Is there any point in reading Stereophile...

[Schizoid Man]

.... if you have less than $80,000 to spend on a music system?

[[email protected]]

Schizoid Man wrote:
> ... if you have less than $80,000 to spend on a music system?
Perhaps you would prefer AudioXPress.

[[email protected]]

Schizoid Man wrote:
> ... if you have less than $80,000 to spend on a music system?
Perhaps you would prefer AudioXPress.

[[email protected]]

Schizoid Man wrote:
> ... if you have less than $80,000 to spend on a music system?
Perhaps you would prefer AudioXPress.

[[email protected]]

Oops, f***ed up browser again...

[Robert Morein]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
> ... if you have less than $80,000 to spend on a music system?
>
I get a kick out of it, yet I've come to completely discount the
"recommended" list.

The magazine is a very enjoyable fantasy to me. As I read about a bejeweled
piece of equipment, I imagine, "What if the material world were composed of
objects with the beauty of diamonds that, by mere possesion and use, created
a serene space of hedony?"

I seem to be able to put aside the reality that there are equipments that
look like refrigerators and sound like jewels, and their are equipments that
look like jewels and sound like refrigerators.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
3f>
dfghsrklrt789342890tiohbjkxdfbjnkdcjnklggggggggggg gggggggggggggggggggggggggg
gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg ggggggggg


For some reason, your post is garbled.
Would you please post it again?

[TCS]

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 14:23:24 -0800, Schizoid Man > wrote:
>... if you have less than $80,000 to spend on a music system?

There's no reason to read sterophile if as rich as bill gates or anything
in between.

There is no correlation between equipment being well made and clean sounding
and a good review in sterophile.

These clowns even thought the tice clock worked!

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Schizoid Man" > wrote:

> ... if you have less than $80,000 to spend on a music system?

Yes. There's a bunch of relatively cheap gear in there, and one of the
reviewers specializes in inexpensive speakers. The current issue has
reviews of Paradigm Studio 60s and the PSB Image B25 speakers, as well
as two Rega turntables.

Stephen

[[email protected]]

Actually AFAIK they said the regular un-Ticed Radio Shack clock also
worked and they weren't sure which worked better!

Obviously they knew it was a crock, but they couldn't come out and say
it.

Stereophile is okay to read for amusement, and occasionally they make
a good point-but people that buy most of the stuff therein often have
issues. I remember 'Gizmo' Harvey ;he really was nuts.

[Powell]

"Schizoid Man" wrote

> ... if you have less than $80,000 to spend on a music
> system?
>
Or too Broke-a$$ to afford a subscription.

Which are you :)?

[Michael McKelvy]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Schizoid Man wrote:
>> ... if you have less than $80,000 to spend on a music system?
> Perhaps you would prefer AudioXPress.
>
You'll certainly more than from SP, from real life experts like Robt.
Bullock, Tom Nousaine, and Joseph, D'Appolito.

[Michael McKelvy]

"TCS" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 14:23:24 -0800, Schizoid Man > wrote:
>>... if you have less than $80,000 to spend on a music system?
>
> There's no reason to read sterophile if as rich as bill gates or anything
> in between.
>
> There is no correlation between equipment being well made and clean
> sounding
> and a good review in sterophile.
>
> These clowns even thought the tice clock worked!
>
And when they do measure tweaks like Atkinson did with green pens and such,
and the measurements don't show anything happening, they still insist that
they should be used because one or more of the knuckleheads that used them
said he heard magic.

[Michael McKelvy]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Actually AFAIK they said the regular un-Ticed Radio Shack clock also
> worked and they weren't sure which worked better!
>
> Obviously they knew it was a crock, but they couldn't come out and say
> it.
>
> Stereophile is okay to read for amusement, and occasionally they make
> a good point-but people that buy most of the stuff therein often have
> issues. I remember 'Gizmo' Harvey ;he really was nuts.
>
If you want SP to give a good review of a speaker and have it sound
wonderful to their reviewers it need to have major flaws in linearity and be
very expensive. A speaker with flat FR and a lower price tag won't get
nearly the same praise.

[Annika1980]

>From:
>Date: 12/10/2004 8:07 PM Easte

>Actually AFAIK they said the regular un-Ticed Radio Shack clock also
>worked and they weren't sure which worked better!
>
>Obviously they knew it was a crock, but they couldn't come out and say
>it.

When will John Atkinson follow the lead of the WWE's Vince McMahon and finally
admit that it's all fake?

