Dennis Moore wrote:

Good point JA, you had the integrity to publish the review and
the tests that showed the real performance.Â*

I think you're setting the bar awfully low here. See my comments below.

And such is about
all that has been keeping me a reader of Stereophile the last
couple of years.

Dennis

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
news:9vMGc.36713$%_6.6021@attbi_s01...
"DennisÂ* Moore" wrote in message
...
I just wonder if JA still owned the magazine rather than working
for a large publishing owner, would he have said differently?

No. I said what I had to say just the way I intended to say it, both
in the review and in my "As We See It." With respect, I believe you all
need to remember just how it was you learned this ridiculous amplifier
had such poor measured performance.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I don't question the right of Stereophile to published unrestrained
praise--or even restrained praise--of anything they want. A large contingent
of Stereophile's readers want to know about the latest and greatest--and
they do not want to know that it is junk. So Atkinson was merely giving his
public what it wants.

The message those readers got, however, was, "This amp may not measure so
well, but it sounds great!" If John Atkinson thinks this amp is
"ridiculous," as he says here on RAHE, the message he sent to his readers
was something else entirely. He pulled his punches in the magazine; we can
only speculate as to why.

There's also a larger issue. This amp is perhaps the most sublime
manifestation ever conceived of what is wrong with high-end audio--the
triumph of marketing, glitz, and pseudo-technical bull**** over quality and
value, and the anointing of "golden-eared" reviewers whose judgment, if they
ever had any, goes south at the sight of a pricetag. Has there ever been a
better example of why high-end audio is the laughingstock of EE departments
from coast to coast?

Stereophile fashions itself a champion of the high end. Running a positive
review of an amp like this champions nothing but decadent excess. It's an
insult to the entire field, and to everyone who's ever tried to design a
quality component. It's also a disservice to every consumer who's out there
trying to find those quality components. Too bad the field doesn't have a
visible champion to stand up and say so.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/...ave/direct/01/

"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
news:CQVHc.62798$XM6.7819@attbi_s53...
Dennis Moore wrote:

Good point JA, you had the integrity to publish the review and
the tests that showed the real performance.Â

I think you're setting the bar awfully low here. See my comments below.

And such is about
all that has been keeping me a reader of Stereophile the last
couple of years.

Dennis

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
news:9vMGc.36713$%_6.6021@attbi_s01...
"Dennis Moore" wrote in message
...
I just wonder if JA still owned the magazine rather than working
for a large publishing owner, would he have said differently?

No. I said what I had to say just the way I intended to say it, both
in the review and in my "As We See It." With respect, I believe you
all
need to remember just how it was you learned this ridiculous amplifier
had such poor measured performance.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I don't question the right of Stereophile to published unrestrained
praise--or even restrained praise--of anything they want. A large
contingent
of Stereophile's readers want to know about the latest and greatest--and
they do not want to know that it is junk. So Atkinson was merely giving
his
public what it wants.

The message those readers got, however, was, "This amp may not measure so
well, but it sounds great!" If John Atkinson thinks this amp is
"ridiculous," as he says here on RAHE, the message he sent to his readers
was something else entirely. He pulled his punches in the magazine; we can
only speculate as to why.

There's also a larger issue. This amp is perhaps the most sublime
manifestation ever conceived of what is wrong with high-end audio--the
triumph of marketing, glitz, and pseudo-technical bull**** over quality
and
value, and the anointing of "golden-eared" reviewers whose judgment, if
they
ever had any, goes south at the sight of a pricetag. Has there ever been a
better example of why high-end audio is the laughingstock of EE
departments
from coast to coast?

Stereophile fashions itself a champion of the high end. Running a positive
review of an amp like this champions nothing but decadent excess. It's an
insult to the entire field, and to everyone who's ever tried to design a
quality component. It's also a disservice to every consumer who's out
there
trying to find those quality components. Too bad the field doesn't have a
visible champion to stand up and say so.


I'm sorry, Bob, but like many others here on RAHE, your underlying
assumption is that the typical audiophile is a sheep, simply willing to be
led around by the nose. In truth, they are usually well educated, affluent,
and perfectly able to make their own, usually intelligent decisions. I dare
say anybody interested in this amp would certainly give pause after seeing
Johns technical evaluation and conclusions. If they are still interested in
hearing it, they have been forewarned that technically it is subpar. Then
it is up to them. That's what a review magazine can and should do....give
the reader advice pro and con so that they can decide whether or not it is
worth the time and trouble to audition.

