A Audio and hi-fi forum. AudioBanter.com

Go Back   Home » AudioBanter.com forum » rec.audio » High End Audio
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Steely Dan The Absolute Sound



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 1st 04, 01:54 AM
Steven Sullivan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

I was poking around the official Steely Dan site and was amused to find this exchange in their
fan email archives. (What ever happened to old Siegfried D-B anyway?)

http://www.steelydan.com/steelymail.01.html

Subj: Future Steely Dan recordings
Date: 95-11-27 13:37:06 EST
From: SDuraybito
To: STEELY DAN

In Issue 99 of The Absolute Sound magazine, I surveyed Steely Dan's superbly-recorded LPs from
the 1970s. In each case, the LPs outperform the CD re-issues in terms of sonic quality with a
sense of "you-are-there" that CDs can't match.

On behalf of audio enthusiasts and Steely Dan lovers around the world, I urge you to record
subsequent Steely Dan works all-analogue (preferably through tube mastering decks) and to
issue coincident LP versions of all releases.

Thanks for your time,

Siegfried P. Duray-Bito


Dear Siegfried:
Yeah, and maybe we should write the lyrics with a quill pen on parchment?

Thanks for your lavish praise and your no-doubt scholarly appraisal of our recorded ouvre.
Think we'll pass on the "all-analogue (preferably through tube mastering decks)" deal. MCA is
interested in rereleasing some of our catalog on vinyl, and this may indeed happen soon. I'll
hang on to my CD's - just the thought of that flimsy little phono stylus twitching along in
that scratchy plastic groove makes my fillings hurt.

By the way Absolute Sound is, IMHO, one nutty mag. Fads, feuds, crackpot tweeks, purple
prose-laden gear reviews - it's all there. Although I am not familiar with your work
specifically, I salute you for the great work you are doing on behalf of "golden ear"
audiophiles and followers of the "high end". If there's any coupons left after you shell out
for those x-thousand dollar speaker cables, you might want to consider buying yourself a life.




--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy >


Ads
  #2  
Old July 5th 04, 03:41 PM
goFab.com
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

On 1 Jul 2004 00:54:32 GMT, in article >, Steven
Sullivan stated:

>By the way Absolute Sound is, IMHO, one nutty mag. Fads, feuds, crackpot tweeks,
>purple
>prose-laden gear reviews - it's all there. Although I am not familiar with your
>work
>specifically, I salute you for the great work you are doing on behalf of "golden
>ear"
>audiophiles and followers of the "high end". If there's any coupons left after
>you shell out
>for those x-thousand dollar speaker cables, you might want to consider buying
>yourself a life.


It's all true! The "cult of Harry" is as weird as ever.

Unfortunately, Stereophile also grows progressively less readable with each
passing issue, IMHO. Part of the problem is that Mr. Atkinson seems reluctant
to exercise his editorial prerogatives; there is a definite sense of an absence
of strong leadership and the absence of an adult, guiding hand. As a result,
writers like Dudley, "Aural Robert" and certain others are devoting seemingly
ever-greater portions of their columns to political rants, domestic soap operas
and the like. Stereophile writers shouldn't write about irrelevancies such as
politics for the same reason IBM shouldn't diversify into making truck tires --
readers and shareholders can diversify their magazine and newspaper purchases
(or stock holdings) a lot more efficiently than an audio reviewer can learn
enough to become a value-adding political pundit (or even an entertaining
writer), or computer makers can learn how to make treads. But Mr. Atkinson lets
it all continue. I increasingly value writers like Damkroger who stick to the
knitting and do a really fine job, minus the doo-dads.

In addition, the equipment reviews seem have become, at last, totally unmoored
from reality. A recent review of an absurd $350,000 tube amplifier from Wavac
results in the predictable "takes things to a whole new level of heart-stopping
reality" praise from the reviewer. We then find out in Mr. Atkinson's technical
sidebar that this amplifier, costing as much as 3 Porsche 911s and rated at an
already-modest 150 W/ch, actually only reaches 2 W/ch before clipping. There
are some other eye opening measuremens as well, reminding one of Mr. Atkinson's
comment in another recent review (I believe about an amplifier Dudley was raving
about) that amplifiers that test like this are usually described as "broken."
Yet the Wavac review is unreservedly positive in recommending the expenditure of
readers' $350K. My point is not that this amplifier has nothing to recommend it
-- no doubt it is a real work of art if not of engineering. But if a review of
the most expensive home audio component in the world (?) is all sweetness and
light when the thing can only put out 1/75th of its rated power before clipping
and has no other obvious severe measured flaws, one wonders if equipment reviews
have any function at all -- besides providing backing pages for advertisements.

