humans do not hear any difference between 16bit/44.1khz and any higher bit/sampling rate. This is established fact.

"All digital components sound the same." Huh? I hate to judge too harshly but I'm pretty sure even the most hard core bits is bits fanatic would not agree with that statement. There are many variables that contribute to the sound besides the bits involved in the actual digital portion of the component, let's say digtial CD player, for example. You got your fuse, your wiring, your transformers, the transport mechanism, the capacitors, resistors, solder used for connections, whether the component was cryo'd, whether the component is isolated mechanically...things of that nature.

Cheerios,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Looks like another one escaped from Audiokarma. They get all worked up reading back issues of Stereo Review. Can't decide between the Garrard or BSR turntable for $5 at the yard sale. Pissed off that Radio Shack went under.

see; Meyer,E,Brad and Moran,David R. "Audibility of a CD- standard A/DA/A loop inserted into high-resolution audio playback"
AES E-library 55 (9) 775-779

AES. 'Nuff said.

;-)

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

1) sound quality is unrelated to the price of a component. I believe this to a degree. The method of how the component is used reveals the quality. The whole reason High End Audio was born was because of the differences every part in the audio chain made. Mysterious? No. Magical? From the moment the first component designers discorvered the art of making a product, not just the spec, the beginning of one of the greatest hobbies was handed down to mankind. The fact is, a few audio heros have devoted their lives to bringing all of us this story. You want ethics? Picture a bunch of audiophiles, turned writers, putting pen to paper their personal audio walk for all to see, knowing that the world of listeners is going to be their judge.

2) digital is an audio language that goes through the same analog chain as any other language. DAC stands for "Digital to Analog Conversion". I'm not sure David misunderstands digital, he simply misunderstands the physics of analog. Analog is not only an audio language, it's a physical signal carried by physical mechanical conduits.

3) which component is the most important component? Try disconnecting any one of them and listen to what happens. The whole reason John and the other writers talk about "the audio chain" is because it is all connected.

4) there are two basic sides to establishing fact. One side is theory (the words of what we think happened or what might happen) and the other practical application. The practical application side consist of doing (experiencing) & the measuring of the doing. Experiencing is the only fact we have, because we are human. The measuring however is the technology of audio math. The view of where we just were, and the road map for where we might be going. It's the view point from measuring tools plus environment and conditions. The more advanced and more accurate the tools and conditions become the closer to factual, from a documented chart perspective, we get. What we hear is not necessarily the value of units we measure, when we compare the two, because of the human and physical factors we have as listeners.

Where ethics comes in, is the faithfulness of the reviewers ability to explain their measurements and their experiences combind. We as readers need to think of it this way. A re-view is the view-point of the re-view-er. Every reviewer is different and every review is different or similar based on the variables and art in which the reviewer presents and establishes as his or hers personal method of reviewing. The review is a human/technical relating of the audio experience. Flawless? Of course not, but maybe the most important link to what we do as listeners, besides our own personal listening.

ethics

Ethics is hard to define in any industry that involves personal experience and taste. With ethics comes trust and trustworthiness. Ethics comes down to the passion in which we apply to our methods of finding out, and stones being turned. There's lip service and the actual doing to consider. Ethics is as much a part of the end user as it is the designer and reviewer. What we do after the review is where the rubber meets the road.

One thing I can say with a fair amount of confidence. The reviewers and the reviewing I have experienced as someone in the music biz and part of this hobby have been human. When I read their writing they are the same human I've met in person. Furthermore, the thought that the audio God's have smiled enough on this hobby to give us this wide range of reviewing in a single magazine is the miracle. Stereo Review gave us mostly measurements and specs according to their time. Stereophile gave us a passionate hobby that covers the measuring and the human experience, carefully and ethically blended together at the highest level taking into account that we are all "human". John A doesn't ask us to agree or disagree, he ask us to consider the possiblities from every angle he and his writers can find. John and the stereophile staff have not put together a paperback of clones, but a look into the audiophile experience from the point of view of many, and have done it since the beginning of the high end audio hobby. David may agree or disagree, as well as the many out there, but the actual fact that John has carried the hobby of listening through all these years with more than a paycheck is pretty darn committed from where I sit.

Art, welcome to your new responsibilities and call to ethics. I'm sure you'll continue to do a great job as well as take some of the load off of John. And thank you Stereophile for making this hobby possible!

many years of continued success!

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

David Harper wrote:

4- humans do not hear any difference between 16bit/44.1khz and any higher bit/sampling rate. This is established fact.

What is the source of the "established fact" to which you are referring?

...got the answer - apologies for the oversight when I asked for references.

David Harper wrote:

see; Meyer,E,Brad and Moran,David R. "Audibility of a CD- standard A/DA/A loop inserted into high-resolution audio playback"
AES E-library 55 (9) 775-779

...to which:

John Atkinson wrote:

The Meyer/Moran paper, authored by two non-engineers, suffered from poor methodology and source material of unknown provenance, which you would have understood if you actually read the 2014 AES paper that I recommended you read and that addressed these issues.

Remember: in statistical analysis of test results, you can't prove a negative; you can only conclude that under the circumstances of the test no difference could be detected. By contrast, a statistically significant identification can be regarded as universal proof that a difference is detectable.

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

Great, as always, JA.