| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The little magazines
Bert Whyte used to contemptuously refer to Stereophile and TAS as the
little magazines. However most cognoscenti wpuld agree that they are now the "largest" mags left for the serious audiophile. How is it that stereophile alone absorbs all the flak about what is wrong in audio publishing. TAS doessn't show on the radar screen at all. Why is this? Is TAS no longer relevant to the bulk of contempary audio discussion? Or is it that they are spot on in all their reviews, comments, focus etc., ANyone care to comment? |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
... Bert Whyte used to contemptuously refer to Stereophile and TAS as the little magazines. However most cognoscenti wpuld agree that they are now the "largest" mags left for the serious audiophile. How is it that stereophile alone absorbs all the flak about what is wrong in audio publishing. TAS doessn't show on the radar screen at all. Why is this? Is TAS no longer relevant to the bulk of contempary audio discussion? Or is it that they are spot on in all their reviews, comments, focus etc., ANyone care to comment? In my case, Stereophile is cheaper and has more information in it. I regard that as a good reason to buy the one and not the other. It also happens to be that I have a higher regard for John Atkinson than I do for the fella at Absolute Sound. Both magazines have their collection of kooks*, but that seems to be all there is at TAS, where none of the BS is leavened by actual measurements. *I use the word "kooks" as a term of mild endearment. Norm Strong |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
... wrote: How is it that stereophile alone absorbs all the flak about what is wrong in audio publishing? At least as far as the Newsgroups are concerned, I believe it is due at least in part to the fact that I take to the time to respond to Stereophile's critics. :-) John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Not only that, John, but you also have a critic in Nousaine who periodically fans the flames. Harry Pearson used to occasionally lurk here (may be still does) but does not participate, and since most objectivists here dismiss the magazine (their mistake, despite some egregious errors of judgment from time to time) there is no controversy .... it is one hand clapping in the wilderness. My hat is off to you for taking the time to confront and stand your ground. From one who does the same, I know you can learn from the exchanges and only hope that those with differing positions can also learn from them (although in my despairing moments I doubt it. It is difficult to do when you are convinced you have a lock on "the truth".) |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
"normanstrong" wrote in
message ... snip In my case, Stereophile is cheaper and has more information in it. I regard that as a good reason to buy the one and not the other. It also happens to be that I have a higher regard for John Atkinson than I do for the fella at Absolute Sound. Both magazines have their collection of kooks*, but that seems to be all there is at TAS, where none of the BS is leavened by actual measurements. *I use the word "kooks" as a term of mild endearment. A little bio on two of the "non-kooks" who regularly write for TAS: _Robert E. Greene_: Professor of Mathematics at UCLA, also teaches an honors course in acoustics and psychoacoustics. Violin instructor (taught Russell Crowe for the movie Master and Commander). _Anthony H. Cordesman_: Professor of National Security Studies at Georgetown University. Served as Assistant for National Security to Senator John McCain, and in senior positions in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the State Department, the Department of Energy, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. And is known to a wider audience as Tony Cordesman, military analyst for ABC News (been seeing a lot of him lately ;^). Regards, Tip |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
michael wrote:
On 16 Dec 2004 02:43:22 GMT, wrote: Bert Whyte used to contemptuously refer to Stereophile and TAS as the little magazines. However most cognoscenti wpuld agree that they are now the "largest" mags left for the serious audiophile. How is it that stereophile alone absorbs all the flak about what is wrong in audio publishing. TAS doessn't show on the radar screen at all. Why is this? Is TAS no longer relevant to the bulk of contempary audio discussion? I think when TAS first came out there was some reason to read it. Back in those days there WERE some really bad components. Also, everything was electro-mechanical and a potential source of "difference" in the sound department. But, as Hunter Thompson once remarked, "when things turn weird the weird turn pro," and soon TAS turned really weird. I remember reading a reviewer named Enid Lumley (sp?) once. She was doing all kinds of bizarre things to her listening room in order to damp out mysterious entities unknown to anyone. I thought it was Harry with a sense of humor writing under a pseudonym and making fun of his own style in a kind of parody. But I was told that this was meant to be "serious" reviewing. From that point on I pretty much stopped reading the magazine. Perhaps I was told wrong? If Enid is the lady who advised the removal of any and all metal objects from the listening room and their replacement, if necessary, with wood, then I do recall that it was meant in all seriousness. TAS is still *seriously* off the reality-scale. I had forgotten just how wacky its alternate world is until I delved into their current issue. The one bright light of sanity there was a roundtable discussion where Dave Wilson of WATT speaker fame made mincemeat of the bizarre beliefs of fellow participant Ivor whatsisname of Linn (who came off as a pompous, ignorant ass, IMO), and trashed Mark Levinson's patently ridiculous claim about the physiological danger of PCM. -- -S Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 17 Dec 2004 21:32:52 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
wrote in message ... wrote: How is it that stereophile alone absorbs all the flak about what is wrong in audio publishing? At least as far as the Newsgroups are concerned, I believe it is due at least in part to the fact that I take to the time to respond to Stereophile's critics. :-) John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Not only that, John, but you also have a critic in Nousaine who periodically fans the flames. Harry Pearson used to occasionally lurk here (may be still does) but does not participate, and since most objectivists here dismiss the magazine (their mistake, despite some egregious errors of judgment from time to time) there is no controversy .... it is one hand clapping in the wilderness. My hat is off to you for taking the time to confront and stand your ground. From one who does the same, I know you can learn from the exchanges and only hope that those with differing positions can also learn from them (although in my despairing moments I doubt it. It is difficult to do when you are convinced you have a lock on "the truth".) Trouble is that he doesn't seem to have a lock on *anything*, and will not make *any* statement regarding the audibility of items promoted vigorously in the Stereophile RCL, adide from a stream of eenials that it's anything to do with him, he's only the editor(!). You call that 'standing your ground', I call it avoiding your responsibility. Of course, JA does have a lock on the truth - obviously, he *knows* that all that garbage in the RCL about cables and power amps is utter nonsense, but no way will he say so in a public forum. Hence, he's reduced to ducking the issue, and there's no way anyone is ever going to get him to stand up and try to *prove* his magazine's case - because he already knows that the result would be the public humiliation of his 'Golden Ear' reviewers. