Grab your torches and pitchforkes! Omnimic made Stereophile!

[mzisserson]

Kal Rubiunson likes it. Talked extensively about the Omnimic's value as a system setup and evaluation tool. Loved the simple setup, and claims its a powerful tool. He even coughs a small mention to the DIY world "... The value of the oscilloscope and the display of reverberation decay are less apparent unless you are a speaker modifier or builder..." Nothing about it we already do not know, but nice to see get some very good press from a reputable source. For the HT geeks, he found it useful to confirm the settings of auto-eq's and the like.

More interestingly does this mean:

a) The Omnimic is nothing more than an overpriced sales pitch for the euphoric (perhaps euphonic) audiophile to spend hours pining over scales that never equate to music?

b) Is a legitimately good tool for design and system setup/integration?


I will say I love mine and find it irreplaceable for both building and tuning systems, and for the first time I can honestly say I can agree with any reviewer based upon a shared, highly intimate experience with a product.

[r-carpenter]

Audiophiles don't play with microphones, Mike. Audiophiles play with things that have very little relevance to the actual music reproduction and make conclusions based on subjective impressions without control.

[dcgold2000]

Audiophiles don't play with microphones, Mike. Audiophiles play with things that have very little relevance to the actual music reproduction and make conclusions based on subjective impressions without control.

What he said!

[arlis_1957@yahoo.com]

no, what he said.
hal announced several months ago that he would do a review. glad to see he did.

[andy19191]

Nothing about it we already do not know, but nice to see get some very good press from a reputable source.

Reputable source?

[mzisserson]

Reputable source?

From what I know of, and conversed with for Stereophile reviewers on a few occasions, I will say their depth of knowledge weather technical or musical is very, very admirable. They are not as dumb as they appear when they have to appeal to the audiophile masses. Remember, even the brightest of writers have to cap their knowledge at a sophomore year high school level for the general public.

[andy19191]

From what I know of, and conversed with for Stereophile reviewers on a few occasions, I will say their depth of knowledge weather technical or musical is very, very admirable. They are not as dumb as they appear when they have to appeal to the audiophile masses. Remember, even the brightest of writers have to cap their knowledge at a sophomore year high school level for the general public.

I am intrigued. This was not a response I was expecting.

You claim Stereophile has technical depth of knowledge. Do you mean technical knowledge in subjects like sound, sound perception and how home audio equipment functions? Or perhaps technical knowledge about subjects like how to make a magazine an attractive vehicle for advertising from the audiophile industry?

If Stereophile is a reputable source why don't competent people from the technical mainstream of sound and audio (e.g. academics, acoustical engineers/consultants, etc...) use it to help build their reputations by providing articles and other content?

[czag]

If Stereophile is a reputable source why don't competent people from the technical mainstream of sound and audio (e.g. academics, acoustical engineers/consultants, etc...) use it to help build their reputations by providing articles and other content?

Because they are in the business of selling as many magazines as possible, not in putting as many people to sleep as possible. While many here(myself included) find it interesting and informative to occasionally read technical papers written by acknowledged experts, I am guessing that the vast majority of the people that are just into audio would find it mind-numbingly boring.

That does not mean that the staff at stereophile is not knowledgeable in the technical aspects of the equipment they are reviewing, it just means they are trying to appeal to as broad of a cross section of people as possible and not exclude any by talking over their heads. I have never subscribed to that magazine, but I have read a few issues over the years, and based on that admittedly small sample size, I would have to agree that they do have a fair amount of technical knowledge.

Chris

[mzisserson]

Because they are in the business of selling as many magazines as possible, not in putting as many people to sleep as possible. While many here(myself included) find it interesting and informative to occasionally read technical papers written by acknowledged experts, I am guessing that the vast majority of the people that are just into audio would find it mind-numbingly boring.

That does not mean that the staff at stereophile is not knowledgeable in the technical aspects of the equipment they are reviewing, it just means they are trying to appeal to as broad of a cross section of people as possible and not exclude any by talking over their heads. I have never subscribed to that magazine, but I have read a few issues over the years, and based on that admittedly small sample size, I would have to agree that they do have a fair amount of technical knowledge.

Chris

That answers it best. Sometimes it is surprising. Talking to John Marks you will discover not only is he a classicly trained musician, but a recording engineer with HUGE depth of knowledge about the recording process, medias, mics, mastering, ect. You will also find he knowledge of music , espically classical, is beyond expansive, it is flat out mind-blowing. Chord structure, the understanding of how the music is created not just written is certainly professional. He also is extremely well versed in the inner workings of DACs, and Hi-res formatting, how to use it, and how it is best handled from engineering, technical, and performance standpoints. Yet in this issue he has to argue why Beethoven is not the cat's azz in classical after being bombarded by enough letters to make it interesting enough to greenlight to the masses of stereophile.

