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

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.

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

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.

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.

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 06:01:13 GMT, in article JkMGc.36668$%_6.31340@attbi_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.

From: "goFab.com"
Date: 7/7/2004 7:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: Gl2Hc.41762$%_6.17984@attbi_s01

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 06:01:13 GMT, in article
JkMGc.36668$%_6.31340@attbi_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.

I am wrong on one count. It isn't his job to defend WAVAC and that wasn't what
i meant. It is his job to defend his review. He is the one who used the amps.


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.

Not in this case. MF did not do anything in his review that went against
editorial policy that I know of. When all is said and done it is MF's opinions
that are being disputed and it is up to him to defend them.

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.

He is not responsible for their opinions on sound quality.


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."

That would be up to JA. He chose the writers. The writers offer one person's
opinion in every review they write. This did not begin with the WAVAC review.
It is often stated in Stereophile that a review is just one person's opinion
and that it should not be taken as gospel. Stereophile recomends that readers
audition products themselves before making a purchase.

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).

No one is suggesting that you agree with MF. But one has to wonder if you are
letting your biases get the best of your opinion given you have never listened
to the amps in question.


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.

Here is a question for you. You listen to a product like the WAVACs. You know
you don't like the measurements but you really did think what you heard sounded
more like live music. What do you report in your review?

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:JkMGc.36668$%_6.31340@attbi_s01...
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.

Oh I don't like clipping amplifiers. Well past needing to listen
to clipping amps to know I don't like them.



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.

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.

Ever heard the term B.A.D. (broken as designed)?

Or approaching from another angle, considering the
measured performance of the $350K amp of 150 watts,
short of it being completely dead, how could you differeniate
its normal performance from a broken product?

From: "Dennis Moore"
Date: 7/7/2004 7:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: Ql2Hc.40993$a24.516@attbi_s03

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:JkMGc.36668$%_6.31340@attbi_s01...
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.

Oh I don't like clipping amplifiers. Well past needing to listen
to clipping amps to know I don't like them.

I didn't realize you could tell what the WAVACs sound like without listening to
them. I am skeptical that you can.




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.

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.

Ever heard the term B.A.D. (broken as designed)?

No I haven't. But I see no need to mischaracterize a product to be critical of
it. It wasn't broken. It worked.


Or approaching from another angle, considering the
measured performance of the $350K amp of 150 watts,
short of it being completely dead, how could you differeniate
its normal performance from a broken product?

I already explained that to you. If it doesn't work at all it is broken. That
would make for an easily detectable difference. If a product is not working as
it is supposed to work it is broken. Again it would be easy to tell the
difference.

S888Wheel wrote:
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 don't think an amp that clips at 2W is worth listening, too. Of
course, some may like the clipped sound, I guess.



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.

Yeah, but the fact that someone may like it does not mean that it is not
necessarily bad. There's no accounting for taste.


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.

If as goFab says, the rated power is 150W/ch and it clips at 2W, it's
broken. It certainly is not working as it's supposed to.



snip the rest...

From: chung
Date: 7/7/2004 7:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 8m2Hc.40996$a24.23645@attbi_s03

S888Wheel wrote:
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 don't think an amp that clips at 2W is worth listening, too. Of
course, some may like the clipped sound, I guess.

Maybe not. But you are making presumptions without actually listening.




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.

Yeah, but the fact that someone may like it does not mean that it is not
necessarily bad.

It does for that person and anyone else who has a similar response.

There's no accounting for taste.

I thought taste was considered subjective by objectivists. Are you now saying
that MF may simply have inferior taste?



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.

If as goFab says, the rated power is 150W/ch and it clips at 2W, it's
broken. It certainly is not working as it's supposed to.

Or they are not giving straight info on the power rating. All amps clip at a
certain point. Doesn't mean they are broken. Even if their power output is
grossly misrepresented by the marketing.I'm not really clear about this
clipping issue though. The amp is clipping at 2 watts? The sort of clipping
that can damage speakers? I thought clipping was what happened when the signal
exceeds the amps output cpacity and the wave is cut off before it gets to it's
apex? Is that not what clipping is? Is this really happening at 2 watts?



snip the rest...

