"jeffc" wrote in message
m...

"Iain M Churches" wrote in message
...
Any editor who receives letters from dis-satisfied
readers in large numbers will certainly not ignore them.
But, an editor who receives little or no feedback will assume
that the readers are happy with the magazine, as long as
circulation figures are maintained.

Right, so what good does it do to listen to the readers? All that matters
is the circulation numbers. If it drops, lower the subscription price.

I really don't believe that any editor worth his salt is
interested only in the size of the circulation. I am sure journalists
and editors read other publications, and can judge from them
the standing of their own magazine. The public are quick to
complain, but to the wrong people:-)

Iain

"Signal" wrote in message
...
"Scott Dorsey" emitted :

If anything, the DIY phenomenon should be taking off. But it's dying.
Why?

Because there's little or no for motivation for up and coming
generations. Why bother?

Because you wind up with something that perfectly matches your exact
needs, instead of a product that someone in marketing decided would
meet most users' needs.

Can you give an example? I'm struggling to think of a D.I.Y.
electronics project that would impress a young person now.

A tube amp is the prime example:-)

Iain

It's a fine idea if you make your own recordings!

Not at all. The same kinds of compromises slip in,
regardless.

I have to disagree. First, you're hearing the original sound that is
supposed to serve as the reference. Second, you start to understand the ways
in which recordings differ from live sound. This is quite different from
listening to an "engineered" recording in which the sound is deliberately
manipulated to produce some effect.


When someone says "live acoustic music" the implication
is "concert hall" -- not a studio.

Well, some kind of larger-scale performance space with an
audience of some size.

Which is why I put "concert hall" in quotes.

Iain M Churches wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


William Sommerwerck wrote:
George M. Middius wrote:

William Sommerwerck said:

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it
sounds
good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of
"high
fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it
exists
primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to
make.

You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal people make
their
choices. If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to
tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective
as
"too much bass" or "great imaging".

If you value "good" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you
whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too
much bass" or "great imaging".

You're missing the point of what I wrote and how Mr. Middius responded.
There's a vast gulf between buying something simply because you like it,
and
having an "expert" justify your purchase.


What? "Middius" asked: "If you value 'realistic' sound, do you need
some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it?". I asked
essentially the same question, but changed 'realistic' sound (the old
SP paradigm) to 'good' sound (the new SP paradigm). IOW, if you do not
need a reviewer to tell you what sounds "realistic", why would you need
a reviewer to tell you what sounds "good"? At least "realistic" sound
has some sort of objective standard, so you have an idea of where the
reviewer is coming from. "Good" sound is *completely* subjective. What
sounds "good" to you (or JA or someone else) may not sound "good" to
me.


Surely no-one, but no-one buys a piece of equipment based on what he/she
has read in a review.


It happens more often than you think, Iain.


But with so much equipment on offer, a magazine can
give useful pointers.


Yes, a magazine can give useful pointers, but not when the interests of
the advertisers are put above the interests of the readers.


But the buyer has to make up his own mind.


But glowing reviews of totally useless items such as Shakti Stones and
Shun Mook Mpingo, high $ power cords, etc., discs make intelligent
decisions more difficult, don't they?

Iain M Churches said to Little ****:

Surely no-one, but no-one buys a piece of equipment based on what he/she
has read in a review. But with so much equipment on offer, a amagazine can
give useful pointers. But the buyer has to make up his own mind.

Looks like you're not familiar with the Hivie 'borgma Thing is espousing here.

The gist of your assertion is that human beings have free will. This is an alien
concept in the Hive. To Them, there are no choices, only mindless obedience. Why
dickie the anonyrodent tries to blame Stereophile for the ****ty-sounding
equipment he's stuck with is somewhat of a mystery. One might reasonably
speculate that at some time in the past, before Thing joined the Hive, he tried
to invest his latent obeisance in the magazine. Then, when his fortunes turned,
perhaps he had to sell his expensive equipment at a loss. For that debacle, he
blames Stereophile. If he were a human being, he might understand that choices
have consequences; but since he does not believe in the ability to make a
choice, he is forced to deny he ever made one. Hence the cause of his
misfortunes must be laid at somebody else's doorstep.