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message ... wrote: How is it that stereophile alone absorbs all the flak about what is wrong in audio publishing? At least as far as the Newsgroups are concerned, I believe it is due at least in part to the fact that I take to the time to respond to Stereophile's critics. :-) John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Not only that, John, but you also have a critic in Nousaine who periodically fans the flames. Harry Pearson used to occasionally lurk here (may be still does) but does not participate, and since most objectivists here dismiss the magazine (their mistake, despite some egregious errors of judgment from time to time) there is no controversy .... it is one hand clapping in the wilderness. Ya know... asking someone to stand behind their claims in the media with REAL Facts and data (after all, these magazines DO indeed present their OPINIONS in the various venues as FACTUAL, rather than OPINION, notwithstanding the waterfall plots and other pseudo-testing presented ad nauseum to somehow validate their "expertise") is not really asking too much... if Stereophile and TAS (among others) want to be reduced to the level of Nicolodeon magazine and PC Gamer, that's great.. that's about the level of entertainment I get from them when I buy them once a year on vacation for toilet reading. My hat is off to you for taking the time to confront and stand your ground. From one who does the same, I know you can learn from the exchanges and only hope that those with differing positions can also learn from them (although in my despairing moments I doubt it. It is difficult to do when you are convinced you have a lock on "the truth".) I don't think the "objectivists", which you and others so pejoratively disdain, proclaim any such "truth"; au contraire, they merely insist on independent, unbiased validation of wild claims of the supernatural, paranormal "golden ear" cause/effect phenomena bantied about as the holy grail (and justification for ridiculous pricing structures) so prevalent in the "high end" of audio. It's curious that, more often than not, ad hominen attacks originate from the "believers" aginst the "objectivists. Of course, should "Stereophile Editor" proclaim such a position, his advertising revenue would dry up. Simple economics is the answer. John L. Auplater |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
B&D wrote:
While they claim that so-called "subjectivists" are biased to "hear" differences where there are none, there is no admission that there seems to be a bias to NOT hear a difference where one might exist. Poppycock. There is published experimental data that shows that all people (not just "subjectivists") are biased toward hearing differences. See any psychoacoustics textbook. Where is your evidence that a bias in the opposite direction exists? (And do you understand yet what "bias" in this context means? See my previous response to you.) The ABX and DBT might be able to proof against the former bias, but won't help one bit with the latter. There ain't a fountain of truth at the disposal of either warring camps, folks. Spoken like a pot to a kettle. See above. bob |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
B&D wrote:
On 12/19/04 10:56 AM, in article , "John A. Lichtenberger" wrote: Harry Lavo wrote: wrote in message ... wrote: How is it that stereophile alone absorbs all the flak about what is wrong in audio publishing? At least as far as the Newsgroups are concerned, I believe it is due at least in part to the fact that I take to the time to respond to Stereophile's critics. :-) John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Not only that, John, but you also have a critic in Nousaine who periodically fans the flames. Harry Pearson used to occasionally lurk here (may be still does) but does not participate, and since most objectivists here dismiss the magazine (their mistake, despite some egregious errors of judgment from time to time) there is no controversy .... it is one hand clapping in the wilderness. Ya know... asking someone to stand behind their claims in the media with REAL Facts and data (after all, these magazines DO indeed present their OPINIONS in the various venues as FACTUAL, rather than OPINION, In the same way I might say: "I ate at Carl's Jr. and the hamburgers tasted bad." I am stating it as a fact - even though you might like them just fine. I have neither betrayed journalistic trust, nor have I been deceptive in the least. Would any restaurant review magazine publish that opinion of yours? Would any editior of such magazines stand by your claim? You truly don't see the difference? Amazing. So what, if you haven't figured out it is an opinion, then I have an excellent beachfront property opportunity in Arizona for you to consider. More amazement, if you can't see the difference. Also, you just insulted Stereophile by implying that their reviewers are con artists. (snip) answer. Ah, but there is so much more than that here - it isn't a mere and humble quest for truth. They aren't nearly as objective on this NG as their philosophy states. While they claim that so-called "subjectivists" are biased to "hear" differences where there are none, there is no admission that there seems to be a bias to NOT hear a difference where one might exist. The ABX and DBT might be able to proof against the former bias, but won't help one bit with the latter. You still seem to be missing the point. That's why the so-called "objectivists" always ask the subjectivists and the believers to take the DBT's, since there would be no bias to NOT hear the difference! Hey, some of us even put up our own money to motivate them. |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
B&D wrote:
On 12/19/04 10:56 AM, in article , "John A. While they claim that so-called "subjectivists" are biased to "hear" differences where there are none, there is no admission that there seems to be a bias to NOT hear a difference where one might exist. The ABX and DBT might be able to proof against the former bias, but won't help one bit with the latter. First, it isn;t just 'subjectivbists' who are biased to hear differecnce; it's humans, period. Seocnd, are you seriously suggesting that when self-proclaimed *audiophiles* who *already claim to hear the difference -- the population from which the *great majority* of published blind testees has been drawn (most recent example: he power cord DBT conducted by Secrets -- are subjected to controlled comparisons, that the result is due to bias *not* to hear difference? -- -S If you're a nut and knock on enough doors, eventually someone will open one, look at you and say, Messiah, we have waited for your arrival. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
