Audio Critic Rises From Dead One More Time

[[email protected]]

Even though it cannot possibly be a profitable endeavor, Peter Aczel
continues to beat the dead horse with his crappy, miserable "Audio
Critic".

Of course, David A. Rich will ontinue to provide his unique breed of
Monday morning engineering on each unit reviewed, and various pro audio
guys will be drafted into sharing what ****penises the dishonest,
deceitful High End vendors really are. Of course some of them are but
that's off the point and they know it. People who want to spend a lot
of money on audio equipment are disinclined to read The Audio Critic
anyway, so it's a waste of time anyway, and Aczel knows it, but in
vain: he has a psychological need to put his twaddle out there.

[randy]

wrote:
> Even though it cannot possibly be a profitable endeavor, Peter Aczel
> continues to beat the dead horse with his crappy, miserable "Audio
> Critic".
>
> Of course, David A. Rich will ontinue to provide his unique breed of
> Monday morning engineering on each unit reviewed, and various pro
audio
> guys will be drafted into sharing what ****penises the dishonest,
> deceitful High End vendors really are. Of course some of them are but
> that's off the point and they know it. People who want to spend a lot
> of money on audio equipment are disinclined to read The Audio Critic
> anyway, so it's a waste of time anyway, and Aczel knows it, but in
> vain: he has a psychological need to put his twaddle out there.

Oh, you mean this Dr. David A. Rich, Monday morning engineer--

http://www.lafayette.edu/news.php/view/4163


Maybe, you should take a class and see how you do.

[Mike McKelvy]

Even though it cannot possibly be a profitable endeavor, Peter Aczel
continues to beat the dead horse with his crappy, miserable "Audio
Critic".


Of course, David A. Rich will ontinue to provide his unique breed of
Monday morning engineering on each unit reviewed, and various pro audio

guys will be drafted into sharing what ****penises the dishonest,
deceitful High End vendors really are.

You make that sound like a bad thing.

Of course some of them are but
that's off the point and they know it.

Why is exposing fraud off the point? Can we then assume you like
paying inflated prices for gear simply because it has an audiophile
approved brand name?

This may come aas a shock to you but things like KRK pro powered
loudspeakers are using drivers from one of the best manufacturers,
Focal.

There are pro amps that can match anything the "high end" has to offer
for a fraction of the price.

You really ought to get rid of the snobby attitude and listen at what's
available in a pro audio shop.

People who want to spend a lot
of money on audio equipment are disinclined to read The Audio Critic
anyway, so it's a waste of time anyway, and Aczel knows it, but in
vain: he has a psychological need to put his twaddle out there.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ps.com
> Even though it cannot possibly be a profitable endeavor, Peter Aczel
> continues to beat the dead horse with his crappy, miserable "Audio
> Critic".
>
> Of course, David A. Rich will ontinue to provide his unique breed of
> Monday morning engineering on each unit reviewed, and various pro
> audio guys will be drafted into sharing what ****penises the
> dishonest, deceitful High End vendors really are.

Well Cal does this mean that all High End vendors really are the same?

> Of course some of
> them are but that's off the point and they know it.

Why?

> People who want
> to spend a lot of money on audio equipment are disinclined to read
> The Audio Critic anyway,

Why?

> so it's a waste of time anyway, and Aczel
> knows it, but in vain: he has a psychological need to put his twaddle
> out there.

Yeah, sure.

[[email protected]]

Mike McKelvy wrote:
> Even though it cannot possibly be a profitable endeavor, Peter Aczel
> continues to beat the dead horse with his crappy, miserable "Audio
> Critic".
>
>
> Of course, David A. Rich will ontinue to provide his unique breed of
> Monday morning engineering on each unit reviewed,

David A. Rich is a putz, which is why he hides his email address very,
very carefully. I would have had respect for him if he'd just drew up a
piece of gear, built one for his amusement, and either publlished it in
audioXPress or licensed it for manufacture (if anyone out there would
build anything he designed...) but he goes into other people's designs
and picks them apart....if he's so good let him do his own design work.
He's an academic putz with a IC Master and a need to see his blather in
print without rendering his ideas testable. (Did I state my opinion of
"Dr." Rich as a putz, by the way?)





and various pro audio
>
> guys will be drafted into sharing what ****penises the dishonest,
> deceitful High End vendors really are.
>
> You make that sound like a bad thing.
>
> Of course some of them are but
> that's off the point and they know it.
>
> Why is exposing fraud off the point? Can we then assume you like
> paying inflated prices for gear simply because it has an audiophile
> approved brand name?