From: "Bob Marcus"
Date: 7/10/2004 10:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: CQVHc.62798$XM6.7819@attbi_s53

Dennis Moore wrote:

Good point JA, you had the integrity to publish the review and
the tests that showed the real performance.ÂÂ*

I think you're setting the bar awfully low here. See my comments below.

And such is about
all that has been keeping me a reader of Stereophile the last
couple of years.

Dennis

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
news:9vMGc.36713$%_6.6021@attbi_s01...
"DennisÂÂ* Moore" wrote in message
...
I just wonder if JA still owned the magazine rather than working
for a large publishing owner, would he have said differently?

No. I said what I had to say just the way I intended to say it, both
in the review and in my "As We See It." With respect, I believe you all
need to remember just how it was you learned this ridiculous amplifier
had such poor measured performance.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I don't question the right of Stereophile to published unrestrained
praise--or even restrained praise--of anything they want. A large contingent
of Stereophile's readers want to know about the latest and greatest--and
they do not want to know that it is junk. So Atkinson was merely giving his
public what it wants.

He was also allowing MF to publish his subjective impressions. It seems he was
being consistant with established protocol for Stereophile.


The message those readers got, however, was, "This amp may not measure so
well, but it sounds great!"

Hold on here. The mesage that was given was that the amp measured as
Stereophile claims and MF thought it sounded great without knowing how it
measured. You are presuming that readers are trusting MFs impressions to be
universal and not personal. I can say for myself that I have on more than one
occassion had different impressions of the same equipment as MF. I would not
ake his or any other persons impression as gospel. Anyone who does and plunks
down 350,000.00 bucks on an amp without an audition does so with all the
potential consequenses. Are you really worried about protecting such an
audiophile for Stereophile reviews?

If John Atkinson thinks this amp is
"ridiculous," as he says here on RAHE, the message he sent to his readers
was something else entirely.

I must have missed that. He said the amp was ridiculous?

He pulled his punches in the magazine; we can
only speculate as to why.

Looked to me like he simply reported the measurements. he did not comment on
the subjective performance did he?


There's also a larger issue. This amp is perhaps the most sublime
manifestation ever conceived of what is wrong with high-end audio--the
triumph of marketing, glitz, and pseudo-technical bull**** over quality and
value, and the anointing of "golden-eared" reviewers whose judgment, if they
ever had any, goes south at the sight of a pricetag.

I have seen a 650,000 SET from Italy. But really, what are you worried about?
How many people do you think are going to even consider purchasing this amp. I
think , in some ways it is kind of interesting to know it exists. But true
potential buyers are fools if they drop that kind of money on an amp based on a
review. Either that or they are so rich it just doesn't matter to them. I doubt
these amps are selling fast due to the Stereophile review.

Has there ever been a
better example of why high-end audio is the laughingstock of EE departments
from coast to coast?

Stereophile fashions itself a champion of the high end.

I did not know this. Is it stated in it's mission statement?

Running a positive
review of an amp like this champions nothing but decadent excess

What should an editor do when one of his reviewers likes a piece of equipment?
Sensor his review? If you allow someone to do a subjective review of any unit
you face the possibility that the reviewer may really like it.

It's an
insult to the entire field, and to everyone who's ever tried to design a
quality component.

Oh c'mon. It's one person's opinion. One persons preference is an insult to the
entire field? So much for respecting peoples' preferences.

It's also a disservice to every consumer who's out there
trying to find those quality components.

I am sure this review is not an obstacle for most audiophiles in their search
for better sound.

Too bad the field doesn't have a
visible champion to stand up and say so.

"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
news:CQVHc.62798$XM6.7819@attbi_s53...

Stereophile fashions itself a champion of the high end. Running a positive
review of an amp like this champions nothing but decadent excess. It's an
insult to the entire field, and to everyone who's ever tried to design a
quality component. It's also a disservice to every consumer who's out
there
trying to find those quality components. Too bad the field doesn't have a
visible champion to stand up and say so.


The greedy have taken over high-end audio; manufacturers, distributors,
dealers and reviewers alike. In this context, its to be appreciated when a
recording label produces a recording known to appeal to a small audience.

Mr. Marcus,

I pretty much agree with all you are saying. Still, they had the integrity
to state
their philosophy, do the review according to that philosophy, do the tests,
and
show you both. Without the testing, that they didn't have to do, you
wouldn't
have any idea as a reader, how ridiculous that amp was. If they had said in
this
case the logistics of moving and testing such a behemoth made it impractical
not many would have complained too much. But at great difficulty, JA had
the
testing done and published. Making it possible for you to have your opinion
with more information.

