Is Issue 29 the most recent one? Saw it on the stands a few days ago
after not seeing it for awhile), bought it, and
halfway through, realized I'd read it before. Sure enough,
it said '2003' on the cover. Yikes. Anyone know when the
next issue is due?

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Steven Sullivan wrote:


Is Issue 29 the most recent one? Saw it on the stands a few days ago
after not seeing it for awhile), bought it, and
halfway through, realized I'd read it before. Sure enough,
it said '2003' on the cover. Yikes. Anyone know when the
next issue is due?

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Don't have copy close by but the last issue had Ivan Berger as Guest Editor and
was delivered in the Fall 2003. I've received no notice of a new issue from
Peter subsequently. Why not write or call him to inquire/complain. That's what
I'm going to do :-)

Nousaine wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:


Is Issue 29 the most recent one? Saw it on the stands a few days ago
after not seeing it for awhile), bought it, and
halfway through, realized I'd read it before. Sure enough,
it said '2003' on the cover. Yikes. Anyone know when the
next issue is due?

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Don't have copy close by but the last issue had Ivan Berger as Guest Editor and
was delivered in the Fall 2003.

That was issue 29..which apparently remains on the stands, as
per the instructions I noew see on the cover. What's weird is that
it seems to have disappeared from the local stands near me...then
*re*appeared recently.

I've received no notice of a new issue from
Peter subsequently. Why not write or call him to inquire/complain. That's what
I'm going to do :-)

When I do write, it will be to subscribe. I have never seen the
state of audiophilia and the audio press summarized more honestly,
accurately, and succinctly than in Aczel's final 'Hip Boots' column.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:51:06 +0000, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Is Issue 29 the most recent one? Saw it on the stands a few days ago
after not seeing it for awhile), bought it, and
halfway through, realized I'd read it before. Sure enough,
it said '2003' on the cover. Yikes. Anyone know when the
next issue is due?

__________________________________________________ _

Ref: Audio Critic..

I subscribed to this publication a some years ago and it was
irratic to say the least. Some issues would never materialize,
etc.

Also, Aczel seemed to view himself a kind of "critic of the critics",
...and consistently tended to "spit into the wind". He seemed to
relish the role of fighting the "booger" of the mainstream. Much
bitterness abounded there. He would state the obvious and
wait for the masses to acknowledge his deep insights. The
problem was taking a steady diet of this kind of flow...it all
gets a bit tiresome after awhile and the shock has worn off!
Personal attacks were rampant. I suspect that he has challenged
the technical qualifications of every member on the staff
of Stereophile. All the while Stereophile moved from a rather
"scruffy" underground publication to a full "mainstream"
slick publication under the current Editor. Audio critic
still remains a "hit or miss" underground publication.

As his targets would ebb and flow..so did the publication status.
After reading a few of the publications you begin to realize you're
involved with a rather bitter mindset with an axe to grind.

Leonard...

lcw999 wrote:
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:51:06 +0000, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Is Issue 29 the most recent one? Saw it on the stands a few days ago
after not seeing it for awhile), bought it, and
halfway through, realized I'd read it before. Sure enough,
it said '2003' on the cover. Yikes. Anyone know when the
next issue is due?

__________________________________________________ _

Ref: Audio Critic..

I subscribed to this publication a some years ago and it was
irratic to say the least. Some issues would never materialize,
etc.

Also, Aczel seemed to view himself a kind of "critic of the critics",
...and consistently tended to "spit into the wind". He seemed to
relish the role of fighting the "booger" of the mainstream.


I'm aware of his rep as a critic of audiophilia. Good for him.

(Did you really just write 'booger'? I haven't heard that since
Montgomery Burns mentioned the 'booger man'.)


Much
bitterness abounded there. He would state the obvious and
wait for the masses to acknowledge his deep insights. The
problem was taking a steady diet of this kind of flow...it all
gets a bit tiresome after awhile and the shock has worn off!

What's tiresome to me is the head-in-the-sand, I-can't-hear-you
attitude of the audio press towards scientific and engineering reality.
And that's been going on a *whole lot* longer.


Personal attacks were rampant. I suspect that he has challenged
the technical qualifications of every member on the staff
of Stereophile.

You mean guys like Harley, who write about cable burn-in?

All the while Stereophile moved from a rather
"scruffy" underground publication to a full "mainstream"
slick publication under the current Editor. Audio critic
still remains a "hit or miss" underground publication.

And as we know, quality is measured by commercial success.

As his targets would ebb and flow..so did the publication status.
After reading a few of the publications you begin to realize you're
involved with a rather bitter mindset with an axe to grind.

