I'm aware that he's been a 'force' in high end for decades, and I've seen
him referenced most recently on chat boards etc the supposed *audible*
flaws of SACD. I see also his IAR journal makes claims to be 'scientific',
yet is rather free with claims that DVd players sound worse than CD
players, that there's audibnle content to 100 Hz, and that things like CD
magnetizers work

Is this guy taken seriously? By objectivists or subjectivists?
And if so, why?



--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
I'm aware that he's been a 'force' in high end for decades, and I've seen
him referenced most recently on chat boards etc the supposed *audible*
flaws of SACD. I see also his IAR journal makes claims to be 'scientific',
yet is rather free with claims that DVd players sound worse than CD
players, that there's audibnle content to 100 Hz, and that things like CD
magnetizers work

Is this guy taken seriously? By objectivists or subjectivists?
And if so, why?


As I said in an earlier post the Orions, I stopped subscribing years
ago after I found that I could not trust his hearing to be even remotely in
sync with my own, and after I determined that he favored certain
people/companies under the guise of "objectivism", and after his quirky and
unreliable nature as a businessman became evident. I don't see why anybody
on either side should take him seriously.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
I'm aware that he's been a 'force' in high end for decades, and I've seen
him referenced most recently on chat boards etc the supposed *audible*
flaws of SACD. I see also his IAR journal makes claims to be 'scientific',
yet is rather free with claims that DVd players sound worse than CD
players, that there's audibnle content to 100 Hz, and that things like CD
magnetizers work

Is this guy taken seriously? By objectivists or subjectivists?
And if so, why?



Please ignore my other post. I had a brain fart tonight and confused
Moncrieff with Peter Aczel of The Audio Critic. Mongrieff is much more
objective and scientific...did some very nice work in the early days on
phono cartridges, and in general his work on the sound of phono preamps in
the '70's I found to square with what I heard. Haven't read him for years;
I'm surprised the magazine (IAR) still exists.

Harry Lavo wrote:

Please ignore my other post. I had a brain fart tonight and confused
Moncrieff with Peter Aczel of The Audio Critic. Mongrieff is much more
objective and scientific...


I'm surprised at your judgment. I know of no one, today, whose reviews
are "as scientific" than Mr. Aczels. His speaker reviews are after the
fashion of the Richard Heyser-Audio school; that is, highly measurement
driven. You may also want to check out his recent review of the
Benchmark DAC 1. I'm thinking you'll find it to be quite rigorous,
objective, and scientific.


michael

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
I'm aware that he's been a 'force' in high end for decades, and I've seen
him referenced most recently on chat boards etc the supposed *audible*
flaws of SACD. I see also his IAR journal makes claims to be 'scientific',
yet is rather free with claims that DVd players sound worse than CD
players, that there's audibnle content to 100 Hz, and that things like CD
magnetizers work

Is this guy taken seriously? By objectivists or subjectivists?
And if so, why?



Please ignore my other post. I had a brain fart tonight and confused
Moncrieff with Peter Aczel of The Audio Critic. Mongrieff is much more
objective and scientific...did some very nice work in the early days on
phono cartridges, and in general his work on the sound of phono preamps in
the '70's I found to square with what I heard. Haven't read him for years;
I'm surprised the magazine (IAR) still exists.

Moncrief started out with some promise, advocating straight wire bypass
tests for amplifiers, but soon after he started selling capacitors, he became
a lot less rigorous. He now waxes on about botique cables and the like.

wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
I'm aware that he's been a 'force' in high end for decades, and I've
seen
him referenced most recently on chat boards etc the supposed
*audible*
flaws of SACD. I see also his IAR journal makes claims to be
'scientific',
yet is rather free with claims that DVd players sound worse than CD
players, that there's audibnle content to 100 Hz, and that things like
CD
magnetizers work

Is this guy taken seriously? By objectivists or subjectivists?
And if so, why?



Please ignore my other post. I had a brain fart tonight and confused
Moncrieff with Peter Aczel of The Audio Critic. Mongrieff is much more
objective and scientific...did some very nice work in the early days on
phono cartridges, and in general his work on the sound of phono preamps
in
the '70's I found to square with what I heard. Haven't read him for
years;
I'm surprised the magazine (IAR) still exists.

Moncrief started out with some promise, advocating straight wire bypass
tests for amplifiers, but soon after he started selling capacitors, he
became
a lot less rigorous. He now waxes on about botique cables and the like.

He actually did a very fine cable survey in the early eighties...measuring
resistance and capacitance versus frequency and trying to link it to
subjective sound qualities. He found differences, but also concluded that
many cables sounded much alike.