"While they claim that so-called "subjectivists" are biased to "hear"
differences where there are none, there is no admission that there seems to be a bias to NOT hear a difference where one might exist. The ABX and DBT might be able to proof against the former bias, but won't help one bit with the latter. There ain't a fountain of truth at the disposal of either warring camps, folks." Testing shows that people are biased to percieve difference when given the same stimulus, such as a sound event. Bias here only means potential and not an unfounded opinion as in common language. "Truth" in the example of using listening testing alone to detect differences is relative to the established benchmark. In science we never get absolute "truth" such as in philosophy, we hold some conclusion as valid until demonstrated false. In that case the "truth" statement is irrelevant unless meaning that both the conclusions of the subjective enterprise and the benchmark based enterprise both are confronted by loads of evidence showing both to be false. Only the benchmark view has evidence that is repeatable under controled settings in which such evidence can be produced. Considering that the subjective entrprise refuses to participate in evidence gathering their conclusions are neither repeatable nor can we establish evidence by which to refute them; which is of course the point. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: Chung
Date: 12/19/2004 4:31 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: B&D wrote: On 12/19/04 10:56 AM, in article , "John A. Lichtenberger" wrote: Harry Lavo wrote: wrote in message ... wrote: How is it that stereophile alone absorbs all the flak about what is wrong in audio publishing? At least as far as the Newsgroups are concerned, I believe it is due at least in part to the fact that I take to the time to respond to Stereophile's critics. :-) John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Not only that, John, but you also have a critic in Nousaine who periodically fans the flames. Harry Pearson used to occasionally lurk here (may be still does) but does not participate, and since most objectivists here dismiss the magazine (their mistake, despite some egregious errors of judgment from time to time) there is no controversy .... it is one hand clapping in the wilderness. Ya know... asking someone to stand behind their claims in the media with REAL Facts and data (after all, these magazines DO indeed present their OPINIONS in the various venues as FACTUAL, rather than OPINION, In the same way I might say: "I ate at Carl's Jr. and the hamburgers tasted bad." I am stating it as a fact - even though you might like them just fine. I have neither betrayed journalistic trust, nor have I been deceptive in the least. Would any restaurant review magazine publish that opinion of yours? If the writing were more entertaining and he were an established food critic I would think so. Would any editior of such magazines stand by your claim? Not themselves unless they ate said hamburgers and agreed. They would stand behind him that his opinion is as stated though. You truly don't see the difference? Amazing. So what, if you haven't figured out it is an opinion, then I have an excellent beachfront property opportunity in Arizona for you to consider. More amazement, if you can't see the difference. Also, you just insulted Stereophile by implying that their reviewers are con artists. (snip) answer. Ah, but there is so much more than that here - it isn't a mere and humble quest for truth. They aren't nearly as objective on this NG as their philosophy states. While they claim that so-called "subjectivists" are biased to "hear" differences where there are none, there is no admission that there seems to be a bias to NOT hear a difference where one might exist. The ABX and DBT might be able to proof against the former bias, but won't help one bit with the latter. You still seem to be missing the point. That's why the so-called "objectivists" always ask the subjectivists and the believers to take the DBT's, since there would be no bias to NOT hear the difference! Hey, some of us even put up our own money to motivate them. Yeah, I'm still waiting for Tom's proposal on test protocols for a 1,001 bet he made with me over the audibility of vibration control devices. I think he'll never follow through. He think he is trying to quietly back out of that bet. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
B&D wrote:
On 12/19/04 7:31 PM, in article , "Chung" wrote: Ya know... asking someone to stand behind their claims in the media with REAL Facts and data (after all, these magazines DO indeed present their OPINIONS in the various venues as FACTUAL, rather than OPINION, In the same way I might say: "I ate at Carl's Jr. and the hamburgers tasted bad." I am stating it as a fact - even though you might like them just fine. I have neither betrayed journalistic trust, nor have I been deceptive in the least. Would any restaurant review magazine publish that opinion of yours? Would any editior of such magazines stand by your claim? You truly don't see the difference? Amazing. If I had gone to review the restaurant and had more to write 10 words, absolutely. There is no basic difference. Perhaps you can enlighten me? Stereophile is a leading magazine on hi-fi. People pay money to read it. There is some level of responsibility on Stereophile's part to insure that its reviews are done fairly and correctly, and that those reviews can stand up to some degree of scrutiny. Some readers actually make their buying decisions based on those reviews and therefore implicitly place trust in that magazine. You, with all due respect, on the other hand, have no credibility on the subject of restaurant testing. Your opinion does not carry any weight. It's worth absolutely nothing. I notice once more that you are belittling Stereophile by making an analogy between your Carl Jr. hamburger review and the professional Stereophile reviews. For someone who appears to be a supporter of Stereophile, you sure give them very little respect. |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
While they claim that so-called "subjectivists" are biased to "hear" differences where there are none, there is no admission that there seems to be a bias to NOT hear a difference where one might exist. As I pointed out once before, this is a risky tack. You would certainly feel embarrassed if you were the only one that couldn't hear a difference that every other subject heard. Norm Strong |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: Chung