*You* begin to realize that. *I* realized that there is, at last,
someone publishing an audio magazine that *didn't* buy into
the endless nonsense of sighted comparison. As Aczel notes,
even magazines that publish 'good guys' like David Ranada (Sound
& Vision), still also publish dubious reviews based on sighted comparison
of components that require controlled comparison.


--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 20:24:23 +0000, Steven Sullivan wrote:

lcw999 wrote:
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:51:06 +0000, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Is Issue 29 the most recent one? Saw it on the stands a few days ago
after not seeing it for awhile), bought it, and halfway through,
realized I'd read it before. Sure enough, it said '2003' on the
cover. Yikes. Anyone know when the next issue is due?

__________________________________________________ _

Ref: Audio Critic..

I subscribed to this publication a some years ago and it was irratic
to say the least. Some issues would never materialize, etc.

Also, Aczel seemed to view himself a kind of "critic of the critics",
...and consistently tended to "spit into the wind". He seemed to
relish the role of fighting the "booger" of the mainstream.


I'm aware of his rep as a critic of audiophilia. Good for him.

(Did you really just write 'booger'? I haven't heard that since
Montgomery Burns mentioned the 'booger man'.)

Yep! An old term..


Much
bitterness abounded there. He would state the obvious and wait for
the masses to acknowledge his deep insights. The problem was taking a
steady diet of this kind of flow...it all gets a bit tiresome after
awhile and the shock has worn off!

What's tiresome to me is the head-in-the-sand, I-can't-hear-you attitude
of the audio press towards scientific and engineering reality. And
that's been going on a *whole lot* longer.

Perhaps the Audio press doesn't agree with you and blunders on to its
success without believing as you do. They must be doing something
right!


Personal attacks were rampant. I suspect that he has challenged the
technical qualifications of every member on the staff of Stereophile.

You mean guys like Harley, who write about cable burn-in?

Yes! ever hear a cable that had "spitty" sounding silibance and have
it slowly subside after a week or two. But, I forgot, they all sound
the same..I should have never ask!

All the while Stereophile moved from a rather "scruffy" underground
publication to a full "mainstream" slick publication under the
current Editor. Audio critic still remains a "hit or miss"
underground publication.

And as we know, quality is measured by commercial success.

Yes, we know that commercial success represents all that is right with
the world. Quality is based on this...surely you jest? (humor)
Perhaps, we are all upset because Stereophile just blunders on without
accepting all the tenets you or I believe in. I find it an excellent
publication in the Audio field with much information about the
industry...not found anywhere else. Also, I find David Ranada and his
insights interesting and I read his column in most every issue.
However, if one prefers the "rip and slash" tactics of Aczel..then, so
be it. That one treasures Aczel's opinion does tend to raise the
eyebrow!

As his targets would ebb and flow..so did the publication status.
After reading a few of the publications you begin to realize you're
involved with a rather bitter mindset with an axe to grind.

*You* begin to realize that. *I* realized that there is, at last,
someone publishing an audio magazine that *didn't* buy into the endless
nonsense of sighted comparison. As Aczel notes, even magazines that
publish 'good guys' like David Ranada (Sound & Vision), still also
publish dubious reviews based on sighted comparison of components that
require controlled comparison.

Ooooh...sighted comparison...can one drop any lower in this audio
domain than have this occur? How could anyone express any degree of
professionalism with these weird habits? This is the real "booger" in
the audio profession. So many of these misled Hi-Enders do it.

Leonard...

lcw999 wrote:

Yes! ever hear a cable that had "spitty" sounding silibance and have
it slowly subside after a week or two. But, I forgot, they all sound
the same..I should have never ask!


It's perfectly OK to ask. The answer is no, you are imagining it.
There is no physical property of the cable that requires burn-in to
acheive a superior (whatever that is) state.

In fact, this is one of the rare forums where you actually get a good
answer for this kind of questions, so bring on more questions!

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:56:20 +0000, chung wrote:

lcw999 wrote:

Yes! ever hear a cable that had "spitty" sounding silibance and
have it slowly subside after a week or two. But, I forgot, they
all sound the same..I should have never ask!


It's perfectly OK to ask. The answer is no, you are imagining it. There
is no physical property of the cable that requires burn-in to acheive a
superior (whatever that is) state.

Whoa..."no physical property of the cable....."
One, cannot truthfully make this type of statement at
point in time..see the below section on Particle
Physics!

In fact, this is one of the rare forums where you actually get a good
answer for this kind of questions, so bring on more questions!

Hmmm...let me see..you do not hear something...therefore the
individual that does, is imagining it. Very scientific and an
extremely easy out. Tell us more about this overwhelming method of
determining what the individual next to you is hearing or not hearing?

Do temper those opinions that wire characteristics are fixed forever!