For more illustrations of this philosophy of self-abnegation, see the ponderous
prattle of H. Ferstler or the duplicitous bloviations of Arnii "Debating Trade"
Krooger.

Thing finally admits his problem is that he's just plain stupid.

But the buyer has to make up his own mind.

But glowing reviews of totally useless items such as Shakti Stones and
Shun Mook Mpingo, high $ power cords, etc., discs make intelligent
decisions more difficult, don't they?

LOL.

But seriously.... Not unless one is retarded, which I take it you are.

Iain M Churches wrote:

Surely no-one, but no-one buys a piece of equipment based on what he/she
has read in a review. But with so much equipment on offer, a amagazine can
give useful pointers. But the buyer has to make up his own mind. Luckily
I jknow my local dealer well, and he will let me borrow equipment for tests
at home. I have a vintage British valve amp which for which he is keen to
find me a modern replacement so that he can buy it from me:-)

Unfortunately I have seen a lot of people spend a lot of money entirely
based on reviews. As a reviewer, I find it it kind of terrifying.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey said:

Unfortunately I have seen a lot of people spend a lot of money entirely
based on reviews. As a reviewer, I find it it kind of terrifying.

Use your power wisely, then, lest in a future life you are called to answer for
your crimes.

Iain M Churches wrote:

I really don't believe that any editor worth his salt is
interested only in the size of the circulation. I am sure journalists
and editors read other publications, and can judge from them
the standing of their own magazine. The public are quick to
complain, but to the wrong people:-)

There are editors like that. For a while I wrote some articles for a
now-defunct electronics magazine. I remember the editor giving me an
assignment, and I pointed out that RF Design had done an identical article
the previous month. He said, "Our readers don't read RF Design. It's
a totally different group of people." I'm not sure how true that really
was. This is another example of editors who misjudge the positioning and
standing.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

wrote in message
ups.com...


Iain M Churches wrote:

Surely no-one, but no-one buys a piece of equipment based on what he/she
has read in a review.

It happens more often than you think, Iain.

Are people really that insecure/indecisive?


But with so much equipment on offer, a magazine can
give useful pointers.


Yes, a magazine can give useful pointers, but not when the interests of
the advertisers are put above the interests of the readers.

Agreed

But the buyer has to make up his own mind.


But glowing reviews of totally useless items such as Shakti Stones and
Shun Mook Mpingo, high $ power cords, etc., discs make intelligent
decisions more difficult, don't they?

Indeed, and also make it difficult to take any other reviews by the same
write seriously.

So any potential buyer should borrow a set and listen. After you
have paid big bucks for them, they will certainly make a huge
improvement:-)


But, as far as I am concerned, if people think they can
hear an improvement with their Shakti Stones, and solid silver 20A
power cords, then good luck to them.

It's picking out the fact from the fiction that makes audio such an
interesting pastime:-)

Iain

Iain M Churches wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


Iain M Churches wrote:

Surely no-one, but no-one buys a piece of equipment based on what he/she
has read in a review.

It happens more often than you think, Iain.

Are people really that insecure/indecisive?


The reviewer is seen as an authority/expert in their field. People buy
a magazine, book, etc., to tap into the "expertise" of the writers.
When the writer is either non compos mentis, cynical or corrupt, the
"expertise" is just about worthless, at best.


But with so much equipment on offer, a magazine can
give useful pointers.


Yes, a magazine can give useful pointers, but not when the interests of
the advertisers are put above the interests of the readers.

Agreed

But the buyer has to make up his own mind.


But glowing reviews of totally useless items such as Shakti Stones and
Shun Mook Mpingo, high $ power cords, etc., discs make intelligent
decisions more difficult, don't they?

Indeed, and also make it difficult to take any other reviews by the same
writer seriously.


Exactly! And this is one big reason that rags like Stereophile have
zero credibility.


