| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#201
|
|||
|
|||
William Sommerdork said: Most of the people criticizing my views are dull, lacking wit or insight, The bits you've posted on RAO fit that description perfectly. In addition, you're in love with the sound of your own voice and you seem oblivious to the concerns of the non-elite who don't get access to the best new products for free. |
|
#202
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 04:27:27 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: I'm not going respond in detail to Mr. Weil. He (as far as I know) has had no relations with JA, has never attended a Stereophile Writer's Conference, etc, etc, etc. His blind support of JA seems more to because he dislikes me. This is untrue. I know you about as much as I know Mr. Atkinson. What *is* true is that I have no relations with JA. I subscribed to the magazine for a sum total of a year back in the middle to late 90s (96 I believe). I haven't read a Stereophile in probably 5 years, nor did I read very many of them in the early days. What is also true is that I don't really remember any of your reviews, so I have no idea about your audio philosophy, and it's hard His willingness to post a response, but not to hear the details of my story, shows this. Because JA is wealthy, "successful,," and holds an important position at an influential magazine, his point of view must necessarily be true, and opposing points of view false or misguided. Untrue. I was just pointing out that you seem to have an axe to grind. It's pretty clear from your postings. I think it IS annoying for former employees to air their dirty laundry in public. To me, it's a bit unseemly. So I commented. But Bill, it's not because I "dislike" you. On the contrary, I don't have enough exposure to you to form any opinion, although I must say that you are rapidly making it pretty easy for me TO dislike you. What is undebatable is the change that occurred in Stereophile in the editorial shift from JGH to JA. I don't doubt that at all. What had been a magazine that told readers what they needed to know became one that told them what they wanted to hear. The belief in "high fidelity" was gradually discarded (as it has at most, but not all, other magazines) and replaced with a rainbow of opinions. That could very well be the case as well. Of course, one could argue that the 90s and 00s are a far different time than the 60s, for better or worse. The Web page damning his editorial actions almost perfectly mirrors my feelings about these matters. Most of my friends are intellectually honest. John Atkinson is neither a friend nor intellectually honest. Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Most of the people criticizing my views are dull, lacking wit or insight, the sort of people Dr. Edwin H. Land described in this way: "There are many scientists who, for all their marvelous training, are just plain dull. You sit with them and nothing is happening. They have been stultified somehow and the world is going by them." Once again, you are entitled to your opinion. One other point, and I shall let this rest, unless you insist on arguing what is not debatable. Remeber Star Trek's "Squire of Gothos" episode? No, I don't. Spock faces Trelaine and delivers one of the great lines in the history of TV: "I object to you. I object to intellect without discipline. I object to power without contstructive purpose." Bill, I knew Spock and you're no Spock chuckle. Seriously, YOUR discipline has been lacking in this post. You let emotion inform your opinion. I never denigrated you nor showed any antipathy toward you and yet you ascribe motives to me that are non-existent. I *will* go out on a limb and say something pretty personal to you. You're sounding like a little kid whose ball has been snatched from his arms. Sorry to have to say that, but that's the tone that you are now setting. I object to John Atkinson's lack of intellectual discipline. I object to Stereophile's failure to use its power for any constructive purpose. J'accuse! PS, here's a direct question for you. If you "quit", why did you allow your name to stay on the masthead? It sounds more to me that you quit in your mind, not in any substantive way (and no, I have no idea about the ethical storm that you and JA have mentioned). Frankly, looking at it from the outside, it sounds like it was a passive-aggressive quitting/firing on BOTH sides. |
|
#203
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 09:40:01 -0500, dave weil
wrote: I'm not going respond in detail to Mr. Weil. He (as far as I know) has had no relations with JA, has never attended a Stereophile Writer's Conference, etc, etc, etc. His blind support of JA seems more to because he dislikes me. This is untrue. I know you about as much as I know Mr. Atkinson. What *is* true is that I have no relations with JA. I subscribed to the magazine for a sum total of a year back in the middle to late 90s (96 I believe). I haven't read a Stereophile in probably 5 years, nor did I read very many of them in the early days. What is also true is that I don't really remember any of your reviews, so I have no idea about your audio philosophy, and it's hard finishing the part that was accidentally edited out of this paragraph: ....to determine your real views based on my readings of your sporadic posts here on the internet. |
|
#204
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... It all hangs on what the word "work" means. Copper bracelets are said to work for some arthritus sufferers. If you're willing to accept that level of the meaning of the word "work", then you are willing to accept *anything* as working. IOW, you have no judgement. see www.pcabx.com for a minimalist definition of "work". |