Oh, well. At least Stereophile publishes Mr. Atkinson's sidebars so that the
intrepid reader can see the foolishness of the accompanying review -- with the
Absolute Sound we have nothing but the Golden Ears to trust (you know, the ones
that declared any number of products -- e.g., the Hovland premamp, the
Hurricanes -- to be the Second Coming of Christ, only to run away from those
claims very rapidly because a few capacitors or some such were changed).

I'm growing to appreciate the British style of audio journalism a bit more. On
the whole, it seems decidedly more analytical and less emotional than its US
counterpart. There's a good degree of skepticism, and a feeling of balance in
the reviews. There's also less of a feeling of outright hostility toward the
readership. It isn't hard to detect in both the Absolute Sound and Stereophile
a real kind of "f*** you" attitude towards their readers, whether it be in
responses to letters in both magazines in which notable reviewers routinely
display childish pique, the tone of Mr. Pearson's periodic descents from Valhal
-- er, Sea Cliff -- or in Stereophile's recent arrogant response to numerous
reader complaints about too much Musical Fidelity -- "you don't like Musical
Fidelity coverage? Here's tons more!" -- including paragraphs spilled reviewing
Musical Fidelity's first watch. Yes, wris****ch. You read that right.

Sorry to take this thread so far afield! Cheers.
  #3  
Old July 6th 04, 05:47 AM
Steven Sullivan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

goFab.com > wrote:
> On 1 Jul 2004 00:54:32 GMT, in article >, Steven
> Sullivan stated:


actually, Becker and/or Fagan stated this; I simply quoted it.

> >By the way Absolute Sound is, IMHO, one nutty mag. Fads, feuds, crackpot tweeks,
> >purple
> >prose-laden gear reviews - it's all there. Although I am not familiar with your
> >work
> >specifically, I salute you for the great work you are doing on behalf of "golden
> >ear"
> >audiophiles and followers of the "high end". If there's any coupons left after
> >you shell out
> >for those x-thousand dollar speaker cables, you might want to consider buying
> >yourself a life.


> It's all true! The "cult of Harry" is as weird as ever.


> Unfortunately, Stereophile also grows progressively less readable with each
> passing issue, IMHO. Part of the problem is that Mr. Atkinson seems reluctant
> to exercise his editorial prerogatives; there is a definite sense of an absence
> of strong leadership and the absence of an adult, guiding hand. As a result,
> writers like Dudley, "Aural Robert" and certain others are devoting seemingly
> ever-greater portions of their columns to political rants, domestic soap operas
> and the like.


Better that, than endorsements of ridiculous audio tweaks/equipment, e.g.
Dudley's recent qualified rave for the magical 'Audio Collimator'.

--

-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth

  #4  
Old July 6th 04, 04:55 PM
Dennis Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

Got to say amen goFab,

Stereophile would have had one notable review if I had been
writing one on the most expensive amp. If it were an inexpensive
product, I would simply say it broken. If it had been this one
for $350K and it was apparent they meant it to be this way,
the review would have redefined the term scathing.

I believe I recall some part of the review mentioned, "a listening
experience like no other, a way of hearing the music different
than any other". I should think so, considering the broken
manner it was operating most of the time. To be very generous
and say higher levels of second harmonic only aren't too bad,
wasn't it like sqarewaving at 10 watts?

JA did comment on it in the "AS WE Hear It" section. Commenting
on a very expensive system that was so good, and would have
left one with enough money for some very expensive cars too.

I just wonder if JA still owned the magazine rather than working
for a large publishing owner, would he have said differently? More
assertively declared the amp broken as designed.

I know he reads this newsgroup. But cannot think of how he
could defend that product or the review of it. If he said he
has an employer to satisfy I would accept that, but don't think
he would admit it. Otherwise, I see no defense for it.

When learning electronic circuits, I built a simple pre-amp
circuit on a bread board with a decent power supply on it.
It had one jfet, cap coupled at both ends. Was
operated single ended. Cheap bulk jfets being what they are
it only had about one volt of clean output before heavy
second harmonic distortion set in. I even experimented
with using it that way, and padding down the output to hear
different amounts of second harmonic distortion. And it
sounded surprisingly good even when you could see the
distortion on an o-scope. But it wasn't high fidelity and it
wasn't an improvement. And I could have paralleled a few
of them and put out the power that darn $350k amp would
with similar operating characteristics although I don't suppose
it would have the voltage swing to keep putting out the higher
voltage and wattage levels well past the point of heavy distortion.

I have been unhappy with Stereophile, and that pretty much
does it for me I think. Lunacy for sure.