"chung" wrote in message
news:8m2Hc.40996$a24.23645@attbi_s03...
S888Wheel wrote:
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 don't think an amp that clips at 2W is worth listening, too. Of
course, some may like the clipped sound, I guess.

I guess the ultimate question is, what can you say about an amplifier
from just listening to it? You have to have a signal at the input
and a transducer (speaker) at the output. But if you're familiar with
the sound of your system with its existing amplifier, and you simply
replace that amplifier with the new $350K amp, you certainly should be
able to say something about it without knowing that it cost $350K. I
would expect a reviewer to be able to say that it's an improvement or
not. You rarely see that happen, however. Once the reviewer knows
that he's listening to the world's most expensive amplifier, that fact
dominates all subsequent remarks. Indeed, he can probably write the
entire review without ever turning the amplifier on.

In this particular case of the Wavac did the reviewer note that the
amplifier could only output modest power before distorting the signal
beyond recognition? Not that I noticed.

Norm Strong

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 02:31:32 GMT, in article 8m2Hc.40996$a24.23645@attbi_s03,
chung stated:

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.

If as goFab says, the rated power is 150W/ch and it clips at 2W, it's
broken. It certainly is not working as it's supposed to.

When I originally used the term "broken" in my post, it was not my choice of
words but a particularly quotable quote of Mr. Atkinson in a technical sidebar
to a review from several issues ago (I believe the review was by Dudley of some
flea powered amps). I was going by memory, so sorry if I mischaracterized those
words.

"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

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

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

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"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?

Buster Mudd wrote:
"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?

Then again, the very fact that they were spiffy
little chrome McIntosh tube amps may have affected their judgement.
Looks and brand have such effects. It would have been interesting
to see which amp people would prefer in level-matched trials,
without knowing which one they were listening to. In that case
the sound would have been the deciding factor.

--

-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

Steven Sullivan wrote in message ...
Buster Mudd wrote:

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?

Then again, the very fact that they were spiffy
little chrome McIntosh tube amps may have affected their judgement.
Looks and brand have such effects. It would have been interesting
to see which amp people would prefer in level-matched trials,
without knowing which one they were listening to. In that case
the sound would have been the deciding factor.

While I have no doubt the McIntosh brand added quite a bit of cache to
the eventual sell price, you will note I never used the word "spiffy".
In fact, these amps had apparently spent the previous year in the
trunk of a Buick, and looked it. No one who participated in the
listening evaluations mistook them for anything other than the pile of
tubes in desperate need of a refurb job that they were.

Sounds like a broken Mac to me.

I have owned some of those. Pleasant to listen to of course.
But 8-10% indicates a problem, probably a tube of course.

Mac's had lower measured distortion than many tube amps.
And would run clinics to bring them up to the spec if they
weren't. And the spec was way lower than 8-10% unless
you were overdriving them.

Dennis

"Buster Mudd" wrote in message
...
"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?

"Buster Mudd" wrote in message
...
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?

1979 amps, OK. Tell us when happened in following years when those buyers
wanted to drive the new breeds of 2 to 4 ohm resistive speakers that came
along and were to their liking. Wait, I know... they refurbished their old
outdated and antiquated speakers.

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

Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro wrote in message
...
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.

Both will be accessible in the free on-line archives at
www.stereophile.com on Monday July 12.

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 ?

It was the Antique Sound Lab Explorer review, also available in
Stereophile's on-line archives.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson wrote:
Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro wrote in message
...
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.

Both will be accessible in the free on-line archives at
www.stereophile.com on Monday July 12.

http://www.stereophile.com/amplifica...iews/704wavac/
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/704awsi/

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 ?