|
#205
|
|||
|
|||
|
William Sommerdork said:
Note that this is Mr. Middius's idea of "wit". I'm just laughing my ass off. How terribly clever! Most of the people criticizing my views are dull, lacking wit or insight, The bits you've posted on RAO fit that description perfectly. Lacking wit, perhaps. Lacking insight, no way. Of course, what constitutes insight might be a matter of opinion. But I think I know it when I see it. In addition, you're in love with the sound of your own voice... Most posters are, as are you... and you seem oblivious to the concerns of the non-elite who don't get access to the best new products for free. Excellent point! Glad you brought it up. Because I am not a member of the "elite", and I am _not_ oblivious to the concerns of those who don't have huge amounts of money to throw around on audio equipment. I haven't reviewed audio equipment for any magazine in more than a dozen years. (I've recently done some record reviews for John Sunier's Website.) I never had "access to the best new products for free", though I did keep several items, with the manufacturer's approval -- and at John Atkinson's encouragement. * This included two Shure surround decoders (one of which I eventually sold -- the second of which remains in my system), the JVC XP-A1010 ambience synthesizer (which I also have and use), the Stax Lambda Pro 'phones, T-1 hybrid amplifier, & ED-1 equalizer), a pair of Yamaha HD-1 headphones (which they didn't want back for "sanitary" reasons) -- and a pair of Beyer or Sennheiser headphones (I forget which), which were the cause of JA "firing" me. One of my arguments in favor of more-rational testing (and this will no doubt surprise Arny Krueger) is that I was bothered that expensive amplifiers and fancy accessories did not necessarily result in better sound. My suggestions to implement test procedures -- both in the listening room and at the lab bench -- that would give a better idea of what products "really" sound like were, of course, instantly rejected. At least as far as I was concerned, John never heard an idea from me he didn't instantly dislike. Perhaps John treats other people differently. (And there are people who immediately dislike me on meeting me.) But I've never met anyone who was utterly defenive about everything. No one. Not even remotely. * This is the "dirty little truth" the publishers of underground magazines don't want you to know. John explicitly told all of us that, if we found a product of reference quality, we should try to hang onto it, so we could do a better job of judging future products. Great idea. But he never discussed the ethics of the issue -- should we actually buy the product? (Reviewers' prices generally run 45% to 50% off list, but that's still a lot of money for many items.) Should we get an "extended loan" (which usually results in the reviwer ultimately owning the product)? The fact is that many reviewers have products they never paid a red cent for. Even when they buy the product, it's at accomodation price, and they can sometimes sell it for more than paid for it -- or at much less of a loss than if they'd paid retail. The question of reviewing ethics is, to me, a sticky one, and if you want to publically discuss it, I'm game. |
|
#206
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clyde Slick wrote:
If you're willing to accept that level of the meaning of the word "work", then you are willing to accept *anything* as working. IOW, you have no judgement. see www.pcabx.com for a minimalist definition of "work". Hahaha. l.o.l.! |
|
#207
|
|||
|
|||
|
One of the most oft repeated mantras of the subjective enterprise is that
even a small change in a system can make a great difference. Which means by definition that all of the mag reviews are of no benefit to readers because they can't duplicate the system and listening context and sound sources used in the article. Further, it is oft said that several bits of gear was swapped in and out during the listening period, which makes an informed consumer choice based on the article even more remote. One more point, who reviews the reviewers that the reader may know where on the tinear scale they fall? |
|
#208
|
|||
|
|||
|
William Sommerwerck wrote: This is the "dirty little truth" the publishers of underground magazines don't want you to know. John explicitly told all of us that, if we found a product of reference quality, we should try to hang onto it, so we could do a better job of judging future products. That is correct. Reviewers cannot produce meaningful results in a vacuum, whether they work for "underground" magazines or mainstream magazines. Great idea. But he never discussed the ethics of the issue -- should we actually buy the product? (Reviewers' prices generally run 45% to 50% off list, but that's still a lot of money for many items.) Should we get an "extended loan" (which usually results in the reviewer ultimately owning the product)? Good grief, how selective _is_ your memory, Bill. This subject has been discussed at length with my writing team, at writers' conferences, in person, at "Ask the editors" sesions at shows, even in the pages of the magazine. There are three things that can happen when a Stereophile reviewer has finished with a component. In order of frequency, they a 1) return it, 2) arrange a long-term loan for reference (with the clear understanding that it remains the manufacturer's property); 3) buy it. What don't you grasp about this policy, Bill (which was in operation when you worked for me)? John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#209
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Your expectations of reviews are unrealistic."