Also, do be aware that Particle physics study is showing us that we do
not understand or grasp, at this point in time, all the the variables
that any given organic component is subjected to...we are not there
yet. What they are telling us is that we should not mistakenly plow
along thinking we have all the factors together yet. There is interplay
between particles that are understood..the variables of this particle
interplay is not understood. So rather than jumping to an easy
conclusion that "someone is imagining" something..therefore it does not
exist...perhaps, one should wait until more is known about particle
physics and its interplay with all things. A rather Scientific thing to
do. Wire being in an organic state is subject to magnetics, RF,
gravitational issues and a lot of variables not fully inderstood..so
temper this urge to make statements about what another can or can't
detect.

But, then if one has it all together and can use the ole "...you are
imagining that scenario.." then I must politely step back and
mumble..O.K.!! Awed with the Pseudo-Scientic insights that abound
within some Engineering thought processes!

Leonard...

P.S. Note that over the years the Scientific disciplines tend to
root out the facts of the "real world" and pass this along to
the Engineering domain to utilize in its constructive
processes. However, when Engineering begins to reach back into
the Scientific domain and attempts to become
pseudo-scientist...we get into this easy "...you are imagining
this..." technique. Please, enough..wait intil the Scientic
domain works it way through all the issues in the Particle
theory. We are all involved in this
"Electro-Chemical-Organic" sphere. What we do not
"understand"...is grossly effecting us daily...The Scientist
will eventually unravel this.. Be patient. Do attempt to gain
something from the "Agnostic" thinking processes and
look at yourself in the mirror and honestly state:

" I just don't know all the answers yet"

"Help me to know that "I don't know"
in the many spheres of human intellect".

lcw999 wrote:
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 20:24:23 +0000, Steven Sullivan wrote:
I'm aware of his rep as a critic of audiophilia. Good for him.

(Did you really just write 'booger'? I haven't heard that since
Montgomery Burns mentioned the 'booger man'.)

Yep! An old term..

Much
bitterness abounded there. He would state the obvious and wait for
the masses to acknowledge his deep insights. The problem was taking a
steady diet of this kind of flow...it all gets a bit tiresome after
awhile and the shock has worn off!

What's tiresome to me is the head-in-the-sand, I-can't-hear-you attitude
of the audio press towards scientific and engineering reality. And
that's been going on a *whole lot* longer.

Perhaps the Audio press doesn't agree with you and blunders on to its
success without believing as you do. They must be doing something
right!

By that argument, Sound & Vision, which at least nods towards the need for DBT,
must be doing something even righter, since it sells
better than either of the two big 'high end' mags.

Personal attacks were rampant. I suspect that he has challenged the
technical qualifications of every member on the staff of Stereophile.

You mean guys like Harley, who write about cable burn-in?

Yes! ever hear a cable that had "spitty" sounding silibance and have
it slowly subside after a week or two.

Nope.

But, I forgot, they all sound
the same..I should have never ask!

Yes, and the earth is not flat. Neither claim is surprising to
those who understand the reasoning behind them...yet vocal
minorities of naysayers persist. Alas my hobby seems to be
populated by one of them.

All the while Stereophile moved from a rather "scruffy" underground
publication to a full "mainstream" slick publication under the
current Editor. Audio critic still remains a "hit or miss"
underground publication.

And as we know, quality is measured by commercial success.

Yes, we know that commercial success represents all that is right with
the world. Quality is based on this...surely you jest? (humor)

er...yes, I was being sarcastic.

Perhaps, we are all upset because Stereophile just blunders on without
accepting all the tenets you or I believe in.

Obviously, 'we' aren't all upset by it. And you and I dont' seem to
have much commonality of belief.

I find it an excellent
publication in the Audio field with much information about the
industry...not found anywhere else.

Indeed, it's industry reportage seems fine. But I doubt most subscribers
buy it for *that* (at least, based on what I've seen in its letter columns).

Also, I find David Ranada and his
insights interesting and I read his column in most every issue.

Not in Stereophile you don't. The readers' howls of outrage would
be deafening.

However, if one prefers the "rip and slash" tactics of Aczel..then, so
be it. That one treasures Aczel's opinion does tend to raise the
eyebrow!

To anyone of a scientific bent, any issue of Stereophile will exercise
the eyebrows far more vigorously than TAC.

As his targets would ebb and flow..so did the publication status.
After reading a few of the publications you begin to realize you're
involved with a rather bitter mindset with an axe to grind.

*You* begin to realize that. *I* realized that there is, at last,
someone publishing an audio magazine that *didn't* buy into the endless
nonsense of sighted comparison. As Aczel notes, even magazines that
publish 'good guys' like David Ranada (Sound & Vision), still also
publish dubious reviews based on sighted comparison of components that
require controlled comparison.