It was the Antique Sound Lab Explorer review, also available in
Stereophile's on-line archives.

http://www.stereophile.com/amplifica...ws/304antique/

The quote by Mr. Atkinson is:

"I recommend that this amp be used from its 4 ohm output transformer
tap with sensitive speakers, but even then, "broken" is the word
most engineers would use to describe an amplifier that measures as
poorly as did the Antique Sound Lab Explorer 805 DT."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

BTW, I wanted to compare Mr. Atkinson's measurements of these amplifiers
with some more normal models, so I tried to find reviews of amplifiers
by brands such as Denon, Marantz, Pioneer, Sony, Technics, Yamaha
and I only found one (links to others welcome):

Stereophile: Yamaha @PET RP-U100 personal receiver
http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/191/

I just found this list:
http://www.stereophile.com/images/ma...x/intamps.html

that confirms such brands are rarely (or never) reviewed.

I got the impression from this editorial:

Stereophile: "Where's the Real Magazine?"
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/313/

that the readers won't accept such reviews (because high-end Japanese
amplifiers/receivers are multi-channel ? * **), so Stereophile doesn't
review them. They are reviewed in Home Theater Magazine (sister magazine ?)
but not with the same detail:
http://www.hometheatermag.com/

* although they can be used with only 2 speakers connected.

** and there are some high-end stereo-only models. For instance,
the Yamaha MX-D1 (digital (PWM) amplifier).

Well, I suppose the
NAD C370 integrated amplifier
http://www.stereophile.com/amplifica...633/index.html
is normal enough.

--
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

Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro wrote:

I just found this list:
http://www.stereophile.com/images/ma...x/intamps.html

that confirms such brands are rarely (or never) reviewed.

I got the impression from this editorial:

Stereophile: "Where's the Real Magazine?"
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/313/

that the readers won't accept such reviews (because high-end Japanese
amplifiers/receivers are multi-channel ? * **), so Stereophile doesn't
review them. They are reviewed in Home Theater Magazine (sister magazine ?)
but not with the same detail:
http://www.hometheatermag.com/

* although they can be used with only 2 speakers connected.

** and there are some high-end stereo-only models. For instance,
the Yamaha MX-D1 (digital (PWM) amplifier).

Well, I suppose the
NAD C370 integrated amplifier
http://www.stereophile.com/amplifica...633/index.html
is normal enough.


A comparison with the NAD integrated amp shows how spectacularly bad
that WAVAC amp really is. Now there is one thing that I thought the
reviewer should have been able to catch: the line spurs (hum) of the
WAVAC. Looking at the measurements, the 180 Hz component is only 60dB
down, and the 420 Hz at -62dB. I would have expected these components to
be quite audible. Also note the strong 3rd and 5th harmonics, at a low
1W output. So much for the sweet even tube harmonics. Contrast those
numbers to the NAD's. You have to wonder if those heavy, expensive power
supplies weren't designed only for their looks and weights. No doubt we
have seen high school science-projects audio amps with better hum
performance. And lower distortion, too. And how about that 10dB peak at
70 Hz? Or the tremendous peaking at 100KHz and 150KHz? Is that what it
takes to sound like live music?

"Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro" skrev i melding
news:IbEIc.63015$MB3.50731@attbi_s04...

that the readers won't accept such reviews (because high-end Japanese
amplifiers/receivers are multi-channel ? * **), so Stereophile doesn't
review them. They are reviewed in Home Theater Magazine (sister magazine
?)
but not with the same detail:
http://www.hometheatermag.com/

No, its this http://www.guidetohometheater.com/

Apparently both is published by Primedia Magazines.


Esp1

"goFab.com" wrote in message ...

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.

An amplifier that only reaches 2 W/ch before clipping is a 2 W/ch
amplifier, not a 150 W/ch amplifier. The problem is not with the
amplifier, but with the manufacturer's specs. If these 4 Watts sound
good to your ears, and you are willing to pay $87500 per Watt, then I
say it's a good deal. Also, from the manufacturer's website, this rig
draws 800 Watts, so its thermodynamic efficiency is somewhere around
half a percent.

In the sound reinforcement business, we are beginning to see
respectable power amps costing less than 50 cents per Watt.