Not at all, as I expect nothing of any value from them, except as one may learn of new gear. What the reviewer concludes as to merits of "sound" etc. have no value for reasons mentioned. The whole "audition" process has no reference by which to make an informed conclusion about anything but that the entertainment value of the articles is one of it's selling points for some people. |
|
#211
|
|||
|
|||
|
William Sommerwerck wrote:
This is the "dirty little truth" the publishers of underground magazines don't want you to know. John explicitly told all of us that, if we found a product of reference quality, we should try to hang onto it, so we could do a better job of judging future products. That is correct. Reviewers cannot produce meaningful results in a vacuum, whether they work for "underground" magazines or mainstream magazines. Great idea. But he never discussed the ethics of the issue -- should we actually buy the product? (Reviewers' prices generally run 45% to 50% off list, but that's still a lot of money for many items.) Should we get an "extended loan" (which usually results in the reviewer ultimately owning the product)? Good grief, how selective _is_ your memory, Bill. This subject has been discussed at length with my writing team, at writers' conferences, in person, at "Ask the editors" sesions at shows, even in the pages of the magazine. There are three things that can happen when a Stereophile reviewer has finished with a component. In order of frequency, they a 1) return it, 2) arrange a long-term loan for reference (with the clear understanding that it remains the manufacturer's property); 3) buy it. What don't you grasp about this policy, Bill (which was in operation when you worked for me)? Perhaps I have a convenient case of selective memory, no doubt contracted sometime when I was in your presence. |
|
#212
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Signal" wrote in message
... "William Sommerwerck" emitted : * This is the "dirty little truth" the publishers of underground magazines don't want you to know. John explicitly told all of us that, if we found a product of reference quality, we should try to hang onto it, so we could do a better job of judging future products. Great idea. But he never discussed the ethics of the issue -- should we actually buy the product? (Reviewers' prices generally run 45% to 50% off list, but that's still a lot of money for many items.) Should we get an "extended loan" (which usually results in the reviwer ultimately owning the product)? The fact is that many reviewers have products they never paid a red cent for. Even when they buy the product, it's at accomodation price, and they can sometimes sell it for more than paid for it -- or at much less of a loss than if they'd paid retail. The question of reviewing ethics is, to me, a sticky one, and if you want to publically discuss it, I'm game. Two points here Bill... Firstly, if the policy is so objectionable why did *you* accept products this way? Secondly, what is wrong with "..if we found a product of reference quality, we should try to hang onto it, so we could do a better job of judging future products."? It might be considered a perk of the job, but the goal you outlined is to benefit the reviewing process. Isn't this in the best interests of the contributors and readers of the magazine? You're reading something into what I wrote that I never intended. I never said the "policy is ... objectionable", I said that reviewing ethics were a sticky issue. Nor did I every suggest that reviewers shouldn't hang on to products for reference. Quite the opposite. Even JA agrees with me. It is common knowledge that reviewers often keep review samples indefinitely without paying for them. |
|
#213
|
|||
|
|||
|
William Sommerdork said: What don't you grasp about this policy, Bill (which was in operation when you worked for me)? Perhaps I have a convenient case of selective memory, no doubt contracted sometime when I was in your presence. So aliens ate your brain? G |
|
#214
|
|||
|
|||
|
Y A W N
|
|
#216
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
cmndr[underscore]george[at]comcast[dot]net says... Chevdoborg whined: Right, he just includes and endorses idiotic fraudulent stuff in his magazine. Ooh! I'll bet that makes you so darned mad! You wish. I know. It makes me laugh You're not laughing, 'borg. You're screeching in pain. I can tell by the purple color of your pimply face. Ad hominems won't make shakti stones work, either. You see when I ridicule jackasses like you, it's not ad hominem, it's because you have the nerve to defend fraud. The only ridiculing you are capable of doing is ad hominem insult, which doesn't amount to jack ****. Let's spell it out just to rub it in your face. Shakti Stones don't work. If they did, John Atkinson or anyone else could collect $1million by demonstrating them working. Since nobody has collected the $1million, Shakti Stones don't work. What DOES work is selling shakti stones to gulliable fools like George M. Middius. In fact, you've displayed such stupidity, I'd be surprised if you hadn't bought a second pair of shakti stones after you decided the first pair wasn't working well enough. In critical thinking nomenclature, it's called a Sunk Cost Fallacy - once a person invests a considerable chunk of change on something worthless, there is an inclination to invest more in the item in an attempt to extract some worth from it. The early days of microcomputers relied heavily on the sunk cost fallacy by selling $3000 computers to people who soon realized what a useless device they had purchased, so they bought add-ons and software trying to make it worthwhile. But at least they weren't being defrauded by being sold computers that ran on magic. |
