On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 06:01:13 GMT, in article JkMGc.36668$%_6.31340@attbi_s01,
S888Wheel stated:

I know he reads this newsgroup. But cannot think of how he
could defend that product or the review of it.

He does not have to defend it. that would be MF's job.

I believe what you are saying is plainly wrong on both counts. First, MF's "job"
is not to defend Wavac or its products, but to provide a useful, neutral, lucid
account of the product's performance to Stereophile's readers.

Second, the editor of Stereophile is responsible for every editorial word of
every issue. It is the editor's job to edit. One can argue about which
editorial style is best and whether a light or heavy hand is the right way to go
in any particular situation. But to state that the editor "does not have to
defend" what his writers say is simply wrong. He's responsible for what they
say! An editor should address legitimate questions about his magazine's content
as much as the writer of that content does.

His defense seems
obvious. he listened to the product and in his opinion it made the system sound
more like the real thing for most recordings.

If it's just about one man's opinion, and not about any objectively
ascertainable facts, reasonably repeatable experiences or about accumulated
knowledge, memory and expertise being brought to bear, then let's just can all
the professional writers and let Stereophile's subscribers take turns reviewing
equipment and giving their "opinions." When the substance of a review is so
deeply at odds with the measured results, one must question what useful purpose
these qualitative reviews are serving (beyond informing us of the mere existence
of a particular product).

And maybe that's enough. Just so there is no misunderstanding, I continue to
consider Stereophile to be a useful publication that delivers excellent value
for the money.