Ooooh...sighted comparison...can one drop any lower in this audio
domain than have this occur? How could anyone express any degree of
professionalism with these weird habits? This is the real "booger" in
the audio profession. So many of these misled Hi-Enders do it.

Indeed. Nicely summarized. Thanks.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

I have only seen one issue of The Audio Critic, #24. It was how I found out
about rahe, rao, ram, etc.

Does anyone know who the guy caricatured sitting in front of his computer,
issuing forth rage -- oops, opinion -- was supposed to be?

*You* begin to realize that. *I* realized that there is, at last,
someone publishing an audio magazine that *didn't* buy into
the endless nonsense of sighted comparison.


But, you can't deny the importance of sighted comparison when it's
really the *appearance of the case* that is the most important attribute
of a piece of audio equipment.

-Sean

Sean Fulop wrote:



*You* begin to realize that. *I* realized that there is, at last,
someone publishing an audio magazine that *didn't* buy into
the endless nonsense of sighted comparison.


But, you can't deny the importance of sighted comparison when it's
really the *appearance of the case* that is the most important attribute
of a piece of audio equipment.

-Sean

Of course appearance is important. I don't think anyone suggests otherwise. But
many confuse appearance with sound quality and when they claim that a Green Pen
improved the sound of their cds one has to 1) be skeptical and 2) ask for sound
quality validation. Otherwise we'd all be wasting time "trying" that latest,
greatest tweak which is most likely the equivalent of a miracle carburetor.

Sean Fulop wrote:
*You* begin to realize that. *I* realized that there is, at last,
someone publishing an audio magazine that *didn't* buy into
the endless nonsense of sighted comparison.


But, you can't deny the importance of sighted comparison when it's
really the *appearance of the case* that is the most important attribute
of a piece of audio equipment.

LOL. But how often is that realization admitted to, in component
reviews?


--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

*You* begin to realize that. *I* realized that there is, at last,
someone publishing an audio magazine that *didn't* buy into
the endless nonsense of sighted comparison.


But, you can't deny the importance of sighted comparison when it's
really the *appearance of the case* that is the most important attribute
of a piece of audio equipment.

LOL. But how often is that realization admitted to, in component
reviews?

Funny you should mention this. With a little more prosperity, I've become
more concerned with appearances - especially for speakers, which can be
pretty ugly.

But I also wondered how much appearance affects the preception of the
sound. -- Do massive cases induce the listeners to describe the sound as
massive? Do rounded cases induce descriptions of rounder sound? This
wouldn't be too hard to test. Perhaps it's already been done. Anyone want
to put a small amp in a big case and test against another unit of the same
model?

I pretty much agree with your conclusion.

Whereas I have no allegiance to the mainstream audio press, I found
Audio Critic to be so drenched with vitriol that I found myself feeling
depressed after having read it. The editor had somehow allowed the
subject matter to bring out the worst in him.

More quantifiable, however, was their admiration of high end equipment
that bought advertising space in their magazine. At the time that I read
it, those were Boulder and McIntosh, if memory serves me correctly.
These two brands had the same high end aspirations, pretense and
performance as any amplifier brand which Audio Critic otherwise
lambasted. I understand that a small publication may have to pander more
to advertisers than large publications, but this observation, plus the
editorial tone, was again, just depressing.

I recall a complimentary letter to the editor from another similar
publication, and the Audio Critic editor took the author to task for
trying to pander to him, for goodness' sake! I just thought that the
editor was running amuck. Not a professional publication.

lcw999 wrote:

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:51:06 +0000, Steven Sullivan wrote:


Is Issue 29 the most recent one? Saw it on the stands a few days ago
after not seeing it for awhile), bought it, and
halfway through, realized I'd read it before. Sure enough,
it said '2003' on the cover. Yikes. Anyone know when the
next issue is due?


__________________________________________________ _

Ref: Audio Critic..

I subscribed to this publication a some years ago and it was
irratic to say the least. Some issues would never materialize,
etc.

Also, Aczel seemed to view himself a kind of "critic of the critics",
...and consistently tended to "spit into the wind". He seemed to
relish the role of fighting the "booger" of the mainstream. Much
bitterness abounded there. He would state the obvious and
wait for the masses to acknowledge his deep insights. The
problem was taking a steady diet of this kind of flow...it all
gets a bit tiresome after awhile and the shock has worn off!
Personal attacks were rampant. I suspect that he has challenged
the technical qualifications of every member on the staff
of Stereophile. All the while Stereophile moved from a rather
"scruffy" underground publication to a full "mainstream"
slick publication under the current Editor. Audio critic
still remains a "hit or miss" underground publication.

As his targets would ebb and flow..so did the publication status.
After reading a few of the publications you begin to realize you're
involved with a rather bitter mindset with an axe to grind.

Leonard...