I don't too much mind people with other ideas, opinions and methodologies
if they are honest about it. Still may think them nuts or whatever, but
some
measure of respect is accorded that honesty.

I do feel JA pulled some punches. And wish I knew what he really thought
since he experienced the thing. Does he reconsider the philsophy they work
with now, or try and decide if it went wrong? Does he have some misgivings,
yet cannot publically admit them? I wish I knew. That would be showing
even more integrity. For if this episode hasn't given him pause he isn't as
smart as I thought he was. And I do believe his intelligence isn't lacking.

But everyone has the realities of their situation to live within.

Dennis

"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
news:CQVHc.62798$XM6.7819@attbi_s53...
Dennis Moore wrote:

Good point JA, you had the integrity to publish the review and
the tests that showed the real performance.Â

I think you're setting the bar awfully low here. See my comments below.

And such is about
all that has been keeping me a reader of Stereophile the last
couple of years.

Dennis

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
news:9vMGc.36713$%_6.6021@attbi_s01...
"Dennis Moore" wrote in message
...
I just wonder if JA still owned the magazine rather than working
for a large publishing owner, would he have said differently?

No. I said what I had to say just the way I intended to say it, both
in the review and in my "As We See It." With respect, I believe you
all
need to remember just how it was you learned this ridiculous amplifier
had such poor measured performance.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I don't question the right of Stereophile to published unrestrained
praise--or even restrained praise--of anything they want. A large
contingent
of Stereophile's readers want to know about the latest and greatest--and
they do not want to know that it is junk. So Atkinson was merely giving
his
public what it wants.

The message those readers got, however, was, "This amp may not measure so
well, but it sounds great!" If John Atkinson thinks this amp is
"ridiculous," as he says here on RAHE, the message he sent to his readers
was something else entirely. He pulled his punches in the magazine; we can
only speculate as to why.

There's also a larger issue. This amp is perhaps the most sublime
manifestation ever conceived of what is wrong with high-end audio--the
triumph of marketing, glitz, and pseudo-technical bull**** over quality
and
value, and the anointing of "golden-eared" reviewers whose judgment, if
they
ever had any, goes south at the sight of a pricetag. Has there ever been a
better example of why high-end audio is the laughingstock of EE
departments
from coast to coast?

Stereophile fashions itself a champion of the high end. Running a positive
review of an amp like this champions nothing but decadent excess. It's an
insult to the entire field, and to everyone who's ever tried to design a
quality component. It's also a disservice to every consumer who's out
there
trying to find those quality components. Too bad the field doesn't have a
visible champion to stand up and say so.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar Â- get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/...ave/direct/01/

On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 05:33:05 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
news:CQVHc.62798$XM6.7819@attbi_s53...

There's also a larger issue. This amp is perhaps the most sublime
manifestation ever conceived of what is wrong with high-end audio--the
triumph of marketing, glitz, and pseudo-technical bull**** over quality and
value, and the anointing of "golden-eared" reviewers whose judgment, if they
ever had any, goes south at the sight of a pricetag. Has there ever been a
better example of why high-end audio is the laughingstock of EE departments
from coast to coast?

Um, Kimber 'Black Pearl' cables at $1,000 a foot, perhaps? :-)

Stereophile fashions itself a champion of the high end. Running a positive
review of an amp like this champions nothing but decadent excess. It's an
insult to the entire field, and to everyone who's ever tried to design a
quality component. It's also a disservice to every consumer who's out there
trying to find those quality components. Too bad the field doesn't have a
visible champion to stand up and say so.

I'm sorry, Bob, but like many others here on RAHE, your underlying
assumption is that the typical audiophile is a sheep, simply willing to be
led around by the nose.

That's not an assumption, it's an observation................

In truth, they are usually well educated, affluent,
and perfectly able to make their own, usually intelligent decisions.

So why does all this ability apparently collapse at the sight of a TAS
or S'pile review? Why is there such a thing as a 'high end' cable
industry?

I dare
say anybody interested in this amp would certainly give pause after seeing
Johns technical evaluation and conclusions. If they are still interested in
hearing it, they have been forewarned that technically it is subpar.

Subpar? That's like saying that a Rolls-Royce which is actually
powered by a 50cc Honda lawnmower engine is 'subpar'!

powered Then
it is up to them. That's what a review magazine can and should do....give
the reader advice pro and con so that they can decide whether or not it is
worth the time and trouble to audition.