So any potential buyer should borrow a set and listen.


But if the "expert" said he/she heard a big improvement using, for
example, Shakti Stones, many consumers are "conned" into hearing a
difference, too. Classic example of "the Emperor's New Clothes".


After you
have paid big bucks for them, they will certainly make a huge
improvement:-)


Agreed. IMO, many audio scammers count on this effect.


But, as far as I am concerned, if people think they can
hear an improvement with their Shakti Stones, and solid silver 20A
power cords, then good luck to them.


I guess....


It's picking out the fact from the fiction that makes audio such an
interesting pastime:-)


And it was easier when the magazines and reviewers were both more
competent and more honest.

Phil Allison a écrit :
"Jocelyn Major"

Phil Allison

** What gives you the right to completely change someone's post before
adding your asinine reply ??

???? I simply don't understand what is your problem.


** Answer the question - bitch:
Ok poor little idiot. I will try to explain something that I am not sure
that your
poor tiny brain will fully understand.

First: You show that you are a dumb misogynist. Just for that you prove
that you totally suffer brain damage at birth.

Second: If you can read (at least you can do that) you will see that my
email address is from Videotron in Canada. Videotron is a Québec
Internet Provider. The point is that I live in a french speaking place.
And as you cannot understand (since you suffer from a severe lack of
oxigen at birth) Jocelyn is in french a MAN name. So poor little Phil
you where telling to a 6 feet tall 200 pound MAN that he is a bitch. I
am pretty sure that you would never have told this if I was right in
front of you. Of course not.

Like the little idiot coward that you are, several little boy (that like
you **** in their bed at night) are always hiding behind something or
someone when the insult others. You hide behind your computer now. Where
you hiding behind your little sister when when a toddler want to beat
you in college?

And if you really want to know who you where trying to insult just click
on the following link

http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawac...a-3ebc3dee9f94

For your info I am his son and like him, better not get me mad.

Have a GREAT day poor little girly boy

It is the last time I waste my time reading your stupid words.

Little **** is still whining about Stereophile.

And this is one big reason that rags like Stereophile have
zero credibility.

No credibility with you, or with people who are actually interested in
purchasing audio equipment? A bottom-feeder like you can buy whackoff magazines
anywhere.

Iain M Churches wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...


Iain M Churches wrote:

Surely no-one, but no-one buys a piece of equipment
based on what
he/she has read in a review.

It happens more often than you think, Iain.

Are people really that insecure/indecisive?

The more relevant i-word would be ignorant.

But with so much equipment on offer, a magazine can
give useful pointers.

Yes, a magazine can give useful pointers, but not when
the interests
of the advertisers are put above the interests of the
readers.

Agreed

But the buyer has to make up his own mind.

But glowing reviews of totally useless items such as
Shakti Stones
and Shun Mook Mpingo, high $ power cords, etc., discs
make
intelligent decisions more difficult, don't they?

Indeed, and also make it difficult to take any other
reviews by the
same write seriously.

Agreed.

So any potential buyer should borrow a set and listen.
After you
have paid big bucks for them, they will certainly make a
huge
improvement:-)

Borrow from whom?

But, as far as I am concerned, if people think they can
hear an improvement with their Shakti Stones, and solid
silver 20A
power cords, then good luck to them.

Good luck for them would involve learning enough about audio
to have good judgement.

It's picking out the fact from the fiction that makes
audio such an
interesting pastime:-)

Having a leading magazine in the field that is full of so
much muck makes it a lot tougher on the newbies, and others
who simply don't know what to believe.

Stereophile is a corporate sell-out rag, designed to give raving reviews of
all of its advertisers

don't feed the trolls by responding to any Stereophile related post

just killfile the sender

Iain M Churches said:

Surely no-one, but no-one buys a piece of equipment based on what he/she
has read in a review.

It happens more often than you think, Iain.

Are people really that insecure/indecisive?

