RMAF 2012

The last time John Atkinson and I checked, which was five days ago, we were anything but the same person. If you do a search of the archives, you will discover that both of us have commented on Synergistic Research's various devices in previous show reports. Note as well that while I, in the past, have blogged the Stein boxes, and reported on the differences I've heard, they were reviewed in Stereophile by Sam Tellig, and blogged in this report by Stephen Mejias.

Note as well that all of us are subjects, not objects. Hence, we embrace our subjective observations, and, while attempting to maintain a degree of critical objectivity, share them freely as the opportunity arises. Since the experience of music itself is subjective, our approach seems entirely appropriate. 

You have a reputation for candor, technical savvy, and adherence to scientific objectivity that is well deserved. Unfortunately though, I've noticed a trend in Stereophile towards more and more subjective blather that is now reaching what seems like an absurd, extreme level. The numerous unsupported and in many cases ludicrous claims for products are growing in number and in the outrageous audacity of the claims. As a publication, Stereophile can't have it both ways. It's credibility is tied to what it publishes and the degree of objectivity it maintains with advertisers and non advertisers alike. You have to accept the fact that people (like myself) will be highly skeptical when you attempt to draw a clear line between what you do with the products you review and test - and the rest of the products that are "reviewed" by others. When the magazine endorses through frequent publication numerous outrageous claims by "reviewers" under its employ without posting strong disclaimers in each instance, it loses credibility. And regardless of your efforts to the contrary, it doesn't change the bottom line. Credibility is lost. As the saying goes, credibility is hard to build up and easy to tear down. I don't think most people will take your suggestion very seriously that essentially: "as long as the reviewer keeps getting the same impression or alleged experience", that the mere reporting of that experience is sufficient to establish its veracity. As a famous politician once said - "trust, but verified". In other words, one leg of the magazine cannot maintain one standard of objectivity while another leg is allowed to get along with a completely different standard. Credibility overall suffers at the point of the weakest link in the chain.

No thanks, if I need make believe, I'll just clap my hands and Tinkerbell will appear.Do you, yourself own any of their products? Please do tell us all about them if so,

Let me suggest a different solution. Either the "reviewer" or manufacturer make the most menial attempt at explaining what the "magic bowls", "beads" or whatever do to the sound that is arriving at the listener's ear lobe - or don't bother publishing the nonense. Without even attempting to do this, reasonable people don't know whether Stereophile is trying to play a joke on its readers or its writers have actually lost their collective marbles. Repeated vague proclaimations that it "improves the exerience" in some way are both patronizing and insulting to everyone except the most gullible, uninformed, or deranged among us. 

I don't think a magazine such as Stereophile has to completely abstain from engaging in the ridiculous, absurd, or in some instances - humorous nonsense that might be (hopefully a small) part of the hobby. But it should draw a clear line by placing such nonsense in a special section - perhaps labled "Mystic Corner". Interspersing this bunk with the rest of the "content" that "normal people" rely on for accuracy and objectivity casts a pall over the entire enterprise - making it all essentially useless fluff entertainment.

Sorry but, relying upon the dealer or manufacturer of said products is not a reliable way to test a product. Do you know that there are numerous ways to alter response of a system by changing the phase and frequency response? Elevating or reducing the frequencies in certain frequency bands will make the sound more spacious or appear to come from different locations.Simply changing the phase on one speaker by 180 degrees will guarantee a profound change in both. A switch can accomplish this easily and switches can be silent.

Mr Atkinson has outright suggested that these products affect the listener and not the sysytem. You believe that? This is in the realm of voodoo and magic.Mr Denney has a terrible record of making claims on the Stereophile forums and other audio forums and never being able to prove those claims. Search for the Acoustic Research System bowls and read how just an attempt to get both Denney and Stereophile to simply test them, ran in several threads and lasted for over 2 years with zero results. Mr Atkinson claimed Denney never submitted any for tests. I guess simply borrowing some from Mr Serinus, who had access to them numerous times over those years didn't come to mind.

When did it become the reader's obligation to do the real world testing of these "mind bending" products instead of Stereophile doing what they already do for speakers, amps, preamps and DACs? I'm thinking that perhaps it's the same reason they don't or "can't" do tests on cables and  power cords. Can't be bothered. So if they throw out superlatives year after year for certain products but never bother to test them, take the well known advice of "buyer beware" and "there's a sucker born every minute".

Oh I trust my ears and eyes and common sense. Seems if all you want is spoon fed what to buy, then by all means trust Stereophile to shove whatever it is they like down your throat. If all it takes is a pair of ears, then why does JA bother doing real tests on amps, preamps and speakers?  Couldn't he just borrow Mr Serinus to tell him what he is hearing also?  Think about that.

Your suggestions are clearly a tried and worn out attempt at avoiding the issue. People read the magazine and others like it to obtain a valuable opinion that can be trusted about products in the marketplace. If the standard evasive response:

"don't you trust your ears more than the numbers?"

had any value, than why would anyone need a magazine that publishes trustworthy information by supposed experts? They could just go find the nearest dealer and let their ears decide for them.  Clearly, the magazine only has value if the information published can be trusted. And the usual, "trust me, I know what I'm talking about" doesn't do anything to bolster that trust. When someone can produce actual data results that back up the opinion - like flat frequency response and excellent directivity control in the case of a loudspeaker - an assertion that the speaker maintains good imgaging properties is far more believable and the credibility of the person doing the asserting is bolstered. If there is nothing to measure or no technology exists to record actual data that would suggest a difference, then don't expect reasonable, rational people to accept on face value your

"trust me, I know what I"m talking about" assertions. 

Please see my above reply to Mr burnspbesq.It applies in this case also.Always nice reading such a cordial reply but it seems common here when you disagree with the status quo. Have fun "listening" to your equipment, I myself will be enjoying the music instead.

Keremz has personally donated his hard earned money to Ted Denney and got NOTHING in return other than a hearty laugh behind his back from Ted. Enjoy those make believe "audio" devices. Please contact me for some really nice devices I have come up with too. A real bargain at only $1000 each and the best thing is they fit in a normal sized envelope for easy shiping!