And in this case, they should simply have laughed in the supplier's
face, then told their readers that the amp is ludicrously
underpowered, hilariously overpriced, and not worth bothering about
unless you have Lowther speakers.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:lwfIc.56901$MB3.2180@attbi_s04...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 05:33:05 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
news:CQVHc.62798$XM6.7819@attbi_s53...

There's also a larger issue. This amp is perhaps the most sublime
manifestation ever conceived of what is wrong with high-end audio--the
triumph of marketing, glitz, and pseudo-technical bull**** over quality
and
value, and the anointing of "golden-eared" reviewers whose judgment, if
they
ever had any, goes south at the sight of a pricetag. Has there ever
been a
better example of why high-end audio is the laughingstock of EE
departments
from coast to coast?

Um, Kimber 'Black Pearl' cables at $1,000 a foot, perhaps? :-)

Stereophile fashions itself a champion of the high end. Running a
positive
review of an amp like this champions nothing but decadent excess. It's
an
insult to the entire field, and to everyone who's ever tried to design
a
quality component. It's also a disservice to every consumer who's out
there
trying to find those quality components. Too bad the field doesn't have
a
visible champion to stand up and say so.

I'm sorry, Bob, but like many others here on RAHE, your underlying
assumption is that the typical audiophile is a sheep, simply willing to
be
led around by the nose.

That's not an assumption, it's an observation................


Well then, tell us what you *observe* that leads to that assumption.
Observations do not denigrate; the assumptions about the observations do.
You have just confirmed my observation about some of the opinions here.

In truth, they are usually well educated, affluent,
and perfectly able to make their own, usually intelligent decisions.

So why does all this ability apparently collapse at the sight of a TAS
or S'pile review? Why is there such a thing as a 'high end' cable
industry?


Care to sight specifics of when you have seen an audiophile *collapse* at
the sight of a Stereophile or TAS reveiw? And incidentally, how long has
it been since you've even read these mags regularly to be able to speak of
them and their readers with such authority?

I dare
say anybody interested in this amp would certainly give pause after
seeing
Johns technical evaluation and conclusions. If they are still interested
in
hearing it, they have been forewarned that technically it is subpar.

Subpar? That's like saying that a Rolls-Royce which is actually
powered by a 50cc Honda lawnmower engine is 'subpar'!

powered Then
it is up to them. That's what a review magazine can and should
do....give
the reader advice pro and con so that they can decide whether or not it
is
worth the time and trouble to audition.

And in this case, they should simply have laughed in the supplier's
face, then told their readers that the amp is ludicrously
underpowered, hilariously overpriced, and not worth bothering about
unless you have Lowther speakers.


They provided the information. Again, the readers are not sheep. They can
decide.

Harry Lavo wrote:

I'm sorry, Bob, but like many others here on RAHE, your underlying
assumption is that the typical audiophile is a sheep, simply willing to be
led around by the nose.

Not really. I do think that a fair proportion of Stereophile readers really
need the validation of someone else's opinion (preferably an "expert's")
about what to buy, but I'm not worried about people being misled into buying
this particular amp. My criticism was more about what WASN'T said in the
magazine.

* In truth, they are usually well educated, affluent,
and perfectly able to make their own, usually intelligent decisions.*

The unscientific sample I see reflected on the Web suggests to me that they
are, on average, definitely affluent, but no more technologically savvy than
the typical American--which isn't saying much. In other words, some are
extremely knowledgeable, and others shouldn't be allowed near an electrical
outlet.

I dare
say anybody interested in this amp would certainly give pause after seeing
Johns technical evaluation and conclusions.* If they are still interested
in
hearing it, they have been forewarned that technically it is subpar.* Then
it is up to them.* That's what a review magazine can and should do....give
the reader advice pro and con so that they can decide whether or not it is
worth the time and trouble to audition.

I don't think you can say that about this particular review. Whatever the
editorial justification for devoting 6 pages to this thing, it certainly
wasn't to help anybody make purchasing decisions.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/...ave/direct/01/

S888Wheel wrote:

From: "Bob Marcus"
Date: 7/10/2004 10:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: CQVHc.62798$XM6.7819@attbi_s53

Dennis Moore wrote:

Good point JA, you had the integrity to publish the review and
the tests that showed the real performance.ÂÂ*

I think you're setting the bar awfully low here. See my comments below.

And such is about
all that has been keeping me a reader of Stereophile the last
couple of years.

Dennis

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
news:9vMGc.36713$%_6.6021@attbi_s01...
"DennisÂÂ* Moore" wrote in message
...
I just wonder if JA still owned the magazine rather than working
for a large publishing owner, would he have said differently?