|
#217
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#218
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 18:19:41 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: "Signal" wrote in message .. . "William Sommerwerck" emitted : * This is the "dirty little truth" the publishers of underground magazines don't want you to know. John explicitly told all of us that, if we found a product of reference quality, we should try to hang onto it, so we could do a better job of judging future products. Great idea. But he never discussed the ethics of the issue -- should we actually buy the product? (Reviewers' prices generally run 45% to 50% off list, but that's still a lot of money for many items.) Should we get an "extended loan" (which usually results in the reviwer ultimately owning the product)? The fact is that many reviewers have products they never paid a red cent for. Even when they buy the product, it's at accomodation price, and they can sometimes sell it for more than paid for it -- or at much less of a loss than if they'd paid retail. The question of reviewing ethics is, to me, a sticky one, and if you want to publically discuss it, I'm game. Two points here Bill... Firstly, if the policy is so objectionable why did *you* accept products this way? Secondly, what is wrong with "..if we found a product of reference quality, we should try to hang onto it, so we could do a better job of judging future products."? It might be considered a perk of the job, but the goal you outlined is to benefit the reviewing process. Isn't this in the best interests of the contributors and readers of the magazine? You're reading something into what I wrote that I never intended. I never said the "policy is ... objectionable", I said that reviewing ethics were a sticky issue. So, when you said "dirty little secret", we're supposed to think you meant something other than "objectionable"? Nor did I every suggest that reviewers shouldn't hang on to products for reference. Quite the opposite. Even JA agrees with me. It is common knowledge that reviewers often keep review samples indefinitely without paying for them. Yes, it's common knowledge, not a "dirtly little secret" that " the publishers of underground magazines don't want you to know". |
|
#219
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chevdo said: It makes me laugh You're not laughing, 'borg. You're screeching in pain. I can tell by the purple color of your pimply face. Ad hominems won't make shakti stones work, either. You see when I ridicule You are soooo angry. Have you met Little ****? He's RAO's nerve center for unrequited anger. Shakti Stones don't work. Then why did you buy them? gulliable stupidity defrauded Look out, you just popped another zit. Do your mommy and daddy know you're whacking off in front of your 'puter instead of doing your chores? |
|
#220
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message ups.com William Sommerwerck wrote: I object to John Atkinson's lack of intellectual discipline. I object to Stereophile's failure to use its power for any constructive purpose. Both in your _opinion_, Bill, and I have no objection to you holding such opinions and expressing them. Why should I? John Atkinson is among the very few people I know that is so pompous that they would make a post like this! |
|
#221
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message William Sommerdork said: Most of the people criticizing my views are dull, lacking wit or insight, The bits you've posted on RAO fit that description perfectly. If irony killed! |
|
#222
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Chevdo" wrote in message
news:aLqXe.262429$tt5.62921@edtnps90 In article , says... "EddieM" wrote in message (Chevododo) wrote: hey if making money off fraudulent ads is so important to Atkinson, why doesn't he pick up the $1million offered by Randi for demonstrating the shakti stones? Bitch and moan? No, I'm pointing, sneering, and ridiculing a fool, and apparently also his lickspittle side-kick fraud-facillitator 'dave', too. Just what in the world is your gripe Chevedovoododo? If someone tried the Shakti Stone tweak, found it to work in their system and decide to pay for it, what is it to you? It all hangs on what the word "work" means. Copper bracelets are said to work for some arthritus sufferers. but in double-blind tests, they don't work no matter what anyone 'says'. How about that? If shakti stones work, a double-blind test will earn anyone who demonstrates it ONE MILLION DOLLARS. Just goes to show, money can't buy you Science. Shouldn't that offer appeal to any of the shakti stone believers? It's easier to make those $million$ with Stereophile's glowing reviews for snake oil products, as approved by John Atkinson. Or are there any shakti stone believers? Probably dimwits like Mike Fremer... Maybe just ones that believe on weekends? LOL! |