Some "audiophile approved" gear represents good value for money. Some
does not. Aczel is no more helpful than "the most gullible tweako" in
diferentiating, in fact I got more useful information from Gizmo
Rosenberg than from Aczel. And Rosenberg was nuts- but he himself had
to know it. Aczel is nuts and thinks he's the standard of sanity.

>
> This may come aas a shock to you but things like KRK pro powered
> loudspeakers are using drivers from one of the best manufacturers,
> Focal.
>
> There are pro amps that can match anything the "high end" has to
offer
> for a fraction of the price.
>
> You really ought to get rid of the snobby attitude and listen at
what's
> available in a pro audio shop.

Some of it is quite good and a lot of high end stuff is bad, which we
all already know. Aczel just has to repeat it over and over for his own
satisfaction.

Much pro audio equipment is more suited to pro (i.e. sound
reinforcement, installed architectural) use than for home listening, as
well. Boy is that a surprise. Pro power amps-unless you are talking
Manley or EAR units sold for mastering and mixdown-have fans and are
generally poor in the "first watt" department, which is irrelevant for
their intended use-but put them in your living room driving efficient
speakers and play quiet music at low volume in your quiet house and you
will be disappointed. Some amplifiers have good reputations for both
uses, certain Crowns, etc.

[[email protected]]

Mike McKelvy wrote:
> Even though it cannot possibly be a profitable endeavor, Peter Aczel
> continues to beat the dead horse with his crappy, miserable "Audio
> Critic".
>
>
> Of course, David A. Rich will ontinue to provide his unique breed of
> Monday morning engineering on each unit reviewed,

David A. Rich is a putz, which is why he hides his email address very,
very carefully. I would have had respect for him if he'd just drew up a
piece of gear, built one for his amusement, and either publlished it in
audioXPress or licensed it for manufacture (if anyone out there would
build anything he designed...) but he goes into other people's designs
and picks them apart....if he's so good let him do his own design work.
He's an academic putz with a IC Master and a need to see his blather in
print without rendering his ideas testable. (Did I state my opinion of
"Dr." Rich as a putz, by the way?)





and various pro audio
>
> guys will be drafted into sharing what ****penises the dishonest,
> deceitful High End vendors really are.
>
> You make that sound like a bad thing.
>
> Of course some of them are but
> that's off the point and they know it.
>
> Why is exposing fraud off the point? Can we then assume you like
> paying inflated prices for gear simply because it has an audiophile
> approved brand name?

Some "audiophile approved" gear represents good value for money. Some
does not. Aczel is no more helpful than "the most gullible tweako" in
diferentiating, in fact I got more useful information from Gizmo
Rosenberg than from Aczel. And Rosenberg was nuts- but he himself had
to know it. Aczel is nuts and thinks he's the standard of sanity.

>
> This may come aas a shock to you but things like KRK pro powered
> loudspeakers are using drivers from one of the best manufacturers,
> Focal.
>
> There are pro amps that can match anything the "high end" has to
offer
> for a fraction of the price.
>
> You really ought to get rid of the snobby attitude and listen at
what's
> available in a pro audio shop.

Some of it is quite good and a lot of high end stuff is bad, which we
all already know. Aczel just has to repeat it over and over for his own
satisfaction.

Much pro audio equipment is more suited to pro (i.e. sound
reinforcement, installed architectural) use than for home listening, as
well. Boy is that a surprise. Pro power amps-unless you are talking
Manley or EAR units sold for mastering and mixdown-have fans and are
generally poor in the "first watt" department, which is irrelevant for
their intended use-but put them in your living room driving efficient
speakers and play quiet music at low volume in your quiet house and you
will be disappointed. Some amplifiers have good reputations for both
uses, certain Crowns, etc.

> > wrote in message
> ps.com
>> Even though it cannot possibly be a profitable endeavor, Peter Aczel
>> continues to beat the dead horse with his crappy, miserable "Audio
>> Critic".