Date: 12/20/2004 4:45 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: B&D wrote: On 12/19/04 7:31 PM, in article , "Chung" wrote: Ya know... asking someone to stand behind their claims in the media with REAL Facts and data (after all, these magazines DO indeed present their OPINIONS in the various venues as FACTUAL, rather than OPINION, In the same way I might say: "I ate at Carl's Jr. and the hamburgers tasted bad." I am stating it as a fact - even though you might like them just fine. I have neither betrayed journalistic trust, nor have I been deceptive in the least. Would any restaurant review magazine publish that opinion of yours? Would any editior of such magazines stand by your claim? You truly don't see the difference? Amazing. If I had gone to review the restaurant and had more to write 10 words, absolutely. There is no basic difference. Perhaps you can enlighten me? Stereophile is a leading magazine on hi-fi. People pay money to read it. So? Is anyone forcing anyone to buy Stereophile? There is some level of responsibility on Stereophile's part to insure that its reviews are done fairly and correctly, and that those reviews can stand up to some degree of scrutiny. Well they are responsible to conduct reviews as they say they claim to conduct reviews. I see no reason to believe they don't. They are not obligated to conduct reviews the way *you* believe they ought to. Some readers actually make their buying decisions based on those reviews and therefore implicitly place trust in that magazine. That is there choice, an odd one at that given the fact that Stereophile recomends potential buyers audition any equipment themselves before buying. If readers buy equipment based on Stereophile reviews without an audition they aren't even following Stereophile's directions. They need to read more carefully or face the possible consequences. You, with all due respect, on the other hand, have no credibility on the subject of restaurant testing. That's a rather bold, insulting and presumptuous claim. For all you know he may quite the expert on food. Your opinion does not carry any weight. Balony, it at least carries the wieght of any layman who has actually tried a Carl's Jr. Hamburger. It's worth absolutely nothing. A rather odd claim. Sorry you have zero faith in your fellow burger eater. I notice once more that you are belittling Stereophile by making an analogy between your Carl Jr. hamburger review and the professional Stereophile reviews. How is that belittling? The analogy makes perfect sense to me. Someone tries something and gives their opinion on the quality. I don't think there were any deeper implications in that analogy. For someone who appears to be a supporter of Stereophile, you sure give them very little respect. Are you sure you aren't reading into things here? Are you sure the disrespect for Stereophile isn't from you? |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
S888Wheel wrote:
From: Chung Date: 12/20/2004 4:45 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: B&D wrote: On 12/19/04 7:31 PM, in article , "Chung" wrote: Ya know... asking someone to stand behind their claims in the media with REAL Facts and data (after all, these magazines DO indeed present their OPINIONS in the various venues as FACTUAL, rather than OPINION, In the same way I might say: "I ate at Carl's Jr. and the hamburgers tasted bad." I am stating it as a fact - even though you might like them just fine. I have neither betrayed journalistic trust, nor have I been deceptive in the least. Would any restaurant review magazine publish that opinion of yours? Would any editior of such magazines stand by your claim? You truly don't see the difference? Amazing. If I had gone to review the restaurant and had more to write 10 words, absolutely. There is no basic difference. Perhaps you can enlighten me? Stereophile is a leading magazine on hi-fi. People pay money to read it. So? Is anyone forcing anyone to buy Stereophile? You're missing the point. People pay to read Stereophile. Stereophile's recommendations should be worth more than a hamburger review from a random person off the street, so to speak. Wonder why this is a difficult point for you to grasp... There is some level of responsibility on Stereophile's part to insure that its reviews are done fairly and correctly, and that those reviews can stand up to some degree of scrutiny. Well they are responsible to conduct reviews as they say they claim to conduct reviews. I see no reason to believe they don't. They are not obligated to conduct reviews the way *you* believe they ought to. You see the difference here, right? B&D's review of Carl's Junior hamburgers has no implicit claim at all as to how that review is conducted. In fact, B&D carries no responsibility for his hamburger review at all. Surely you can see the difference between his hamburger review and the leading h-fi magazine's reviews, right? Some readers actually make their buying decisions based on those reviews and therefore implicitly place trust in that magazine. That is there choice, an odd one at that given the fact that Stereophile recomends potential buyers audition any equipment themselves before buying. If readers buy equipment based on Stereophile reviews without an audition they aren't even following Stereophile's directions. They need to read more carefully or face the possible consequences. Sure, that's also what I recommend. In fact, I suggest not paying any attention to Stereophile's subjective reviews at all. But some of their readers are affected by those reviews as far as their buying decisions are concerned. Of course, Stereophile does not have any legal responsibility, but there is an implicit trust by some of their readers on Stereophile's recommendations. For example, being on the RCl is supposedly an indication of superb quality, and some Stereophile readers use that list as a buying guide. You, with all due respect, on the other hand, have no credibility on the subject of restaurant testing. That's a rather bold, insulting and presumptuous claim. For all you know he may quite the expert on food. Can you explain why B&D has any credibility on restauant reviews, given his lack of presented credentials to date on this forum? Where is the insult in what I said? FWIW, I am sure that I have no credibility on hamburger reviews as far as BD's concerned. And that's the way it should be. Your opinion does not carry any weight. Balony, it at least carries the wieght of any layman who has actually tried a Carl's Jr. Hamburger. OK, his opinion carries as much weight as any layman's  . But I amnot taking his review seriously at all , and I don't think too manypeople would either. You think a Stereophile's review carries the same weight as any layman's? It's worth absolutely nothing. A rather odd claim. Sorry you have zero faith in your fellow burger eater. I am happy that you have faith in BD's hamburger review . Exactlyhow much faith do you have? Based on what? I notice once more that you are belittling Stereophile by making an analogy between your Carl Jr. hamburger review and the professional Stereophile reviews. How is that belittling? The analogy makes perfect sense to me. Someone tries something and gives their opinion on the quality. I don't think there were any deeper implications in that analogy. I'll spell it out for you. He was saying that Stereophile's review has the same credibility as his hamburger reviews. Would anyone pay for his hamburger reviews? For someone who appears to be a supporter of Stereophile, you sure give them very little respect. Are you sure you aren't reading into things here? Are you sure the disrespect for Stereophile isn't from you? Oh yes, I am sure. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: chung