Dennis

"goFab.com" > wrote in message >
> It's all true! The "cult of Harry" is as weird as ever.
>
> Unfortunately, Stereophile also grows progressively less readable with

each
> passing issue, IMHO. Part of the problem is that Mr. Atkinson seems

reluctant
> to exercise his editorial prerogatives; there is a definite sense of an

absence
> of strong leadership and the absence of an adult, guiding hand. As a

result,
> writers like Dudley, "Aural Robert" and certain others are devoting

seemingly
> ever-greater portions of their columns to political rants, domestic soap

operas
> and the like. Stereophile writers shouldn't write about irrelevancies

such as
> politics for the same reason IBM shouldn't diversify into making truck

tires --
> readers and shareholders can diversify their magazine and newspaper

purchases
> (or stock holdings) a lot more efficiently than an audio reviewer can

learn
> enough to become a value-adding political pundit (or even an entertaining
> writer), or computer makers can learn how to make treads. But Mr.

Atkinson lets
> it all continue. I increasingly value writers like Damkroger who stick to

the
> knitting and do a really fine job, minus the doo-dads.
>
> In addition, the equipment reviews seem have become, at last, totally

unmoored
> from reality. A recent review of an absurd $350,000 tube amplifier from

Wavac
> results in the predictable "takes things to a whole new level of

heart-stopping
> reality" praise from the reviewer. We then find out in Mr. Atkinson's

technical
> sidebar that this amplifier, costing as much as 3 Porsche 911s and rated

at an
> already-modest 150 W/ch, actually only reaches 2 W/ch before clipping.

There
> are some other eye opening measuremens as well, reminding one of Mr.

Atkinson's
> comment in another recent review (I believe about an amplifier Dudley was

raving
> about) that amplifiers that test like this are usually described as

"broken."
> Yet the Wavac review is unreservedly positive in recommending the

expenditure of
> readers' $350K. My point is not that this amplifier has nothing to

recommend it
> -- no doubt it is a real work of art if not of engineering. But if a

review of
> the most expensive home audio component in the world (?) is all sweetness

and
> light when the thing can only put out 1/75th of its rated power before

clipping
> and has no other obvious severe measured flaws, one wonders if equipment

reviews
> have any function at all -- besides providing backing pages for

advertisements.
>
> Oh, well. At least Stereophile publishes Mr. Atkinson's sidebars so that

the
> intrepid reader can see the foolishness of the accompanying review -- with

the
> Absolute Sound we have nothing but the Golden Ears to trust (you know, the

ones
> that declared any number of products -- e.g., the Hovland premamp, the
> Hurricanes -- to be the Second Coming of Christ, only to run away from

those
> claims very rapidly because a few capacitors or some such were changed).
>
> I'm growing to appreciate the British style of audio journalism a bit

more. On
> the whole, it seems decidedly more analytical and less emotional than its

US
> counterpart. There's a good degree of skepticism, and a feeling of

balance in
> the reviews. There's also less of a feeling of outright hostility toward

the
> readership. It isn't hard to detect in both the Absolute Sound and

Stereophile
> a real kind of "f*** you" attitude towards their readers, whether it be in
> responses to letters in both magazines in which notable reviewers

routinely
> display childish pique, the tone of Mr. Pearson's periodic descents from

Valhal
> -- er, Sea Cliff -- or in Stereophile's recent arrogant response to

numerous
> reader complaints about too much Musical Fidelity -- "you don't like

Musical
> Fidelity coverage? Here's tons more!" -- including paragraphs spilled

reviewing
> Musical Fidelity's first watch. Yes, wris****ch. You read that right.
>
> Sorry to take this thread so far afield! Cheers.
>

  #5  
Old July 7th 04, 07:01 AM
S888Wheel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

From: "Dennis Moore"
>Date: 7/6/2004 8:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Got to say amen goFab,
>
>Stereophile would have had one notable review if I had been
>writing one on the most expensive amp. If it were an inexpensive
>product, I would simply say it broken. If it had been this one
>for $350K and it was apparent they meant it to be this way,
>the review would have redefined the term scathing.


That is your POV. I find it interesting that you would take such a POV without
actually listening to the product.

>
>I believe I recall some part of the review mentioned, "a listening
>experience like no other, a way of hearing the music different
>than any other".


It went on to say that it was like no other in that it sounded so much more
like live unamplified music. Some people like that.

I should think so, considering the broken
>manner it was operating most of the time.


Broken? It was not operating as it was designed to operate? to me, broken means
it doesn't work as it is supposed to work or not at all.