|
#223
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Chevodeevodee-chevedoveedoo) wrote
Just what in the world is your gripe Chevedovoododo? If someone tried the Shakti Stone tweak, found it to work in their system and decide to pay for it, what is it to you? What is it to YOU? Shakti Stones don't work so the hypothetical person you're describing would have been deluded, possibly by believing a so-called authourity like 'Stereophile' magazine. Since they would be deluded, they would be defrauded. Why does it bother you that I am potentially helping people avoid or overcome delusion that would result in them being defrauded by spending exorbitant amounts of money on items that don't perform in the manner those who sell and promote them claim? It doesn't take some kind of superhero to have the guts to publically state that shakti stones are bullcrap, but it does take a snivelling coward to argue with anyone who states that shakti stones are bullcrap. How does someone defraud someone of that, Chevodingdong ? How does adding 'dingdong' and other extremely unsophisticated ad hominems to my posting name help you avoid making a complete ass of yourself in a public forum? Go ahead Doveedoveedo, do share the troubles inflicted upon your mind by the Shakti tweak. Let it all out. I enjoy listening to you. |
|
#224
|
|||
|
|||
|
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message . .. [snip] * In attempting to be honest with the readers, I publically broke a rule that John Atkinson privately encouraged all the reviewers to break, and which is still commonly broken. I'll supply details, if anyone is interested. How can I resist? Please supply details. |
|
#225
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "John Atkinson" wrote in message ups.com William Sommerwerck wrote: I object to John Atkinson's lack of intellectual discipline. I object to Stereophile's failure to use its power for any constructive purpose. Both in your _opinion_, Bill, and I have no objection to you holding such opinions and expressing them. Why should I? John Atkinson is among the very few people I know that is so pompous that they would make a post like this! It is completely relevant to the discussion. You're a dirty guy. |
|
#226
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ... One of the most oft repeated mantras of the subjective enterprise is that even a small change in a system can make a great difference. Which means by definition that all of the mag reviews are of no benefit to readers because they can't duplicate the system and listening context and sound sources used in the article. Further, it is oft said that several bits of gear was swapped in and out during the listening period, which makes an informed consumer choice based on the article even more remote. One more point, who reviews the reviewers that the reader may know where on the tinear scale they fall? The fancier reviews got, the less use they have been to me. Over the years, I have progressed from the simply worded pieces of Julian Hirsch, to Audio Magazine in the late 80's and 90's, and of late, to Stereophile. Stereophile reviews are too elegant, too entertaining. Literally, this sounds like an absurd complaint. But perhaps embellishment of prose can lead to embellishment of the listening experience. Review-speak is an open ended challenge for the writer. If a reviewer made the case that a particular set of $50K speakers made him experience spatio-temporal dislocation in five dimensions, and wrote so well that in a brief reverie, the reader could imagine the experience, what editor is going to say, "I can't run that, because it's impossible." ? Julian Hirsch had a particular way of writing, in which a product was rarely less than good, but he rewarded only a few with his love. After one took note of the cabinet construction and the frequency response, one only had to understand the meaning of a few sentences. A speaker review by Julian Hirsch was not very entertaining, but it was a marvel of simplicity. Once one understood Hirsch's code, one could perceive that he was a man of unshakeable integrity. Many times, he reviewed a component with the remark that he could not afford to own it. His aspirations seemed limited, because of his complete immersion in service to the audio community. He was not employed by Stereo Review because he was an entertaining writer. He was not a charasmatic person, though I can provide one personal anecdote. It happens we took the same New Jersey Transit train. One morning, we got off together. I saw a man of such stunning radiance that I picked him out of a crowd of a hundred people. In an instant, I understood the meaning of the Quaker expression "inner light." |