Date: 12/22/2004 6:58 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: Chung Date: 12/20/2004 4:45 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: B&D wrote: On 12/19/04 7:31 PM, in article , "Chung" wrote: Ya know... asking someone to stand behind their claims in the media with REAL Facts and data (after all, these magazines DO indeed present their OPINIONS in the various venues as FACTUAL, rather than OPINION, In the same way I might say: "I ate at Carl's Jr. and the hamburgers tasted bad." I am stating it as a fact - even though you might like them just fine. I have neither betrayed journalistic trust, nor have I been deceptive in the least. Would any restaurant review magazine publish that opinion of yours? Would any editior of such magazines stand by your claim? You truly don't see the difference? Amazing. If I had gone to review the restaurant and had more to write 10 words, absolutely. There is no basic difference. Perhaps you can enlighten me? Stereophile is a leading magazine on hi-fi. People pay money to read it. So? Is anyone forcing anyone to buy Stereophile? You're missing the point. No, I am just disagreeing with it. People pay to read Stereophile. People *choose* to pay to read Stereophile. Stereophile's recommendations should be worth more than a hamburger review from a random person off the street, so to speak. You are not the arbitrator of the value of a Stereophile review or a hamburger review for that matter. You decide for yourself what the valuse is for each and so does *everybody else.* Both may be of greater value to someone else than you find them to be for yourself. Wonder why this is a difficult point for you to grasp... Perhaps you are not used to having others disagree with you. There is some level of responsibility on Stereophile's part to insure that its reviews are done fairly and correctly, and that those reviews can stand up to some degree of scrutiny. Well they are responsible to conduct reviews as they say they claim to conduct reviews. I see no reason to believe they don't. They are not obligated to conduct reviews the way *you* believe they ought to. You see the difference here, right? B&D's review of Carl's Junior hamburgers has no implicit claim at all as to how that review is conducted. Sure it does. It is implied that he ate at least one and formed a subjective opinion about it's taste. In fact, B&D carries no responsibility for his hamburger review at all. No, not if he were to publish it he would carry the responsibility for trying the burger and honestlt reporting his opinion of it's quality. I suppose off the cuff personal recomendations are a little bit more lax but no one will give him the time of day the next time around if they disagreed with him. Surely you can see the difference between his hamburger review and the leading h-fi magazine's reviews, right? Other than the difference in use, no. I see an obvious difference in reporting the measurements but frankly one can report the ingredients in a food review if they chose to. Some readers actually make their buying decisions based on those reviews and therefore implicitly place trust in that magazine. That is there choice, an odd one at that given the fact that Stereophile recomends potential buyers audition any equipment themselves before buying. If readers buy equipment based on Stereophile reviews without an audition they aren't even following Stereophile's directions. They need to read more carefully or face the possible consequences. Sure, that's also what I recommend. In fact, I suggest not paying any attention to Stereophile's subjective reviews at all. That's fine. I don't see why one should pay no attention to them though. I think they can offer some idea for a reader as to whether or not the product might be worthy of an audition. But some of their readers are affected by those reviews as far as their buying decisions are concerned. They may be. Ultimately the buyer has to live with the purchase and decide for themselves if it was a good one. Of course, Stereophile does not have any legal responsibility, but there is an implicit trust by some of their readers on Stereophile's recommendations. IMO the only implicit trust is that the reviewers are giving honest opinions. For example, being on the RCl is supposedly an indication of superb quality, and some Stereophile readers use that list as a buying guide. If they are using it as anything other than a list of possible options for the purpose of auditioning they are not using the list as Stereophile recomends it be used. You cannot hold Stereophile responsible in any way for the readers failure to use such a guide as it is recomended to be used by the magazine. You, with all due respect, on the other hand, have no credibility on the subject of restaurant testing. That's a rather bold, insulting and presumptuous claim. For all you know he may quite the expert on food. Can you explain why B&D has any credibility on restauant reviews, given his lack of presented credentials to date on this forum? You are asking me to speculate. You claimed he had none. maybe you can explain how you know he has none and his recomendations are "worthless?" Where is the insult in what I said? I meant that jokingly. FWIW, I am sure that I have no credibility on hamburger reviews as far as BD's concerned. And that's the way it should be. He might be keenly interested in your opinion on burgers. Your opinion does not carry any weight. Balony, it at least carries the wieght of any layman who has actually tried a Carl's Jr. Hamburger. OK, his opinion carries as much weight as any layman's . But I amnot taking his review seriously at all ,Fair enough. At least you know why. and I don't think too many people would either. You think a Stereophile's review carries the same weight as any layman's? I would say they carry the weight of any audiophile who has tried the equipment in question. It's worth absolutely nothing. A rather odd claim. Sorry you have zero faith in your fellow burger eater. I am happy that you have faith in BD's hamburger review .I suspect i have an appropriate amount of faith in it. Which is more than zero. Of course he could be fibbing. He may not have ever even had one. Exactly how much faith do you have? How would one quantify such a thing? Some not a lot? Based on what? On the trust that he tried the burger and is not terribly unusual in his preferences for burgers. I notice once more that you are belittling Stereophile by making an analogy between your Carl Jr. hamburger review and the professional Stereophile reviews. How is that belittling? The analogy makes perfect sense to me. Someone tries something and gives their opinion on the quality. I don't think there were any deeper implications in that analogy. I'll spell it out for you. He was saying that Stereophile's review has the same credibility as his hamburger reviews. he may believe that. Opinions is opinions when it comes to what we like and don't like. Would anyone pay for his hamburger reviews? I don't know. For someone who appears to be a supporter of Stereophile, you sure give them very little respect. Are you sure you aren't reading into things here? Are you sure the disrespect for Stereophile isn't from you? Oh yes, I am sure. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: chung