No. I said what I had to say just the way I intended to say it, both
in the review and in my "As We See It." With respect, I believe you
all
need to remember just how it was you learned this ridiculous
amplifier
had such poor measured performance.

Right there, Wheels. (See below.)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I don't question the right of Stereophile to published unrestrained
praise--or even restrained praise--of anything they want. A large
contingent
of Stereophile's readers want to know about the latest and greatest--and
they do not want to know that it is junk. So Atkinson was merely giving
his
public what it wants.

He was also allowing MF to publish his subjective impressions. It seems he
was
being consistant with established protocol for Stereophile.


The message those readers got, however, was, "This amp may not measure so
well, but it sounds great!"

Hold on here. The mesage that was given was that the amp measured as
Stereophile claims and MF thought it sounded great without knowing how it
measured. You are presuming that readers are trusting MFs impressions to be
universal and not personal. I can say for myself that I have on more than
one
occassion had different impressions of the same equipment as MF. I would
not
ake his or any other persons impression as gospel. Anyone who does and
plunks
down 350,000.00 bucks on an amp without an audition does so with all the
potential consequenses. Are you really worried about protecting such an
audiophile for Stereophile reviews?

No. I'm criticizing the editor for failing to tell his readers what he
really thought about the amp.

* If John Atkinson thinks this amp is
"ridiculous," as he says here on RAHE, the message he sent to his readers
was something else entirely.

I must have missed that. He said the amp was ridiculous?

Yep. Quoted in the message above.

* He pulled his punches in the magazine; we can
only speculate as to why.

Looked to me like he simply reported the measurements. he did not comment
on
the subjective performance did he?

Actually, he did:

"And yes, Mikey was knocked out by the Wavac's sound (though Mikey's and my
positive opinions of its sound require some bending of the concept of
"accuracy")."


There's also a larger issue. This amp is perhaps the most sublime
manifestation ever conceived of what is wrong with high-end audio--the
triumph of marketing, glitz, and pseudo-technical bull**** over quality
and
value, and the anointing of "golden-eared" reviewers whose judgment, if
they
ever had any, goes south at the sight of a pricetag.

I have seen a 650,000 SET from Italy. But really, what are you worried
about?
How many people do you think are going to even consider purchasing this
amp. I
think , in some ways it is kind of interesting to know it exists. But true
potential buyers are fools if they drop that kind of money on an amp based
on
a
review. Either that or they are so rich it just doesn't matter to them. I
doubt
these amps are selling fast due to the Stereophile review.

* Has there ever been a
better example of why high-end audio is the laughingstock of EE
departments
from coast to coast?

Stereophile fashions itself a champion of the high end.

I did not know this. Is it stated in it's mission statement?

* Running a positive
review of an amp like this champions nothing but decadent excess

What should an editor do when one of his reviewers likes a piece of
equipment?
Sensor his review? If you allow someone to do a subjective review of any
unit
you face the possibility that the reviewer may really like it.

What I think an editor *shouldn't* do is devote 6 pages of his magazine to
reviewing a product he considers "ridiculous," and not telling his readers
he considers it ridiculous.

* It's an
insult to the entire field, and to everyone who's ever tried to design a
quality component.

Oh c'mon. It's one person's opinion. One persons preference is an insult to
the
entire field? So much for respecting peoples' preferences.

My primary criticism is with the editorial decision to give this joke of a
product such prominent play.

* It's also a disservice to every consumer who's out there
trying to find those quality components.

I am sure this review is not an obstacle for most audiophiles in their
search
for better sound.

To the extent that it reinforces such widely held notions as that
"measurements don't matter" and that high-priced boutique products are
inherently better than "mass-market junk," I think it disserves the less
technologically sophisticated end of Stereophile's readership.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/g...ave/direct/01/

From: "Bob Marcus"
Date: 7/11/2004 7:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

From: "Bob Marcus"
Date: 7/10/2004 10:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: CQVHc.62798$XM6.7819@attbi_s53

Dennis Moore wrote:

Good point JA, you had the integrity to publish the review and
the tests that showed the real performance.ÂÂÂÂ*

I think you're setting the bar awfully low here. See my comments below.

And such is about
all that has been keeping me a reader of Stereophile the last
couple of years.

Dennis

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
news:9vMGc.36713$%_6.6021@attbi_s01...
"DennisÂÂÂÂ* Moore" wrote in message
...
I just wonder if JA still owned the magazine rather than working
for a large publishing owner, would he have said differently?