Noone can argue John Atiksons technical knowledge and his process either.

It is why I still get these mags, there is a lot of print between the lines, you just have to get through all the distraction to see it.

[andy19191]

That answers it best.

You would suggest that Stereophile does not want technically competent people to write their technical articles because it would bore the readers? This is to some extent side stepping the question asked which was about the view of Stereophile by technically competent people. In particular, whether they consider it a reputable source they would like to publish in or a disreputable source that would harm their reputation if they had their name associated with it.

Noone can argue John Atiksons technical knowledge and his process either.

Ummm. I think you will find rather a lot of people argue against some of his technical claims on hi-fi forums and even in newspapers:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...science.uknews

In his defense, I suspect he does not necessarily believe some of the anti/pseudo-scientific thinking he is required to promote as editor of Stereophile.

[jinjuku]

]

Ummm. I think you will find rather a lot of people argue against some of his technical claims on hi-fi forums and even in newspapers:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...science.uknews

In his defense, I suspect he does not necessarily believe some of the anti/pseudo-scientific thinking he is required to promote as editor of Stereophile.

I do think Mr Atkinson believes this:

I give you the editor of Stereophile, a respected hi-fi magazine of 33 years standing. He's talking about blinded tests on amplifiers: "It seems," he says, "that with such blind listening tests, all perceived subjective differences ... fall away ... when you have taken part in a number of these blind tests and experienced how two amplifiers you know from personal experience to sound extremely different can still fail to be identified under blind conditions ..." Now I'm getting worried. Here comes the money shot. "... then perhaps an alternative hypothesis is called for: that the very procedure of a blind listening test can conceal small but real subjective differences." Ouch. "Having taken part in quite a number of such blind tests, I have become convinced of the truth in this hypothesis." What voodoo is this? If there is a difference to be heard, then you will hear it.

So he can make his own hypothesis but not test it? But he tests another hypothesis: That one can't reliably tell the difference between two solid state amps operating level matched non-clipping and proves that even to him it's true. But now that it is true there must be something wrong?

Very circular logic.

Stereophile is part of the reason I don't call myself an audiophile. Maybe Stereophile should have an annual blind listening edition where 3rd party people put up a blind and then play back and a/b a selection of electronics that they reviewed that prior year and make them evaluate it sans sight.

[czag]

You would suggest that Stereophile does not want technically competent people to write their technical articles because it would bore the readers?

Yes, exactly. Those types of articles, while very useful and informative, would probably bore their average subscriber to tears. Not a good way to sell magazines, which along with selling advertising are their main goals.

If Stereophile is a reputable source why don't competent people from the technical mainstream of sound and audio (e.g. academics, acoustical engineers/consultants, etc...) use it to help build their reputations by providing articles and other content?

I suspect because the folks over at Stereophile probably do not seek out such contributions because of the reason listed above. It is just not that type of magazine. They publish reviews, not boring technical articles.

Chris

[czag]

So he can make his own hypothesis but not test it? But he tests another hypothesis: That one can't reliably tell the difference between two solid state amps operating level matched non-clipping and proves that even to him it's true. But now that it is true there must be something wrong?

That is a good point, and one of the reasons that I do not subscribe to the magazine, but it does not prove that their staff lacks technical knowledge.

Chris

[r-carpenter]

Very circular logic.

Stereophile is part of the reason I don't call myself an audiophile. Maybe Stereophile should have an annual blind listening edition where 3rd party people put up a blind and then play back and a/b a selection of electronics that they reviewed that prior year and make them evaluate it sans sight.

99% if not a 100% of commercial entities bend the truth one way or another to increase sales. Stereophile is in business, so take their comments with a grain of salt. Most of their reviews describe how their room sounds in conjunction with equipment. People that build, design, measure audio equipment know this perfectly well. Reviewers are not interested in fair comparisons, they sell fad and answer to advertisers.

[mzisserson]

You would suggest that Stereophile does not want technically competent people to write their technical articles because it would bore the readers? This is to some extent side stepping the question asked which was about the view of Stereophile by technically competent people. In particular, whether they consider it a reputable source they would like to publish in or a disreputable source that would harm their reputation if they had their name associated with it.


Ummm. I think you will find rather a lot of people argue against some of his technical claims on hi-fi forums and even in newspapers:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...science.uknews

In his defense, I suspect he does not necessarily believe some of the anti/pseudo-scientific thinking he is required to promote as editor of Stereophile.