Date: 12/23/2004 2:10 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: B&D wrote: On 12/22/04 9:58 PM, in article , "chung" wrote: There is some level of responsibility on Stereophile's part to insure that its reviews are done fairly and correctly, and that those reviews can stand up to some degree of scrutiny. Well they are responsible to conduct reviews as they say they claim to conduct reviews. I see no reason to believe they don't. They are not obligated to conduct reviews the way *you* believe they ought to. You see the difference here, right? B&D's review of Carl's Junior hamburgers has no implicit claim at all as to how that review is conducted. In fact, B&D carries no responsibility for his hamburger review at all. Surely you can see the difference between his hamburger review and the leading h-fi magazine's reviews, right? Once you sign your name to it - you are responsible for the review accuracy content and methods. I think you are grasping at straws here - there is essentially little difference between the reviews. Let me summarize what you are saying he B&D's one-sentence review of the Carl's Jr. hamburger ("it tastes bad") is no different than the leading hi-fi magazine's review of a piece of audio gear. That isn't a sumary it is simply a mischaracterization. He didn't say "no difference" he said "essentially little difference" he then went on to note what the differences were. basically size and extensiveness of the two reviews. Wonder why I said that the you have little respect for Stereophile? Not any more. You don't seem to get his point. If it would help your imagination: you can imagine that single sentence was a summary of a 15 page article showing pictures of the interior of the restaurant, tasting notes, weighing the burger with a follow up paragraph of the restaurant management's reaction to my review. I also put in a sentence on how you need to match the hamburger to your palate. But you did not provide a 15 page review in a leading restaurant review magazine with a paid subscription, did you? See the huge difference? No, I see the size difference. Essentially they are the same beast. Ocean liners and small sail boats are both boats. They are quite different in size but they essentially do the same thing, allow people to travel on the water. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung Date: 12/23/2004 2:10 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: B&D wrote: On 12/22/04 9:58 PM, in article , "chung" wrote: There is some level of responsibility on Stereophile's part to insure that its reviews are done fairly and correctly, and that those reviews can stand up to some degree of scrutiny. Well they are responsible to conduct reviews as they say they claim to conduct reviews. I see no reason to believe they don't. They are not obligated to conduct reviews the way *you* believe they ought to. You see the difference here, right? B&D's review of Carl's Junior hamburgers has no implicit claim at all as to how that review is conducted. In fact, B&D carries no responsibility for his hamburger review at all. Surely you can see the difference between his hamburger review and the leading h-fi magazine's reviews, right? Once you sign your name to it - you are responsible for the review accuracy content and methods. I think you are grasping at straws here - there is essentially little difference between the reviews. Let me summarize what you are saying he B&D's one-sentence review of the Carl's Jr. hamburger ("it tastes bad") is no different than the leading hi-fi magazine's review of a piece of audio gear. That isn't a sumary it is simply a mischaracterization. He didn't say "no difference" he said "essentially little difference" he then went on to note what the differences were. basically size and extensiveness of the two reviews. Fair enough. He is saying that there is essentially little difference between his one sentence review of the Carl's JR. hamburgers ("it tastes bad) the leading hi-fi magazine's review of audio gear. Wonder why I said that he has little respect for Stereophile? Wonder why I said that the you have little respect for Stereophile? Not any more. You don't seem to get his point. If it would help your imagination: you can imagine that single sentence was a summary of a 15 page article showing pictures of the interior of the restaurant, tasting notes, weighing the burger with a follow up paragraph of the restaurant management's reaction to my review. I also put in a sentence on how you need to match the hamburger to your palate. But you did not provide a 15 page review in a leading restaurant review magazine with a paid subscription, did you? See the huge difference? No, I see the size difference. Essentially they are the same beast. Ocean liners and small sail boats are both boats. They are quite different in size but they essentially do the same thing, allow people to travel on the water. So according to your logic, a $5 transistor radio and your tubed vinyl rig are essentially the same beast: they essentially do the same thing, make sound. Your comparison has effectively made my point, thanks for the clarification. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
B&D wrote:
On 12/19/04 10:56 AM, in article , "John A. Lichtenberger" wrote: Harry Lavo wrote: wrote in message ... wrote: How is it that stereophile alone absorbs all the flak about what is wrong in audio publishing? At least as far as the Newsgroups are concerned, I believe it is due at least in part to the fact that I take to the time to respond to Stereophile's critics. :-) John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Not only that, John, but you also have a critic in Nousaine who periodically fans the flames. Harry Pearson used to occasionally lurk here (may be still does) but does not participate, and since most objectivists here dismiss the magazine (their mistake, despite some egregious errors of judgment from time to time) there is no controversy .... it is one hand clapping in the wilderness. Ya know... asking someone to stand behind their claims in the media with REAL Facts and data (after all, these magazines DO indeed present their OPINIONS in the various venues as FACTUAL, rather than OPINION, In the same way I might say: "I ate at Carl's Jr. and the hamburgers tasted bad." I am stating it as a fact - even though you might like them just fine. I have neither betrayed journalistic trust, nor have I been deceptive in the least. There's no "betrayal of journalistic trust" implied here. A simple request of, to be taken seriously by those of us with a a modicum of scientific curiosity and integrity, (and the credentials to back it up) supplying supporting documentation and independent verification to validate opinions presented as fact. You don't have to like it, but that's how convincing arguments are made for new discoveries, phony claims are debunked, etc. It's called "peer review". Unfortunately, Stereopile does not seem interested in entertaining valid criticism of its stylistic methods, choosing instead to pander to its advertisers with implied psuedoscience morphed to resemble peer review. So what, if you haven't figured out it is an opinion, then I have an excellent beachfront property opportunity in Arizona for you to consider. Trust me, I've figured it out. However, apparently to your dismay, I've also figured out I have a right to post a rebuttal pointing out the glaring deficiencies in a self-proclaimed "expert periodical" that may influence others regarding their trust and comprehension of all things "high