Vince calls WWE wrestling "Sports Entertainment." Perhaps Stereo-pile should
be called "Audio Component Entertainment."

[TCS]

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 02:16:03 GMT, Michael McKelvy > wrote:

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Actually AFAIK they said the regular un-Ticed Radio Shack clock also
>> worked and they weren't sure which worked better!
>>
>> Obviously they knew it was a crock, but they couldn't come out and say
>> it.
>>
>> Stereophile is okay to read for amusement, and occasionally they make
>> a good point-but people that buy most of the stuff therein often have
>> issues. I remember 'Gizmo' Harvey ;he really was nuts.
>>
>If you want SP to give a good review of a speaker and have it sound
>wonderful to their reviewers it need to have major flaws in linearity and be
>very expensive. A speaker with flat FR and a lower price tag won't get
>nearly the same praise.

Nah. All you need is to order a year of full page ads.

I'm surprised bose has never tried this trick to get an A rating.

[Michael McKelvy]

"TCS" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 02:16:03 GMT, Michael McKelvy >
> wrote:
>
> wrote in message
ups.com...
>>> Actually AFAIK they said the regular un-Ticed Radio Shack clock also
>>> worked and they weren't sure which worked better!
>>>
>>> Obviously they knew it was a crock, but they couldn't come out and say
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Stereophile is okay to read for amusement, and occasionally they make
>>> a good point-but people that buy most of the stuff therein often have
>>> issues. I remember 'Gizmo' Harvey ;he really was nuts.
>>>
>>If you want SP to give a good review of a speaker and have it sound
>>wonderful to their reviewers it need to have major flaws in linearity and
>>be
>>very expensive. A speaker with flat FR and a lower price tag won't get
>>nearly the same praise.
>
> Nah. All you need is to order a year of full page ads.
>

I should have remembered, my apologies.

> I'm surprised bose has never tried this trick to get an A rating.

Even SP has lines they will not cross.

[Arny Krueger]

"TCS" > wrote in message

> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 02:16:03 GMT, Michael McKelvy
> > wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>> Actually AFAIK they said the regular un-Ticed Radio Shack clock also
>>> worked and they weren't sure which worked better!
>>>
>>> Obviously they knew it was a crock, but they couldn't come out and
>>> say it.
>>>
>>> Stereophile is okay to read for amusement, and occasionally they
>>> make a good point-but people that buy most of the stuff therein
>>> often have issues. I remember 'Gizmo' Harvey ;he really was nuts.
>>>
>> If you want SP to give a good review of a speaker and have it sound
>> wonderful to their reviewers it need to have major flaws in
>> linearity and be very expensive. A speaker with flat FR and a lower
>> price tag won't get nearly the same praise.

> Nah. All you need is to order a year of full page ads.

LOL! Probably true...

> I'm surprised Bose has never tried this trick to get an A rating.

I think it would probably work.

[Arny Krueger]

"Annika1980" > wrote in message

>> From:
>> Date: 12/10/2004 8:07 PM Easte
>
>> Actually AFAIK they said the regular un-Ticed Radio Shack clock also
>> worked and they weren't sure which worked better!
>>
>> Obviously they knew it was a crock, but they couldn't come out and
>> say it.
>
> When will John Atkinson follow the lead of the WWE's Vince McMahon
> and finally admit that it's all fake?
>
> Vince calls WWE wrestling "Sports Entertainment." Perhaps
> Stereo-pile should be called "Audio Component Entertainment."

Though no doubt intended as a joke, this strikes me as being pretty close to
the truth.

I suspect that most Stereophile readers are audio voyeurs. They vastly
underbuy their reading habits, but they are having fun.

[jeffc]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
> ... if you have less than $80,000 to spend on a music system?

I don't think there's much sense reading Stereophile period. I used to
subscribe to it, but it's gotten really silly after Holt left. I think you
can get outrageous deals on subscriptions, like .07 per copy. I didn't even
renew that.