And for many years sound scientific minds were willing to accept the world was flat.

Define technically competent please? My 3 year old can navigate a mac, does that make her technically competent? (Wise azz-ish i know, but I run into "technically competent" people all the time)

There will always be arguements because as I have stated many times audio is still in its toddler-hood being less than a century old. There are still too many "what if's", and also there is more than one way to skin a cat.

I have heard speakers that measure beautifully, perfect phase, dead-flat response well-tamed impedance and I could not stand to be in the same room as them they were so awful, I have also heard ones that measure beautiful that sound as such. So side-stepping, no, its about understanding audio as and entity, not just a "this or that". No matter what dicipline as soon as you try to use science to recreate art, there will ALWAYS be interpretation. Now you mix that with busniess and it gets even uglier as Roman mentioned. It's just ugly!

So if you want to know how technically competent readers view stereophile, I will self-proclaim me for the time being as technically competent (at least to a sophomore level), I think it is 100% good entertainment. I like the measurements, and I enjoy the story about the piece being reviewed. If you learn each writers quirks (I do have some vested time in this magizne), you learn to easily tell what they are really saying. If you are lucky enough to have some means of at least hearing some of this equipment, then you can really grasp it. at the end of the day though, it is all fun and in good nature. I cannot bring myself to take it as a bible.

[jinjuku]

That is a good point, and one of the reasons that I do not subscribe to the magazine, but it does not prove that their staff lacks technical knowledge.

Chris

With you there. It is sad that I wish my non-readership was based on their lack of technical knowledge because is actually based on their extreme technical ability actually. It means that they KNOW BETTER and they still publish what they publish and how they publish.

We aren't just talking a taking it with a grain of salt. That quote by Mr. Atkinson and the DBT of amps absolutely devalues to almost zero anything they actually have to say. I remember some rave review about some Zu Audio speakers that both sounded horrible and measured horrible. But Zu audio was an advertiser...

Maybe it was all the years that they always slammed Crown with their PL / PS line up. I heard Threshold / DynAudio / Phase Linear / Carver that I wouldn't have taken over a PS400 or DC 300A Series II. You could just see the bias that a Pro Audio company brought out a bullet proof amp for a reasonable amount of money that was going to upset the big Ad $$'s that they received from companies asking 10 times the amount of the Crown and in some cases performing much worse or catching fire.

My animosity for them goes back a ways.

[andy19191]

And for many years sound scientific minds were willing to accept the world was flat.

The evidence for this is what? The development of scientific thought and the early estimates for the diameter of the earth would seem reasonably well aligned. Many non-scientific minds may well have believed the earth was flat and some are reported to still do so today. A scientific mind requires repeatable measured evidence because of the way the scientific method works. What measurements supported that the earth was flat?

Define technically competent please?

In the context of a person assessing and reporting the performance of home audio technical equipment, it refers to understanding the basics of how the equipment performs it's technical function and hence having a reliable basis on which to draw conclusions. Of course, one would like a reviewer to be a technical expert in the field but technical competence is probably the minimum requirement to perform a reasonably reliable review of the technical performance of equipment.

[mzisserson]

The evidence for this is what? The development of scientific thought and the early estimates for the diameter of the earth would seem reasonably well aligned. Many non-scientific minds may well have believed the earth was flat and some are reported to still do so today. A scientific mind requires repeatable measured evidence because of the way the scientific method works. What measurements supported that the earth was flat?


In the context of a person assessing and reporting the performance of home audio technical equipment, it refers to understanding the basics of how the equipment performs it's technical function and hence having a reliable basis on which to draw conclusions. Of course, one would like a reviewer to be a technical expert in the field but technical competence is probably the minimum requirement to perform a reasonably reliable review of the technical performance of equipment.

They used the instruments they had at the time to make best decisions they could. Similar to us. I am still not convinced we have any good standards. We have singular aspects that somewhat define good sound, but there is not one unified theory. Until then, it's fun being part of the adventure!

[billschu]

Agreed. Such as only recently have they correlated jitter to the "digital" sound folks have complained about over the last couple of decades. Just another example showing that we're not measuring everything as well as we can but are we improving as we slowly unwrap the onion.

I suggest that what we measure for speakers today is going to look crude and rudimentary at some point in the future.

Bill

They used the instruments they had at the time to make best decisions they could. Similar to us. I am still not convinced we have any good standards. We have singular aspects that somewhat define good sound, but there is not one unified theory. Until then, it's fun being part of the adventure!