end" presented as science, when in fact they are advertising copy and fluff. notwithstanding the waterfall plots and other pseudo-testing presented ad nauseum to somehow validate their "expertise") is not really asking too much... if Stereophile and TAS (among others) want to be reduced to the level of Nicolodeon magazine and PC Gamer, that's great.. that's about the level of entertainment I get from them when I buy them once a year on vacation for toilet reading. TAS does not perform measurements on the equipment they review - part of their charter is to be nearly 100% subjective in the reviews. never said they did Stereophile performs some measurements on the equipment in addition to a subjective review. Again - so what? If you feel that their methodology is in error to the point of leading someone astray if they are trying to figure out if a piece of gear - you should feel free to get a piece of that gear into a testing laboratory and perform tests to your hearts content and write your own reviews in a magazine. so I shouldn't post to a newsgroup pointing out that what they present may be flawed and misleading so that others can make judgements of their own and reach their own conclusions using additional information? Come on, do you really believe in intercrystalline crossover distortion in wires due to quark-quark confabulation being resolved by special winding techniques and magic coating and fabrication techniques, without some form of external demonstrable validation by those who've studied materials science for many many decades? Perhaps that beachfront property in AZ is looking better and better, eh? My hat is off to you for taking the time to confront and stand your ground. From one who does the same, I know you can learn from the exchanges and only hope that those with differing positions can also learn from them (although in my despairing moments I doubt it. It is difficult to do when you are convinced you have a lock on "the truth".) I don't think the "objectivists", which you and others so pejoratively disdain, proclaim any such "truth"; au contraire, they merely insist on independent, unbiased validation of wild claims of the supernatural, paranormal "golden ear" cause/effect phenomena bantied about as the holy grail (and justification for ridiculous pricing structures) so prevalent in the "high end" of audio. It's curious that, more often than not, ad hominen attacks originate from the "believers" aginst the "objectivists. Of course, should "Stereophile Editor" proclaim such a position, his advertising revenue would dry up. Simple economics is the answer. Ah, but there is so much more than that here - it isn't a mere and humble quest for truth. They aren't nearly as objective on this NG as their philosophy states. Who is "they" anyway? I 'd like to see a more honest approach (and gain further understanding) of music reproduction from the few audio magazines left in the world; instead we get tripe and psuedoscience paraded in "reviews" as factual information. I have no problem with the ad copy in these rags. Just leave it in the ads! While they claim that so-called "subjectivists" are biased to "hear" differences where there are none, there is no admission that there seems to be a bias to NOT hear a difference where one might exist. The ABX and DBT might be able to proof against the former bias, but won't help one bit with the latter. There ain't a fountain of truth at the disposal of either warring camps, folks. No one said there was; to the contrary, seeking the "truth" as you phrase it, is what the scientific method and honest peer review is all about. I'm not sure what this "warring camps" phrase is all about. I view these posts as informational exchange of ideas. I may (or may not) not agree with others perspective and will post my own thoughts as I see fit. Attempts to characterize such discussions as "warrring camps" and such seems only to be an agenda of ad hoc ad hominen diminution, akin to attorney-speak efforts to discredit some perceived damaging testimony. John L Auplater |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
from scratch - or go shamefully to the frozen food section
of your favorite grocery and select 2 high quality pie crusts (you will need one for the top also). Boil the prepared delicacy until the meat starts to come off the bones. Remove, de-bone and cube; continue to reduce the broth. Brown the onions, peppers and celery. Add the meat then season, continue browning. De-glaze with sherry, add the reduced broth. Finally, put in the root vegetables and simmer for 15 minutes. Allow to cool slightly. Place the pie pan in 375 degree oven for a few minutes so bottom crust is not soggy, reduce oven to 325. Fill the pie with stew, place top crust and with a fork, seal the crusts together then poke holes in top. Return to oven and bake for 30 minutes, or until pie crust is golden brown. Sudden Infant Death Soup SIDS: delicious in winter, comparable to old fashioned Beef and Vegetable Soup. Its free, you can sell the crib, baby clothes, toys, stroller... and so easy to procure if such a lucky find is at hand (just pick him up from the crib and he?s good to go)! SIDS victim, cleaned ˝ cup cooking oil Carrots onions broccoli whole cabbage fresh green beans potato turnip celery tomato ˝ stick butter 1 cup cooked pasta (macaroni, shells, etc.) Remove as much meat as possible, cube |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
innocent victim of a drive-by shooting...
2 cups finely chopped very young human flesh 1 cup shredded cabbage 1 cup bean sprouts 5 sprigs green onion, finely chopped 5 cloves minced garlic 4-6 ounces bamboo shoots Sherry chicken broth oil for deep frying (1 gallon) Salt pepper soy & teriyaki minced ginger, etc. 1 tablespoon cornstarch dissolved in a little cold water 1 egg beaten Make the stuffing: Marinate the flesh in a mixture of soy and teriyaki sauces then stir fry in hot oil for till brown - about 1 minute, remove. Stir-fry the vegetables. Put the meat back into the wok and adjust the seasoning. De-glaze with sherry, cooking off the alcohol. Add broth (optional) cook a few more minutes. Add the cornstarch, cook a few minutes till thick, then place the stuffing into a colander and cool; 2 hours Wrap the rolls: Place 3 tablespoons of stuffing in the wrap, roll tightly - corner nearest you first, fold 2 side corners in, wrap till remaining corner is left. Brush with egg, seal, and allow to sit on the seal for a few minutes. Fry the rolls: 325° if using egg roll wraps, 350° for spring roll wraps. Deep fry in peanut oil till crispy golden brown, drain on paper towels. Lemon Neonate Turkey serves just as well, and in fact even looks a bit like a well-dressed baby. By the time you turn the child?s breast into cutlets, it will be indistinguishable. The taste of young human, although similar to turkey (and chicken) often can be wildly different depending upon what he or she has consumed during its 10 to 14 months of life... 4 well chosen cutlets (from the breasts of 2 healthy neonates) 2 large lemons (fresh lemons always, if possible) Olive oil Green onions Salt pepper cornstarch neonate stock (chicken, or turkey stock is fine) garlic parsley fresh cracked black pepper Season and sauté the cutlets in o |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
and parsley.
