lcw999 wrote:
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 20:24:23 +0000, Steven Sullivan wrote:
I'm aware of his rep as a critic of audiophilia. Good for him.

(Did you really just write 'booger'? I haven't heard that since
Montgomery Burns mentioned the 'booger man'.)

Yep! An old term..

Much
bitterness abounded there. He would state the obvious and wait for
the masses to acknowledge his deep insights. The problem was taking a
steady diet of this kind of flow...it all gets a bit tiresome after
awhile and the shock has worn off!

What's tiresome to me is the head-in-the-sand, I-can't-hear-you attitude
of the audio press towards scientific and engineering reality. And
that's been going on a *whole lot* longer.

Perhaps the Audio press doesn't agree with you and blunders on to its
success without believing as you do. They must be doing something
right!

By that argument, Sound & Vision, which at least nods towards the need for DBT,
must be doing something even righter, since it sells
better than either of the two big 'high end' mags.

Personal attacks were rampant. I suspect that he has challenged the
technical qualifications of every member on the staff of Stereophile.

You mean guys like Harley, who write about cable burn-in?

Yes! ever hear a cable that had "spitty" sounding silibance and have
it slowly subside after a week or two.

Nope.

But, I forgot, they all sound
the same..I should have never ask!

Yes, and the earth is not flat. Neither claim is surprising to
those who understand the reasoning behind them...yet vocal
minorities of naysayers persist. Alas my hobby seems to be
populated by one of them.

All the while Stereophile moved from a rather "scruffy" underground
publication to a full "mainstream" slick publication under the
current Editor. Audio critic still remains a "hit or miss"
underground publication.

And as we know, quality is measured by commercial success.

Yes, we know that commercial success represents all that is right with
the world. Quality is based on this...surely you jest? (humor)

er...yes, I was being sarcastic.

Perhaps, we are all upset because Stereophile just blunders on without
accepting all the tenets you or I believe in.

Obviously, 'we' aren't all upset by it. And you and I dont' seem to
have much commonality of belief.

I find it an excellent
publication in the Audio field with much information about the
industry...not found anywhere else.

Indeed, it's industry reportage seems fine. But I doubt most subscribers
buy it for *that* (at least, based on what I've seen in its letter columns).

Also, I find David Ranada and his
insights interesting and I read his column in most every issue.

Not in Stereophile you don't. The readers' howls of outrage would
be deafening.

However, if one prefers the "rip and slash" tactics of Aczel..then, so
be it. That one treasures Aczel's opinion does tend to raise the
eyebrow!

To anyone of a scientific bent, any issue of Stereophile will exercise
the eyebrows far more vigorously than TAC.

As his targets would ebb and flow..so did the publication status.
After reading a few of the publications you begin to realize you're
involved with a rather bitter mindset with an axe to grind.

*You* begin to realize that. *I* realized that there is, at last,
someone publishing an audio magazine that *didn't* buy into the endless
nonsense of sighted comparison. As Aczel notes, even magazines that
publish 'good guys' like David Ranada (Sound & Vision), still also
publish dubious reviews based on sighted comparison of components that
require controlled comparison.

Ooooh...sighted comparison...can one drop any lower in this audio
domain than have this occur? How could anyone express any degree of
professionalism with these weird habits? This is the real "booger" in
the audio profession. So many of these misled Hi-Enders do it.

Indeed. Nicely summarized. Thanks.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director