You may very well be right, but nevertheless I invested my $13 in his web
site. If not useful, I hope it will at least be entertaining.

Norm Strong

[Michael McKelvy]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Mike McKelvy wrote:
>> Even though it cannot possibly be a profitable endeavor, Peter Aczel
>> continues to beat the dead horse with his crappy, miserable "Audio
>> Critic".
>>
>>
>> Of course, David A. Rich will ontinue to provide his unique breed of
>> Monday morning engineering on each unit reviewed,
>
> David A. Rich is a putz, which is why he hides his email address very,
> very carefully.

If you use the kind of honesty in reviewing gear that he does, you probably
would get a lot of hate mail.

I would have had respect for him if he'd just drew up a
> piece of gear, built one for his amusement, and either publlished it in
> audioXPress or licensed it for manufacture (if anyone out there would
> build anything he designed...)

You've already been shown a link to a project he worked on.

but he goes into other people's designs
> and picks them apart....if he's so good let him do his own design work.

You seem to missing the point, there aren't many reasons to try to come with
new designs since the current ones do everything so well.

> He's an academic putz with a IC Master and a need to see his blather in
> print without rendering his ideas testable.

That need must not be to great or he's have picked a more grequent
publisher.

(Did I state my opinion of
> "Dr." Rich as a putz, by the way?)
>
You did, but then you like those god awful KHorns.
>
>
>
> and various pro audio
>>
>> guys will be drafted into sharing what ****penises the dishonest,
>> deceitful High End vendors really are.
>>
>> You make that sound like a bad thing.
>>
>> Of course some of them are but
>> that's off the point and they know it.
>>
>> Why is exposing fraud off the point? Can we then assume you like
>> paying inflated prices for gear simply because it has an audiophile
>> approved brand name?
>
> Some "audiophile approved" gear represents good value for money.

And more of it is just plain vanilla with expensive packaging.

Some
> does not. Aczel is no more helpful than "the most gullible tweako" in
> diferentiating, in fact I got more useful information from Gizmo
> Rosenberg than from Aczel. And Rosenberg was nuts- but he himself had
> to know it. Aczel is nuts and thinks he's the standard of sanity.
>
OSAF.
>>
>> This may come aas a shock to you but things like KRK pro powered
>> loudspeakers are using drivers from one of the best manufacturers,
>> Focal.
>>
>> There are pro amps that can match anything the "high end" has to
> offer
>> for a fraction of the price.
>>
>> You really ought to get rid of the snobby attitude and listen at
> what's
>> available in a pro audio shop.
>
> Some of it is quite good and a lot of high end stuff is bad, which we
> all already know. Aczel just has to repeat it over and over for his own
> satisfaction.
>
> Much pro audio equipment is more suited to pro (i.e. sound
> reinforcement, installed architectural) use than for home listening, as
> well. Boy is that a surprise. Pro power amps-unless you are talking
> Manley or EAR units sold for mastering and mixdown-have fans and are
> generally poor in the "first watt" department, which is irrelevant for
> their intended use-but put them in your living room driving efficient
> speakers and play quiet music at low volume in your quiet house and you
> will be disappointed. Some amplifiers have good reputations for both
> uses, certain Crowns, etc.
>
Most of the difference between pro and consumer gear is that it's made to
take a beating. Crown, QSC, and others are not only as good as most
consumer equipment, but better in their ability to drive difficult loads.

[Terrence Philips]

> There are pro amps that can match anything the "high end" has to offer
> for a fraction of the price.


Out of curiosity, which pro amps are you referring to? Thanks.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com
> Mike McKelvy wrote:

>> Even though it cannot possibly be a profitable endeavor, Peter Aczel
>> continues to beat the dead horse with his crappy, miserable "Audio
>> Critic".

>> Of course, David A. Rich will ontinue to provide his unique breed of
>> Monday morning engineering on each unit reviewed,

> David A. Rich is a putz, which is why he hides his email address very,
> very carefully.

In Cal's world there is no such thing as hate mail and spam.


> I would have had respect for him if he'd just drew up
> a piece of gear, built one for his amusement, and either publlished
> it in audioXPress or licensed it for manufacture (if anyone out there
> would build anything he designed...)

Cal, if a published design is the measure of a critic, where is yours Mr.
critic?

> but he goes into other people's designs and picks them apart....