To be very generous
>and say higher levels of second harmonic only aren't too bad,
>wasn't it like sqarewaving at 10 watts?
>
>JA did comment on it in the "AS WE Hear It" section. Commenting
>on a very expensive system that was so good, and would have
>left one with enough money for some very expensive cars too.
>
>I just wonder if JA still owned the magazine rather than working
>for a large publishing owner, would he have said differently? More
>assertively declared the amp broken as designed.


I doubt it. He didn't review the product.

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


He does not have to defend it. that would be MF's job. His defense seems
obvious. he listened to the product and in his opinion it made the system sound
more like the real thing for most recordings.

If he said he
>has an employer to satisfy I would accept that, but don't think
>he would admit it. Otherwise, I see no defense for it.


People see what they want to see.

>
>When learning electronic circuits, I built a simple pre-amp
>circuit on a bread board with a decent power supply on it.
>It had one jfet, cap coupled at both ends. Was
>operated single ended. Cheap bulk jfets being what they are
>it only had about one volt of clean output before heavy
>second harmonic distortion set in. I even experimented
>with using it that way, and padding down the output to hear
>different amounts of second harmonic distortion. And it
>sounded surprisingly good even when you could see the
>distortion on an o-scope. But it wasn't high fidelity and it
>wasn't an improvement.


IYO.

And I could have paralleled a few
>of them and put out the power that darn $350k amp would
>with similar operating characteristics although I don't suppose
>it would have the voltage swing to keep putting out the higher
>voltage and wattage levels well past the point of heavy distortion.
>


Hey, if you can design and build a power amplifier that can reproduce all the
characteristics of the WAVAC I suggest you consider doing so and marketing it
on that premise. It worked for Carver. You might be filling a niche.

>I have been unhappy with Stereophile, and that pretty much
>does it for me I think. Lunacy for sure.
>
>Dennis
>
>"goFab.com" > wrote in message >
>> It's all true! The "cult of Harry" is as weird as ever.
>>
>> Unfortunately, Stereophile also grows progressively less readable with

>each
>> passing issue, IMHO. Part of the problem is that Mr. Atkinson seems

>reluctant
>> to exercise his editorial prerogatives; there is a definite sense of an

>absence
>> of strong leadership and the absence of an adult, guiding hand. As a

>result,
>> writers like Dudley, "Aural Robert" and certain others are devoting

>seemingly
>> ever-greater portions of their columns to political rants, domestic soap

>operas
>> and the like. Stereophile writers shouldn't write about irrelevancies

>such as
>> politics for the same reason IBM shouldn't diversify into making truck

>tires --
>> readers and shareholders can diversify their magazine and newspaper

>purchases
>> (or stock holdings) a lot more efficiently than an audio reviewer can

>learn
>> enough to become a value-adding political pundit (or even an entertaining
>> writer), or computer makers can learn how to make treads. But Mr.

>Atkinson lets
>> it all continue. I increasingly value writers like Damkroger who stick to

>the
>> knitting and do a really fine job, minus the doo-dads.
>>
>> In addition, the equipment reviews seem have become, at last, totally

>unmoored
>> from reality. A recent review of an absurd $350,000 tube amplifier from

>Wavac
>> results in the predictable "takes things to a whole new level of

>heart-stopping
>> reality" praise from the reviewer. We then find out in Mr. Atkinson's

>technical
>> sidebar that this amplifier, costing as much as 3 Porsche 911s and rated

>at an
>> already-modest 150 W/ch, actually only reaches 2 W/ch before clipping.

>There
>> are some other eye opening measuremens as well, reminding one of Mr.

>Atkinson's
>> comment in another recent review (I believe about an amplifier Dudley was

>raving
>> about) that amplifiers that test like this are usually described as

>"broken."
>> Yet the Wavac review is unreservedly positive in recommending the

>expenditure of
>> readers' $350K. My point is not that this amplifier has nothing to

>recommend it
>> -- no doubt it is a real work of art if not of engineering. But if a

>review of
>> the most expensive home audio component in the world (?) is all sweetness

>and
>> light when the thing can only put out 1/75th of its rated power before

>clipping
>> and has no other obvious severe measured flaws, one wonders if equipment

>reviews
>> have any function at all -- besides providing backing pages for

>advertisements.
>>
>> Oh, well. At least Stereophile publishes Mr. Atkinson's sidebars so that

>the
>> intrepid reader can see the foolishness of the accompanying review -- with

>the
>> Absolute Sound we have nothing but the Golden Ears to trust (you know, the

>ones
>> that declared any number of products -- e.g., the Hovland premamp, the
>> Hurricanes -- to be the Second Coming of Christ, only to run away from