|
#227
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Audio Magazine" was for me the best all round publication with it's
attempts to attach sound differences to technical differences and to the hands on diy articles that provided insight from the ground up, so to speak. I greave still for it. On reflection the hand writing on the wall for it might have been when they hired greenberg to do stereophile type fancy writing with heavy breathing and entertaining little throw away bits of information and personal perceptions that were of no value to anyone. But what really killed it was all those tech type nerds, among which I count myself, who got their jollies with electronics moving to computers in large numbers, or it at least diluted the pool of such people across a greater range of diversions which left too few to support the niche the mag filled. |
|
#228
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#229
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "John Atkinson" wrote in message ups.com William Sommerwerck wrote: I object to John Atkinson's lack of intellectual discipline. I object to Stereophile's failure to use its power for any constructive purpose. Both in your _opinion_, Bill, and I have no objection to you holding such opinions and expressing them. Why should I? John Atkinson is among the very few people I know that is so pompous that they would make a post like this! It sounded lot like duh..Mikey's "It's an opinion you get to have". |
|
#230
|
|||
|
|||
|
Robert Morein said: * In attempting to be honest with the readers, I publically broke a rule that John Atkinson privately encouraged all the reviewers to break, and which is still commonly broken. I'll supply details, if anyone is interested. How can I resist? Please supply details. I'll bet the "rule" had nothing to do with placing humility above all other virtues. |
|
#231
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ... "Audio Magazine" was for me the best all round publication with it's attempts to attach sound differences to technical differences and to the hands on diy articles that provided insight from the ground up, so to speak. I greave still for it. On reflection the hand writing on the wall for it might have been when they hired greenberg to do stereophile type fancy writing with heavy breathing and entertaining little throw away bits of information and personal perceptions that were of no value to anyone. But what really killed it was all those tech type nerds, among which I count myself, who got their jollies with electronics moving to computers in large numbers, or it at least diluted the pool of such people across a greater range of diversions which left too few to support the niche the mag filled. Yes, Audio was very much to my taste. |
|
#232
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Uberdork" wrote in message ... "George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message William Sommerdork said: Most of the people criticizing my views are dull, lacking wit or insight, The bits you've posted on RAO fit that description perfectly. If irony killed! You're dead already. |
|
#233
|
|||
|
|||
|
Robert Morein said: "Arny Uberdork" LOL If irony killed! You're dead already. Can turds die? How do they test for that? (Note to Mr. Krooborg: This comment should not be taken literally. You are only a figurative turd, despite being composed of 98% pure feces.) |
|
#234
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... "Audio Magazine" was for me the best all round publication with it's attempts to attach sound differences to technical differences and to the hands on diy articles that provided insight from the ground up, so to speak. I greave still for it. On reflection the hand writing on the wall for it might have been when they hired greenberg to do stereophile type fancy writing with heavy breathing and entertaining little throw away bits of information and personal perceptions that were of no value to anyone. But what really killed it was all those tech type nerds, among which I count myself, who got their jollies with electronics moving to computers in large numbers, or it at least diluted the pool of such people across a greater range of diversions which left too few to support the niche the mag filled. Yes, Audio was very much to my taste. It tasted best when my eyes were closed. |
|
#235