Some of them deserve it. If something sounds bad why not see if the
schematic or parts quality is a possible explanation?

> if he's so good let him do his own design work.

In Cal's world every movie critic has to be a writer, producer and director.

>He's an academic putz with a IC Master and a need to see
> his blather in print without rendering his ideas testable.

This compares how to putzes that blast equipment based on highly defective
listening evaluations?

> (Did I state my opinion of "Dr." Rich as a putz, by the way?)

Thanks for indicting yourself again, Cal.

>> Why is exposing fraud off the point? Can we then assume you like
>> paying inflated prices for gear simply because it has an audiophile
>> approved brand name?

> Some "audiophile approved" gear represents good value for money.

Agreed. There are actually two major sides to the high end. There are the
vendors who really are involved in a well-conceived effort to produce a
better sounding product. Then, there are the vendors who lack the skill to
actually do such a thing.

> Aczel is no more helpful than "the most gullible tweako" in
> diferentiating, in fact I got more useful information from Gizmo
> Rosenberg than from Aczel.

Cal, given your tunnel vision that focuses on outdated bottle technology,
that figures. I wonder if you can figure out why! ;-)

> And Rosenberg was nuts- but he himself had
> to know it. Aczel is nuts and thinks he's the standard of sanity.

Rosenberg obviously wanted to laugh all the way to the bank.

>> This may come aas a shock to you but things like KRK pro powered
>> loudspeakers are using drivers from one of the best manufacturers,
>> Focal.

That obvious shot over Cal's head.

>> There are pro amps that can match anything the "high end" has to offer
>> for a fraction of the price.

Plus pro amps have a strong tendency to have balanced inputs and good
reactive load driving capabilities.

>> You really ought to get rid of the snobby attitude and listen at
>> what's available in a pro audio shop.


> Much pro audio equipment is more suited to pro (i.e. sound
> reinforcement, installed architectural) use than for home listening,

What makes you think that its easy to get away with bad sounding amps in
professional applications?

> Pro power amps-unless you are
> talking Manley or EAR units sold for mastering and mixdown-have fans
> and are generally poor in the "first watt" department, which is
> irrelevant for their intended use-but put them in your living room
> driving efficient speakers and play quiet music at low volume in your
> quiet house and you will be disappointed.

The fans are real, but the alleged problem in the first watt department is a
figment of Cal's overheated imagnination. I have about a half dozen pro amps
and have listened to and tested many more. Many don't have fans, others I
just put some distance from my listening location.

>Some amplifiers have good reputations for both uses, certain Crowns, etc.

Nousaine's Crown runs circles around his Canucks.

[[email protected]]

Crown, QSC and the others can drive "difficult' loads and are usually
pretty well protected electronically, but when running -85 dB under
peak they usually don't sound as good. But usually it's hard to
distinguish that without test equipment, because you can't hear over
the cooling fans. OTOH it's hard to distinguish _with_ test equipment,
too, because AP is just a faster, more convenient way of running tests
that made sense in the tube days but are not very good at sorting the
good sounding from the mediocre today.

As for "Dr." Rich, you raise a good point that his neuroses are
probably ill-served by Aczel and his publishing schedule (I've seen
every issue since probably 1997-that's what, three? At most.)Which
brings his refusal to publish the designs he allegedly prefers, which
he tends to meta-design on each review, into even greater suspicion.

Finally I have never argued that the K-horn was,even in modified form,
the ultimate of all speakers. Everyone knows that title probably
belongs to some of Bruce Edgar's Edgarhorns, although as you know a
properly boxed and crossed over Altec 604 can be very persuasive
otherwise. So what if it rolls off at 50 Hz-you wanted a sub anyway,
right?

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com

> Crown, QSC and the others can drive "difficult' loads and are usually
> pretty well protected electronically, but when running -85 dB under
> peak they usually don't sound as good.

Balderdash.

> But usually it's hard to
> distinguish that without test equipment, because you can't hear over
> the cooling fans.

Cal obviously can't grasp the idea of putting power amps in a closet or
adjacent room.

> OTOH it's hard to distinguish _with_ test equipment,
> too, because AP is just a faster, more convenient way of running tests
> that made sense in the tube days but are not very good at sorting the
> good sounding from the mediocre today.

More Balderdash.