Place roast on top with fat side up. Place uncovered in 500° oven for 20 minutes, reduce oven to 325°. Bake till medium rare (150°) and let roast rest. Pour stock over onions and drippings, carve the meat and place the slices in the au jus. Bisque ŕ l?Enfant Honor the memory of Grandma with this dish by utilizing her good silver soup tureen and her great grandchildren (crawfish, crab or lobster will work just as well, however this dish is classically made with crawfish). Stuffed infant heads, stuffed crawfish heads, stuffed crab or lobster shells; make patties if shell or head is not available (such as with packaged crawfish, crab, or headless baby). Flour oil onions bell peppers garlic salt, pepper, etc. 3 cups chicken stock 2 sticks butter 3 tablespoons oil First stuff the heads, or make the patties (see index) then fry or bake. Set aside to drain on paper towels. Make a roux with butter, oil and flour, brown vegetables in the roux, then add chicken stock and allow to simmer for 20 minutes. Add the patties or stuffed heads, and some loose crawfish, lobster, long piglet, or what have you. Cook on low for 15 minutes, then allow it to set for at least 15 minutes more. Serve over steamed rice; this dish is very impressive! Stuffed Cabbage Rolls Babies really can be found under a cabbage leaf - or one can arrange for ground beef to be found there instead. 8 large cabbage leaves 1 lb. lean ground newborn human filets, or ground chuck Onions peppers celery garlic soy sauce salt pepper, etc Olive oil breadcrumbs Tomato Gravy (see index) Boil the cabbage leaves for 2 m |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
B&D wrote:
On 12/24/04 11:15 AM, in article , "John A. Lichtenberger" wrote: In the same way I might say: "I ate at Carl's Jr. and the hamburgers tasted bad." I am stating it as a fact - even though you might like them just fine. I have neither betrayed journalistic trust, nor have I been deceptive in the least. There's no "betrayal of journalistic trust" implied here. A simple request of, to be taken seriously by those of us with a a modicum of scientific curiosity and integrity, (and the credentials to back it up) supplying supporting documentation and independent verification to validate opinions presented as fact. You don't have to like it, but that's how convincing arguments are made for new discoveries, phony claims are debunked, etc. It's called "peer review". Unfortunately, Stereopile does not seem interested in entertaining valid criticism of its stylistic methods, choosing instead to pander to its advertisers with implied psuedoscience morphed to resemble peer review. I may not have any interest in having any of my methods reviewed, nor may I have any interest in opening a dialogue with people who have (what appears to me to be) irreconcilable philosophical differences (i.e. An axe to grind) with my reviews and so on. And boy or boy do a lot of people here and peppered throughout this hobby have axes to grind. You will find most magazines and newspapers will take a few claims seriously, but if it is a continuous chorus from a small but vocal minority who do not appear to be and will never be patrons, they will be happily ignored. Huh??? What are you talking about? I've merely stated (as a sometime "patron" of Stereophile, that I take issue with their presentation of opinion as fact. That's it. They are being dishonest when they present psuedo-expert graphs, studies, tests, etc. as some sort of validation linked to wild claims of super-normal phenomena beyond all reason, and then ask the reader to take such pablum as truth without dissent. You've appear to have engaged in a false diatribe with a strawman of your own invention. No axe to grind here. John L. Auplater |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 16 Dec 2004 02:43:22 GMT, wrote: Bert Whyte used to contemptuously refer to Stereophile and TAS as the little magazines. ... It's because TAS always was a joke. .. I subscribed to the Absolute Sound for a number of years. I still buy a copy or 2 off the newsstands and also read back copies at my local library. I also had subscriptions to Stereo Review, Stereophile, Audio and the Canadian mag "UHF". None of these came close to the Absolute sound in two areas- the first was engaging journalism. It was witty, challenging and well written. To say TAS presented opinions (as some below have ) as fact is pure crap. The magazine was always up front about what they were trying to do - develop a language to describe the sound of hi-fi equipment and to use that language. Secondly there were many many cases where 2 different reviewers offered different opinions on the same piece of equipment. If that didn't make it clear they were presenting opinions and not facts what does? The second great thing about TAS was the music reviews. I never bought a single piece of equipment based on a TAS review but I certainly bought a lot of vinyl and CDs. Most are treasured parts of my collection. Bless Harry Pearson and his super disc list. BTW Harry also made the point - these discs represent my biases as well as anything else. Now I'm moving into SACDs and I'll be looking to their opinion on making selection. I also don't think putting words into the mouth of a dead man (Bert Whyte) makes anyone's point. I remember those columns and I didn't think Whyte was being as derogatory as some of "engineers" and objectivists are to TAS and Stereophile et al. I think enjoyed reading what the wacky fringe had to say. If nothing else if you enjoy it - its worth the price of admission. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| FA: Speaker Builder, Glass Audio magazines | Marketplace | |||
| FA: Speaker Builder, Glass Audio magazines | Marketplace | |||
| Best magazines for home theatre to subscribe to? | Audio Opinions | |||
| Stereophile Magazines | Marketplace | |||
| Have you noticed a change in the magazines? | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