No. I said what I had to say just the way I intended to say it, both
in the review and in my "As We See It." With respect, I believe you
all
need to remember just how it was you learned this ridiculous
amplifier
had such poor measured performance.

Right there, Wheels. (See below.)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I don't question the right of Stereophile to published unrestrained
praise--or even restrained praise--of anything they want. A large
contingent
of Stereophile's readers want to know about the latest and greatest--and
they do not want to know that it is junk. So Atkinson was merely giving
his
public what it wants.

He was also allowing MF to publish his subjective impressions. It seems he
was
being consistant with established protocol for Stereophile.


The message those readers got, however, was, "This amp may not measure so
well, but it sounds great!"

Hold on here. The mesage that was given was that the amp measured as
Stereophile claims and MF thought it sounded great without knowing how it
measured. You are presuming that readers are trusting MFs impressions to be
universal and not personal. I can say for myself that I have on more than
one
occassion had different impressions of the same equipment as MF. I would
not
ake his or any other persons impression as gospel. Anyone who does and
plunks
down 350,000.00 bucks on an amp without an audition does so with all the
potential consequenses. Are you really worried about protecting such an
audiophile for Stereophile reviews?

No. I'm criticizing the editor for failing to tell his readers what he
really thought about the amp.

What does JA think about the sonic performance of the amp? I do not presume to
know this. Has he told you something he hasn't old the rest of us?


ÂÂ* If John Atkinson thinks this amp is
"ridiculous," as he says here on RAHE, the message he sent to his readers
was something else entirely.

I must have missed that. He said the amp was ridiculous?

Yep. Quoted in the message above.

Sorry I am still not seeing it in any quoted text.


ÂÂ* He pulled his punches in the magazine; we can
only speculate as to why.

Looked to me like he simply reported the measurements. he did not comment
on
the subjective performance did he?

Actually, he did:

Hmm. It was my impression that he did not actually listen to the amps.


"And yes, Mikey was knocked out by the Wavac's sound (though Mikey's and my
positive opinions of its sound require some bending of the concept of
"accuracy")."

OK this does imply that he listened to them but it implies that he liked them.
Interesting though, I remeber JA saying the amps were to big to measure both of
them and so he simply measured one of them. I wonder when he listened to them
if he only measured one.



There's also a larger issue. This amp is perhaps the most sublime
manifestation ever conceived of what is wrong with high-end audio--the
triumph of marketing, glitz, and pseudo-technical bull**** over quality
and
value, and the anointing of "golden-eared" reviewers whose judgment, if
they
ever had any, goes south at the sight of a pricetag.

I have seen a 650,000 SET from Italy. But really, what are you worried
about?
How many people do you think are going to even consider purchasing this
amp. I
think , in some ways it is kind of interesting to know it exists. But true
potential buyers are fools if they drop that kind of money on an amp based
on
a
review. Either that or they are so rich it just doesn't matter to them. I
doubt
these amps are selling fast due to the Stereophile review.

ÂÂ* Has there ever been a
better example of why high-end audio is the laughingstock of EE
departments
from coast to coast?

Stereophile fashions itself a champion of the high end.

I did not know this. Is it stated in it's mission statement?

ÂÂ* Running a positive
review of an amp like this champions nothing but decadent excess

What should an editor do when one of his reviewers likes a piece of
equipment?
Sensor his review? If you allow someone to do a subjective review of any
unit
you face the possibility that the reviewer may really like it.

What I think an editor *shouldn't* do is devote 6 pages of his magazine to
reviewing a product he considers "ridiculous," and not telling his readers
he considers it ridiculous.

Again I am missing something. He told you it was ridiculous? Where is the
quoted text? I haven't found it.


ÂÂ* It's an
insult to the entire field, and to everyone who's ever tried to design a
quality component.

Oh c'mon. It's one person's opinion. One persons preference is an insult to
the
entire field? So much for respecting peoples' preferences.

My primary criticism is with the editorial decision to give this joke of a
product such prominent play.

ÂÂ* It's also a disservice to every consumer who's out there
trying to find those quality components.

I am sure this review is not an obstacle for most audiophiles in their
search
for better sound.

To the extent that it reinforces such widely held notions as that
"measurements don't matter" and that high-priced boutique products are
inherently better than "mass-market junk," I think it disserves the less
technologically sophisticated end of Stereophile's readership.

bob

_________________________________________________ ________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/g...ave/direct/01/

Wheeler: Pay Attention! The key graf is coming up soon:

S888Wheel wrote:

From: "Bob Marcus"
Date: 7/11/2004 7:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

From: "Bob Marcus"
Date: 7/10/2004 10:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: CQVHc.62798$XM6.7819@attbi_s53

Dennis Moore wrote:

Good point JA, you had the integrity to publish the review and
the tests that showed the real performance.Ãâ€ÂsÂÂÂ*

I think you're setting the bar awfully low here. See my comments
below.