[Rich.Andrews]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in
nk.net:

>
> "TCS" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 14:23:24 -0800, Schizoid Man > wrote:
>>>... if you have less than $80,000 to spend on a music system?
>>
>> There's no reason to read sterophile if as rich as bill gates or
>> anything in between.
>>
>> There is no correlation between equipment being well made and clean
>> sounding
>> and a good review in sterophile.
>>
>> These clowns even thought the tice clock worked!
>>
> And when they do measure tweaks like Atkinson did with green pens and
> such, and the measurements don't show anything happening, they still
> insist that they should be used because one or more of the knuckleheads
> that used them said he heard magic.
>
>

I make note of which writers keeps ****iki stones and other nonsense
listed. That way I know which reviewer is full of it and which one might
actually be worth reading.

r

[Michael McKelvy]

"Rich.Andrews" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in
> nk.net:
>
>>
>> "TCS" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 14:23:24 -0800, Schizoid Man > wrote:
>>>>... if you have less than $80,000 to spend on a music system?
>>>
>>> There's no reason to read sterophile if as rich as bill gates or
>>> anything in between.
>>>
>>> There is no correlation between equipment being well made and clean
>>> sounding
>>> and a good review in sterophile.
>>>
>>> These clowns even thought the tice clock worked!
>>>
>> And when they do measure tweaks like Atkinson did with green pens and
>> such, and the measurements don't show anything happening, they still
>> insist that they should be used because one or more of the knuckleheads
>> that used them said he heard magic.
>>
>>
>
> I make note of which writers keeps ****iki stones and other nonsense
> listed. That way I know which reviewer is full of it and which one might
> actually be worth reading.
>
> r
>
Is it a really short list for the latter?

[Arny Krueger]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
ink.net
> "Rich.Andrews" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in
>> nk.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "TCS" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 14:23:24 -0800, Schizoid Man >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> ... if you have less than $80,000 to spend on a music system?
>>>>
>>>> There's no reason to read sterophile if as rich as bill gates or
>>>> anything in between.
>>>>
>>>> There is no correlation between equipment being well made and clean
>>>> sounding
>>>> and a good review in sterophile.
>>>>
>>>> These clowns even thought the tice clock worked!
>>>>
>>> And when they do measure tweaks like Atkinson did with green pens
>>> and such, and the measurements don't show anything happening, they
>>> still insist that they should be used because one or more of the
>>> knuckleheads that used them said he heard magic.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I make note of which writers keeps ****iki stones and other nonsense
>> listed. That way I know which reviewer is full of it and which one
>> might actually be worth reading.

> Is it a really short list for the latter?

I've listed them here before. Just two.

[Rich.Andrews]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in
ink.net:

>
> "Rich.Andrews" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in
>> nk.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "TCS" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 14:23:24 -0800, Schizoid Man >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>... if you have less than $80,000 to spend on a music system?
>>>>
>>>> There's no reason to read sterophile if as rich as bill gates or
>>>> anything in between.
>>>>
>>>> There is no correlation between equipment being well made and clean
>>>> sounding
>>>> and a good review in sterophile.
>>>>
>>>> These clowns even thought the tice clock worked!
>>>>
>>> And when they do measure tweaks like Atkinson did with green pens and
>>> such, and the measurements don't show anything happening, they still
>>> insist that they should be used because one or more of the
>>> knuckleheads that used them said he heard magic.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I make note of which writers keeps ****iki stones and other nonsense
>> listed. That way I know which reviewer is full of it and which one
>> might actually be worth reading.
>>
>> r
>>
> Is it a really short list for the latter?
>
>

Since the list of reviewers/writers is short anyway, a subset would be
shorter yet.

I know of one off the top of my head. There may be a few more whom I feel
I cannot trust to give the correct time of day let alone a proper review.
Things however are rarely black or white. I still find that reviewer
entertaining sometimes. Maybe I am easily entertained. (:>)

r

[Schizoid Man]

"Rich.Andrews" > wrote in message

> Since the list of reviewers/writers is short anyway, a subset would be
> shorter yet.
>
> I know of one off the top of my head. There may be a few more whom I feel
> I cannot trust to give the correct time of day let alone a proper review.
> Things however are rarely black or white. I still find that reviewer
> entertaining sometimes. Maybe I am easily entertained. (:>)

Go on. Give us the name.

[Rich.Andrews]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in news:cpt7om$gv$1
@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu:

>
> "Rich.Andrews" > wrote in message
>
>> Since the list of reviewers/writers is short anyway, a subset would be
>> shorter yet.
>>
>> I know of one off the top of my head. There may be a few more whom I feel
>> I cannot trust to give the correct time of day let alone a proper review.
>> Things however are rarely black or white. I still find that reviewer
>> entertaining sometimes. Maybe I am easily entertained. (:>)
>
> Go on. Give us the name.
>
>
>

I think you are fairly bright. Why don't you try to guess which reviewer(s)
has a credibility problem IMHO.

r