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Robert Morein" wrote: wrote in message ... One of the most oft repeated mantras of the subjective enterprise is that even a small change in a system can make a great difference. Which means by definition that all of the mag reviews are of no benefit to readers because they can't duplicate the system and listening context and sound sources used in the article. Further, it is oft said that several bits of gear was swapped in and out during the listening period, which makes an informed consumer choice based on the article even more remote. One more point, who reviews the reviewers that the reader may know where on the tinear scale they fall? The fancier reviews got, the less use they have been to me. Over the years, I have progressed from the simply worded pieces of Julian Hirsch, to Audio Magazine in the late 80's and 90's, and of late, to Stereophile. Stereophile reviews are too elegant, too entertaining. Literally, this sounds like an absurd complaint. But perhaps embellishment of prose can lead to embellishment of the listening experience. Review-speak is an open ended challenge for the writer. If a reviewer made the case that a particular set of $50K speakers made him experience spatio-temporal dislocation in five dimensions, and wrote so well that in a brief reverie, the reader could imagine the experience, what editor is going to say, "I can't run that, because it's impossible." ? Julian Hirsch had a particular way of writing, in which a product was rarely less than good, but he rewarded only a few with his love. After one took note of the cabinet construction and the frequency response, one only had to understand the meaning of a few sentences. A speaker review by Julian Hirsch was not very entertaining, but it was a marvel of simplicity. Once one understood Hirsch's code, one could perceive that he was a man of unshakeable integrity. Many times, he reviewed a component with the remark that he could not afford to own it. His aspirations seemed limited, because of his complete immersion in service to the audio community. He was not employed by Stereo Review because he was an entertaining writer. He was not a charasmatic person, though I can provide one personal anecdote. It happens we took the same New Jersey Transit train. One morning, we got off together. I saw a man of such stunning radiance that I picked him out of a crowd of a hundred people. In an instant, I understood the meaning of the Quaker expression "inner light." Mr. Hirsch changed his reviewing style a bit based, IMO, on comments about him in Absolute Sound and Stereophile. Again IIRC, in the 70s and early 80s, JH never mentioned the sound of the piece under review, including speakers; it was measurements only. Starting sometime in the 80s, he started commenting on the sound of a piece. Concurrently, he started to make the odd negative comment here and there. It seemed obvious at the time that this was a reaction from him or his editor to repeated comments (negative) from the other mags. And, it was a change that I welcomed. That said, what (very) little I know about the technical aspects of audio, I learned from JH. |
|
#236
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#237
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#238
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have serious doubts about Julian Hirsch's integrity. He may have felt he
had it, but some of his reviews are questionable. Two stand out. In one he stated that component A sounded better than component B, but the difference was of no importance. This rather negates the whole point of reviewing, does it not? The other was a 1980 review of a decidedly crummy-sounding EV speaker. He said it "sounded about as good as you would expect a speaker to sound". (Interpret that as you like.) A salesman I knew at a competing audio salon was similarly bothered about that statement, and after demoing the speaker for me, asked my opinion. There is no doubt that Hirsch did not like the speaker, and was trying to find some way to avoid saying it. That's hardly integrity. As for the length of Stereophile articles... They are way, way, way, too long. And for no particularly good reason, other than to provide editorial content to balance advertising space. JGH has often commented negatively on their length. Even his longest articles for Stereophile don't come anywhere nearly as close. |
|
#239
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message William Sommerdork said: Most of the people criticizing my views are dull, lacking wit or insight, The bits you've posted on RAO fit that description perfectly. If irony killed! ....I would be immune... |
|
#240
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Audio" was down to one DIY article a year when it went. Ed Dell, for
all his faults, is the last real audio publisher alive. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| John Atkinson: audio ignoramus or sleazebag? | Audio Opinions | |||
| question for anyone who bought an Aardvark product bundled with Cakewalk | Pro Audio | |||
| question for anyone who bought an Aardvark product bundled with Cakewalk | Pro Audio | |||
| question for anyone who bought an Aardvark product bundled with Cakewalk | Pro Audio | |||
| RCA out and Speaker Question in 2004 Ranger Edge Question | Car Audio | |||
Linear Mode