And such is about
all that has been keeping me a reader of Stereophile the last
couple of years.

Dennis

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
news:9vMGc.36713$%_6.6021@attbi_s01...
"DennisÃâ€ÂsÂÂÂ* Moore" wrote in
message
...
I just wonder if JA still owned the magazine rather than working
for a large publishing owner, would he have said differently?

Here it comes, Scott. This is where JA calls the Wavac ridiculous:

No. I said what I had to say just the way I intended to say it,
both
in the review and in my "As We See It." With respect, I believe
you
all
need to remember just how it was you learned this ridiculous
amplifier
had such poor measured performance.

Got it now? Good.

Right there, Wheels. (See below.)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I don't question the right of Stereophile to published unrestrained
praise--or even restrained praise--of anything they want. A large
contingent
of Stereophile's readers want to know about the latest and
greatest--and
they do not want to know that it is junk. So Atkinson was merely
giving
his
public what it wants.

He was also allowing MF to publish his subjective impressions. It seems
he
was
being consistant with established protocol for Stereophile.


The message those readers got, however, was, "This amp may not measure
so
well, but it sounds great!"

Hold on here. The mesage that was given was that the amp measured as
Stereophile claims and MF thought it sounded great without knowing how
it
measured. You are presuming that readers are trusting MFs impressions to
be
universal and not personal. I can say for myself that I have on more
than
one
occassion had different impressions of the same equipment as MF. I would
not
ake his or any other persons impression as gospel. Anyone who does and
plunks
down 350,000.00 bucks on an amp without an audition does so with all the
potential consequenses. Are you really worried about protecting such an
audiophile for Stereophile reviews?

No. I'm criticizing the editor for failing to tell his readers what he
really thought about the amp.

What does JA think about the sonic performance of the amp? I do not presume
to
know this. Has he told you something he hasn't old the rest of us?

I presume you've figured out your mistake here.


ÂÂ* If John Atkinson thinks this amp is
"ridiculous," as he says here on RAHE, the message he sent to his
readers
was something else entirely.

I must have missed that. He said the amp was ridiculous?

Yep. Quoted in the message above.

Sorry I am still not seeing it in any quoted text.

Surely you do now.


ÂÂ* He pulled his punches in the magazine; we can
only speculate as to why.

Looked to me like he simply reported the measurements. he did not
comment
on
the subjective performance did he?

Actually, he did:

Hmm. It was my impression that he did not actually listen to the amps.

Well, you'd be wrong then, wouldn't you? :-)


"And yes, Mikey was knocked out by the Wavac's sound (though Mikey's and
my
positive opinions of its sound require some bending of the concept of
"accuracy")."

OK this does imply that he listened to them but it implies that he liked
them.
Interesting though, I remeber JA saying the amps were to big to measure
both
of
them and so he simply measured one of them. I wonder when he listened to
them
if he only measured one.

Now you're implying that JA wasn't being honest when he said he listened to
them. That's not very nice.

Perhaps now you see my point: That what JA told his readers doesn't mesh
with the opinion he expressed in this forum.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
MSN Life Events gives you the tips and tools to handle the turning points in
your life. http://lifeevents.msn.com

From: "Bob Marcus" =20
Date: 7/13/2004 3:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Wheeler: Pay Attention! The key graf is coming up soon:

S888Wheel wrote:

From: "Bob Marcus"
Date: 7/11/2004 7:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

From: "Bob Marcus"
Date: 7/10/2004 10:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: CQVHc.62798$XM6.7819@attbi_s53

Dennis Moore wrote:

Good point JA, you had the integrity to publish the review and
the tests that showed the real
performance.=C3=83=C6=92=C3=82=C6=92=C3=83=C2=A2=C 3=82=E2=82=AC=C3=82s=C3=
=83=C6=92=C3=82=E2=80=9A=C3=83=E2=80=9A=C3=82=C2=A 0

I think you're setting the bar awfully low here. See my comments=20
below.

And such is about
all that has been keeping me a reader of Stereophile the last
couple of years.