>those
>> claims very rapidly because a few capacitors or some such were changed).
>>
>> I'm growing to appreciate the British style of audio journalism a bit

>more. On
>> the whole, it seems decidedly more analytical and less emotional than its

>US
>> counterpart. There's a good degree of skepticism, and a feeling of

>balance in
>> the reviews. There's also less of a feeling of outright hostility toward

>the
>> readership. It isn't hard to detect in both the Absolute Sound and

>Stereophile
>> a real kind of "f*** you" attitude towards their readers, whether it be in
>> responses to letters in both magazines in which notable reviewers

>routinely
>> display childish pique, the tone of Mr. Pearson's periodic descents from

>Valhal
>> -- er, Sea Cliff -- or in Stereophile's recent arrogant response to

>numerous
>> reader complaints about too much Musical Fidelity -- "you don't like

>Musical
>> Fidelity coverage? Here's tons more!" -- including paragraphs spilled

>reviewing
>> Musical Fidelity's first watch. Yes, wris****ch. You read that right.
>>
>> Sorry to take this thread so far afield! Cheers.
>>

>
>
>
>
>
>


  #6  
Old July 7th 04, 07:12 AM
John Atkinson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

"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

  #7  
Old July 7th 04, 04:04 PM
Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Stereophile reviews (Was: Steely Dan The Absolute Sound)

goFab.com > wrote:
> In addition, the equipment reviews seem have become, at last, totally unmoored
> from reality. A recent review of an absurd $350,000 tube amplifier from Wavac
> results in the predictable "takes things to a whole new level of heart-stopping
> reality" praise from the reviewer. We then find out in Mr. Atkinson's technical
> sidebar that this amplifier, costing as much as 3 Porsche 911s and rated at an
> already-modest 150 W/ch, actually only reaches 2 W/ch before clipping.


Stereophile July 2004

http://www.stereophile.com/contents704/

Wavac Audio Lab SH-833 monoblock power amplifier
Michael Fremer

As We See It
Triggered by Mikey Fremer's review of the $350k/pair Wavac amplifier
in this issue, John Atkinson ponders problems of fidelity and value
for money.

I suppose in a couple of months these articles will be available
on the website.

> There are some other eye opening measuremens as well, reminding
> one of Mr. Atkinson's comment in another recent review (I believe
> about an amplifier Dudley was raving about) that amplifiers that
> test like this are usually described as "broken."


That one I couldn't find. Can you give some more detail ?

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94
  #8  
Old July 7th 04, 04:18 PM
Dennis Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

Good point JA, you had the integrity to publish the review and
the tests that showed the real performance. 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$%[email protected]_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
>
>

  #9  
Old July 7th 04, 04:19 PM
Buster Mudd
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

"Dennis Moore" > wrote in message >...
> Cheap bulk jfets being what they are
> it only had about one volt of clean output before heavy
> second harmonic distortion set in. I even experimented
> with using it that way, and padding down the output to hear
> different amounts of second harmonic distortion. And it
> sounded surprisingly good even when you could see the
> distortion on an o-scope. But it wasn't high fidelity and it
> wasn't an improvement.


Circa 1979 my roommate, an EE @ MIT, happened into a half dozen old
used McIntosh tube monoblock amps (I think the model was MC30...little
chrome 30 watt jobbers) that needed some TLC. After retubing & biasing
these amps, we brought them into the recording studio for extensive
listening & testing.

The results of both were elucidating:

- These amps measured between 8 & 10% 2nd harmonic distortion!

- And everyone who heard them loved the sound! So much so that my
roommate was able to sell off 4 of the amps for an order of magnitude
more money than he'd bought all 6 for.

No one ever accused these amps of being "broken". Everyone who bought
them considered them an "improvement" over whatever they previously
owned (my roommate kept 2 of the amps to replace his Dynaco 70, & we
both certainly agreed it was a major "improvement").

Was it "high fidelity"? Who cares?
  #10  
Old July 8th 04, 03:31 AM
goFab.com
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Steely Dan The Absolute Sound

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 06:01:13 GMT, in article <JkMGc.36668$%[email protected]_s01>,
S888Wheel stated:

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Imaging, soundstage, 3D Ban High End Audio 4 February 17th 04 07:18 AM
the emperor's clothes Ben Hoadley High End Audio 33 January 16th 04 06:48 PM
Sound, Music, Balance Robert Trosper High End Audio 1 November 21st 03 05:09 AM
DVI - The Destroyer Of Sound Uptown Audio High End Audio 0 September 10th 03 04:36 PM
Surround Sound for Stereo Lovers Robert Lang High End Audio 5 July 4th 03 08:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.