That's not the usual problem why people buy overpriced audio stuff. Fact
is, there's high noise-to-signal ratio in audio marketing. Somehow or
other (but not because of Stereophile), audio has acquired a mystique
among people who are new to the arena. The array of choices is daunting.
The noise you get at the mass-market box stores can give a beginner all
kinds of wrongheaded notions about what to look for.

Sad to say, the class war constantly being raged on Usenet by the
downtrodden of the world is also seen in somewhat high relief in audio.
The main reason for that is that the utilitarian stuff is priced to fit
90% of consumers' budgets, but the fancy stuff has prices that go
through the roof. Even the big box stores have engaged in the
higher-price-equals-better game, although not so much any more because
now it's TVs that command the lion's share of the budget. And the notion
of "better" is fuzzy too, because it can apply to sound quality, build
quality, ergonomics, feature set, warranty, etc.

If you've never helped guide a newbie through the portals of consumer
audio, give it a try. (Especially a female.) Then you'll see all the
pitfalls that can lead to a bad decision.

cowboy wrote:
Stereophile is a corporate sell-out rag, designed to give raving reviews of
all of its advertisers


Succinct and to the point. The best summation of Stereophile in years!
:-))

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:36:46 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

Surely no-one, but no-one buys a piece of equipment based on what he/she
has read in a review.

It happens more often than you think, Iain.

Are people really that insecure/indecisive?

You are looking ridiculous, refusing to admit the obvious, i.e. that a
lot of equipment is purchased because of a good review.

Bob Cain wrote in
:



Phil Allison wrote:
"Jocelyn Major"

Phil Allison

** What gives you the right to completely change someone's post
before adding your asinine reply ??

???? I simply don't understand what is your problem.


** Answer the question - bitch:

Phil's (and Sokolich's, aka The Ghost) problem:

http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/fsckhead.html


Bob

Appears to be a pretty accurate description of your problem, Bob.

You are looking ridiculous, refusing to admit the obvious, i.e.,
that a lot of equipment is purchased because of a good review.

I'm not the least embarrassed to admit that I bought the high-end Sony
multi-channel SACD player Stereophile gave a "product of the year" review
to. I'm very happy with it.

Iain M Churches wrote:
wrote in message

But glowing reviews of totally useless items such as Shakti Stones and
Shun Mook Mpingo, high $ power cords, etc., discs make intelligent
decisions more difficult, don't they?

Indeed, and also make it difficult to take any other reviews by the same
write seriously.

Oh, quite, quite. Some reviewers are entirely indicative of snake oil
and quackery, so as such they serve a valuable purpose as signs of
"Bull**** spoken here", and their endorsements serve to warn me away
from whatever they're peddling.


Francois.

these topic is a good example of
"Bull**** spoken here"

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 22:35:27 +0200, Sander deWaal wrote:

Doesn't that depend on the person judging the system?

BTW there are some very good sounding juke boxes (for a juke box) out
there.
All of them with tube amps ;-)


I had an AMI F (1955) and an AMI J (1959) both had GE VRII magnetic
pickups, ported woofers, a decent tweeter, and ultralinear
output. Frankly, a lot better than the competition, which usually
had the woofer (or full range speaker) mounted on a baffle
board like a Fender guitar amp or a cheap EJ Korvette's Xam
console stereo. (to Korvette's credit, they also sold
Harmon-Kardon and Dynaco gear)

IIRC, both of those wound up in Holland, which as I understand it,
is the European mecca for discriminating jukebox collectors.

The main problems with jukeboxes are the same as ever, the source
material (all over the map) and the playback mechanism (back then,
rumbly offspeed 45 turntables, now cheap CD mechs).

--
Ned Carlson Triode Electronics Chicago,IL USA
www.triodeelectronics.com

Bob Cain wrote in
:



Phil Allison wrote:
"Jocelyn Major"

Phil Allison

** What gives you the right to completely change someone's post
before adding your asinine reply ??

???? I simply don't understand what is your problem.


** Answer the question - bitch:

Phil's (and Sokolich's, aka The Ghost) problem:

http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/fsckhead.html
Bob


Seems to me like a pretty accurate portrait of pshcyo Bob Cain.