Dennis

"John Atkinson" wrote in mess=
age
news:9vMGc.36713$%_6.6021@attbi_s01...
"Dennis=C3=83=C6=92=C3=82=C6=92=C3=83=C2=A2=C3=82= E2=82=AC=C3=82=
s=C3=83=C6=92=C3=82=E2=80=9A=C3=83=E2=80=9A=C3=82= C2=A0 Moore"
wrote in=20
message
...
I just wonder if JA still owned the magazine rather than wor=
king
for a large publishing owner, would he have said differently=
?

Here it comes, Scott. This is where JA calls the Wavac ridiculous:

No. I said what I had to say just the way I intended to say it=
,=20
both
in the review and in my "As We See It." With respect, I believ=
e=20
you
all
need to remember just how it was you learned this ridiculous
amplifier
had such poor measured performance.

Got it now? Good.

Yes thanks for pointing it out. I don't think it is clear that he thinks =
the
amp is ridiculous or if he is poking fun at the folks who are so upset ab=
out
this review. Imagine for a moment the same sentence with a tone of sarcas=
m. I'm
not sure he is trying to tell us he thinks the amp is really ridiculous.


Right there, Wheels. (See below.)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I don't question the right of Stereophile to published unrestraine=
d
praise--or even restrained praise--of anything they want. A large
contingent
of Stereophile's readers want to know about the latest and=20
greatest--and
they do not want to know that it is junk. So Atkinson was merely=20
giving
his
public what it wants.

He was also allowing MF to publish his subjective impressions. It se=
ems=20
he
was
being consistant with established protocol for Stereophile.


The message those readers got, however, was, "This amp may not mea=
sure=20
so
well, but it sounds great!"

Hold on here. The mesage that was given was that the amp measured as
Stereophile claims and MF thought it sounded great without knowing h=
ow=20
it
measured. You are presuming that readers are trusting MFs impression=
s to=20
be
universal and not personal. I can say for myself that I have on more=
=20
than
one
occassion had different impressions of the same equipment as MF. I w=
ould
not
ake his or any other persons impression as gospel. Anyone who does a=
nd
plunks
down 350,000.00 bucks on an amp without an audition does so with all=
the
potential consequenses. Are you really worried about protecting such=
an
audiophile for Stereophile reviews?

No. I'm criticizing the editor for failing to tell his readers what h=
e
really thought about the amp.

What does JA think about the sonic performance of the amp? I do not pre=
sume=20
to
know this. Has he told you something he hasn't old the rest of us?

I presume you've figured out your mistake here.

On whether or not he listened to it? Yes, I have figured out my mistake. =
He did
indeed listen to it.



=C3=83=E2=80=9A=C3=82=C2=A0 If John Atkinson thinks this amp is
"ridiculous," as he says here on RAHE, the message he sent to his=20
readers
was something else entirely.

I must have missed that. He said the amp was ridiculous?

Yep. Quoted in the message above.

Sorry I am still not seeing it in any quoted text.

Surely you do now.

Yes I see it. I am not sure if it were meant to be taken as a shot at trh=
e amp
though. It looks more like JA is taking issue with those who are upset ab=
out
the review.



=C3=83=E2=80=9A=C3=82=C2=A0 He pulled his punches in the magazine; w=
e can
only speculate as to why.

Looked to me like he simply reported the measurements. he did not=20
comment
on
the subjective performance did he?

Actually, he did:

You are correct.=20


Hmm. It was my impression that he did not actually listen to the amps.

Well, you'd be wrong then, wouldn't you? :-)

Yes I would.



"And yes, Mikey was knocked out by the Wavac's sound (though Mikey's =
and=20
my
positive opinions of its sound require some bending of the concept of
"accuracy")."

OK this does imply that he listened to them but it implies that he like=
d=20
them.
Interesting though, I remeber JA saying the amps were to big to measure=
=20
both
of
them and so he simply measured one of them. I wonder when he listened t=
o=20
them
if he only measured one.

Now you're implying that JA wasn't being honest when he said he listened=
to=20
them. That's not very nice.

I am not implying any such thing. My memory failed me. Nothing more nothi=
ng
less.


Perhaps now you see my point: That what JA told his readers doesn't mesh=
=20
with the opinion he expressed in this forum.

I see the quote.Thank you again. I am skeptical of the point though.

(S888Wheel) wrote in message
news:ljLIc.43700$WX.33552@attbi_s51...
I remember JA saying the amps were to big to measure both of them
and so he simply measured one of them. I wonder when he listened
to them if he only measured one.

Hi Scott, I audtioned the Wavacs in Michael Fremer's system before
I took one to my place for measurement. (Nil illegitimati carborundum)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile