Michael Fremer is wrong ... sort of

[Schizoid Man]

MF reviewed the Wavac SH-833 monoblocks which cost $350,000 a pair for SP in
July 2004. He writes:

(John, I do realize that I have not formally taken SP's permission, but I
hope you won't mind if I post a snippet)

" Yes, $350,000 is a great deal of money to pay for a pair of amplifiers. In
fact, it's a great deal of money to pay for a luxury car: you could buy an
Aston-Martin Vanquish and pocket around 100 grand. It's a fair price for a
small summer home, but it won't buy you much, if anything, painted by
Picasso, which anyway would just hang on the wall and do nothing. You could
probably hang a copy of a Picasso on the wall and be able to derive an equal
amount of pleasure from it, and few would know the difference. Yet people
pay millions for a Picasso. From that perspective, these $350,000 amplifiers
are a bargain. "

There are a couple of reasons why I think his logic is flawed.

1. Firstly, a Picasso, unlike the Wavac, will actually appreciate over time.
So if anything, it's probably a good investment if nothing else.
2. Secondly, I really, really, really doubt whether anyone (dare I say
including him?) will be able to tell the difference between a $350,000 amp
and a $30,000 one in a blind test. I do realize it's not the perfect analogy
to his hanging a Picasso copy on the wall, but I am working with what I
have.
3. I agree that a Picasso can't play your music, and, in winter, heat your
listening room (the chap does have a rather good sense of humour) thereby
saving you some electric bills. However, a Picasso's appreciation might just
be able to pay for a brand new house in itself after some time.

But like he said, it's all relative.

[Clyde Slick]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
> MF reviewed the Wavac SH-833 monoblocks which cost $350,000 a pair for SP
> in July 2004. He writes:
>
> (John, I do realize that I have not formally taken SP's permission, but I
> hope you won't mind if I post a snippet)
>
> " Yes, $350,000 is a great deal of money to pay for a pair of amplifiers.
> In fact, it's a great deal of money to pay for a luxury car: you could buy
> an Aston-Martin Vanquish and pocket around 100 grand. It's a fair price
> for a small summer home, but it won't buy you much, if anything, painted
> by Picasso, which anyway would just hang on the wall and do nothing. You
> could probably hang a copy of a Picasso on the wall and be able to derive
> an equal amount of pleasure from it, and few would know the difference.
> Yet people pay millions for a Picasso. From that perspective, these
> $350,000 amplifiers are a bargain. "
>
> There are a couple of reasons why I think his logic is flawed.
>
> 1. Firstly, a Picasso, unlike the Wavac, will actually appreciate over
> time. So if anything, it's probably a good investment if nothing else.
> 2. Secondly, I really, really, really doubt whether anyone (dare I say
> including him?) will be able to tell the difference between a $350,000 amp
> and a $30,000 one in a blind test. I do realize it's not the perfect
> analogy to his hanging a Picasso copy on the wall, but I am working with
> what I have.
> 3. I agree that a Picasso can't play your music, and, in winter, heat your
> listening room (the chap does have a rather good sense of humour) thereby
> saving you some electric bills. However, a Picasso's appreciation might
> just be able to pay for a brand new house in itself after some time.
>
> But like he said, it's all relative.
>

I'll wait till he gets tired of them
and dumps them on eBay for a mere $125 grand.
Maybe he'll throw in a grilled cheese sandwich.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[EddieM]

> Schizoid Man wrote
>
>
>
>
> MF reviewed the Wavac SH-833 monoblocks which cost $350,000 a pair for SP in
> July 2004. He writes:
>
> (John, I do realize that I have not formally taken SP's permission, but I
> hope you won't mind if I post a snippet)
>
> " Yes, $350,000 is a great deal of money to pay for a pair of amplifiers. In
> fact, it's a great deal of money to pay for a luxury car: you could buy an
> Aston-Martin Vanquish and pocket around 100 grand. It's a fair price for a
> small summer home, but it won't buy you much, if anything, painted by
> Picasso, which anyway would just hang on the wall and do nothing. You could
> probably hang a copy of a Picasso on the wall and be able to derive an equal
> amount of pleasure from it, and few would know the difference. Yet people
> pay millions for a Picasso. From that perspective, these $350,000 amplifiers
> are a bargain. "
>
> There are a couple of reasons why I think his logic is flawed.
>
> 1. Firstly, a Picasso, unlike the Wavac, will actually appreciate over time.
> So if anything, it's probably a good investment if nothing else.
> 2. Secondly, I really, really, really doubt whether anyone (dare I say
> including him?) will be able to tell the difference between a $350,000 amp
> and a $30,000 one in a blind test. I do realize it's not the perfect analogy
> to his hanging a Picasso copy on the wall,


> [...] but I am working with what I have.


But that doesn't mean it will make sense attributing incongruous viewpoint
into what he said.



> 3. I agree that a Picasso can't play your music, and, in winter, heat your
> listening room (the chap does have a rather good sense of humour) thereby
> saving you some electric bills. However, a Picasso's appreciation might just
> be able to pay for a brand new house in itself after some time.
>
> But like he said, it's all relative.

[John Atkinson]

Schizoid Man wrote:
> John, I do realize that I have not formally taken SP's permission,
but I
> hope you won't mind if I post a snippet...

Quoting from an article in order to criticize or comment is well-
established "fair use" and I don't have nay problem with that. What
I was objecting to was Howard Ferstler's republishing of a
Stereophile article in its entirety without permission, which is
equally well-established as _not_ being "fair use."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[George M. Middius]

John Atkinson said:

> I was objecting to was Howard Ferstler's republishing of a
> Stereophile article in its entirety without permission, which is
> equally well-established as _not_ being "fair use."

I've heard rule cited many times, and I'm not involved in the publishing
world. I'm sure Harold has heard it too. Maybe he figures he's entitled to
an "accommodation" because of his "Professional Audio" credentials.

[Howard Ferstler]

John Atkinson wrote:
>
> Schizoid Man wrote:
> > John, I do realize that I have not formally taken SP's permission,
> but I
> > hope you won't mind if I post a snippet...

> Quoting from an article in order to criticize or comment is well-
> established "fair use" and I don't have nay problem with that. What
> I was objecting to was Howard Ferstler's republishing of a
> Stereophile article in its entirety without permission, which is
> equally well-established as _not_ being "fair use."

I do believe that my posting of the article has been
expunged. I had no idea you would be so touchy.

Howard Ferstler

[Mike McKelvy]

Scizo said:

>MF reviewed the Wavac SH-833 monoblocks which cost $350,000 a pair for
SP in



>July 2004. He writes:


>(John, I do realize that I have not formally taken SP's permission,
but I
>hope you won't mind if I post a snippet)

>" Yes, $350,000 is a great deal of money to pay for a pair of
amplifiers. In
>fact, it's a great deal of money to pay for a luxury car: you could
buy an
>Aston-Martin Vanquish and pocket around 100 grand. It's a fair price
for a
>small summer home, but it won't buy you much, if anything, painted by
>Picasso, which anyway would just hang on the wall and do nothing. You
could
>probably hang a copy of a Picasso on the wall and be able to derive an
equal
>amount of pleasure from it, and few would know the difference. Yet
people
>pay millions for a Picasso. From that perspective, these $350,000
amplifiers
>are a bargain. "


>There are a couple of reasons why I think his logic is flawed.


>1. Firstly, a Picasso, unlike the Wavac, will actually appreciate over
time.
>So if anything, it's probably a good investment if nothing else.
>2. Secondly, I really, really, really doubt whether anyone (dare I say

>including him?) will be able to tell the difference between a $350,000
amp
>and a $30,000 one in a blind test. I do realize it's not the perfect
analogy
>to his hanging a Picasso copy on the wall, but I am working with what
I
>have.

Wrong, since the WAVAC amp is generating massive amounts of distortion
at normal listening levels with normal speakers, it would easily be
different enough sounding when compared to a decent SS amp.

Of course since Fremer is well known for attacking people and getting
into shouting matches with people who point out his incompetence, it
would be best not to disagree with him.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Howard Ferstler > wrote:

> John Atkinson wrote:
> >
> > Schizoid Man wrote:
> > > John, I do realize that I have not formally taken SP's permission,
> > but I
> > > hope you won't mind if I post a snippet...
>
> > Quoting from an article in order to criticize or comment is well-
> > established "fair use" and I don't have nay problem with that. What
> > I was objecting to was Howard Ferstler's republishing of a
> > Stereophile article in its entirety without permission, which is
> > equally well-established as _not_ being "fair use."
>
> I do believe that my posting of the article has been
> expunged. I had no idea you would be so touchy.

You might educate yourself here:

http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/IntellectualProperty/cprtindx.htm#top

Stephen

[Howard Ferstler]

MINe 109 wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Howard Ferstler > wrote:

> > I do believe that my posting of the article has been
> > expunged. I had no idea you would be so touchy.

> You might educate yourself here:
>
> http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/IntellectualProperty/cprtindx.htm#top

Would this also apply to that RAO posting of that The
Audiophile Voice article John had edited quite a while back?
He had asked for my permission to post the "revised" version
(as a way to show how my writing talents were limited) and I
had denied it. He then apparently sent the edited version to
someone else for them to look over and they or someone else
apparently posted it on RAO.

Was this little fiasco as bad as what I did? I mean, all I
did was post a copy of a Stereophile article that lauded the
work of people I admire. On the other hand, the TAV
"editing" job was posted as a way to make me look bad.

Who should sue whom?

In any case, I am working to delete my post from the
archives, and, no, I do not intend to sue anybody for the
posting of the "edited" TAV article. I don't work that way.

Howard Ferstler

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> John Atkinson said:
>
>> I was objecting to was Howard Ferstler's republishing of a
>> Stereophile article in its entirety without permission, which is
>> equally well-established as _not_ being "fair use."
>
> I've heard rule cited many times, and I'm not involved in the publishing
> world. I'm sure Harold has heard it too. Maybe he figures he's entitled to
> an "accommodation" because of his "Professional Audio" credentials.
>

Clowns get one free copy.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[George M. Middius]

Brother Horace the Blame Gamer whined:

> On the other hand, the TAV
> "editing" job was posted as a way to make me look bad.

Arnii Krooger is RAO's leading martyr. Get in line.

[Howard Ferstler]

"George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> John Atkinson said:
>
> > I was objecting to was Howard Ferstler's republishing of a
> > Stereophile article in its entirety without permission, which is
> > equally well-established as _not_ being "fair use."
>
> I've heard rule cited many times, and I'm not involved in the publishing
> world. I'm sure Harold has heard it too. Maybe he figures he's entitled to
> an "accommodation" because of his "Professional Audio" credentials.

Would this rule apply to the posting (without my permission)
of that "edited" The Audio Voice Article some time ago? In
that case, we did not have a simply transfer of data.
Rather, we had the "editor" work to show that I published a
poorly written article. Malice was a motive. That was not
the case with the material I submitted recently.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

"George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> Brother Horace the Blame Gamer whined:
>
> > On the other hand, the TAV
> > "editing" job was posted as a way to make me look bad.
>
> Arnii Krooger is RAO's leading martyr. Get in line.

But, George, should I sue?

Howard Ferstler

[George M. Middius]

Clerkie, you really need to get a life.

> > Brother Horace the Blame Gamer whined:
> >
> > > On the other hand, the TAV
> > > "editing" job was posted as a way to make me look bad.
> >
> > Arnii Krooger is RAO's leading martyr. Get in line.
>
> But, George, should I sue?

While you're out looking, try to buy a clue as well. The kind you need
should be very inexpensive.

[George M. Middius]

Brother Horace the Conscience-Free Slanderer whined:

> > > I was objecting to was Howard Ferstler's republishing of a
> > > Stereophile article in its entirety without permission, which is
> > > equally well-established as _not_ being "fair use."
> >
> > I've heard rule cited many times, and I'm not involved in the publishing
> > world. I'm sure Harold has heard it too. Maybe he figures he's entitled to
> > an "accommodation" because of his "Professional Audio" credentials.
>
> Would this rule apply to the posting (without my permission)
> of that "edited" The Audio Voice Article some time ago? In

Of course not. You didn't own the copyright; the crappy little rag owned
it. Besides, you offered a copy of it freely to at least one person. You'd
have to prove that whoever posted it on RAO did so without your
permission. That proof would be quite a bit tougher than your obvious
theft of the Stereophile article.

> that case, we did not have a simply transfer of data.
> Rather, we had the "editor" work to show that I published a
> poorly written article. Malice was a motive. That was not
> the case with the material I submitted recently.

What's all too telling about this episode is that you're squirming and
wriggling like mad to avoid admitting you screwed up. First you tried to
turn it around on JA by claiming he was being precious and sensitive. Now
you're using Krooger's favorite defense, i.e. "somebody else did it to me
first". Luckily for you, the only thing that matters to Primedia is that
the post be cancelled. If an apology and statement of accountability for
your tortious act were required, your stubbornness would land you in the
crosshairs of a lawsuit

[Howard Ferstler]

"George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> Brother Horace the Conscience-Free Slanderer whined:

> > Would this rule apply to the posting (without my permission)
> > of that "edited" The Audio Voice Article some time ago? In

> Of course not. You didn't own the copyright; the crappy little rag owned
> it.

But, then, perhaps I should contact the editor of that
crappy little rag and see what he wants to do. More likely
than not, he could not care less. Like me, he takes things
like that in stride.

> Besides, you offered a copy of it freely to at least one person.

Who? The only copy I know of around here was the one John
had his editor work over, with the intention of illustrating
my compositional limitations. If I ever thought of posting
my original draft (which was slightly different from the
version published in the magazine), it was only because I
would have wanted it to be compared to the "edited" version
that was surreptitiously posted.

> You'd
> have to prove that whoever posted it on RAO did so without your
> permission.

Well, I believe that John actually said right here that
somebody posted it without his permission, and I did not
give him permission to turn it loose on RAO or give it to
someone else who would do that. However, I believe he
apologized and that was that for me. At least at that time
it was.

> That proof would be quite a bit tougher than your obvious
> theft of the Stereophile article.

Well, thankfully, the Google archives supposedly still have
all of those posts in storage.

> > that case, we did not have a simply transfer of data.
> > Rather, we had the "editor" work to show that I published a
> > poorly written article. Malice was a motive. That was not
> > the case with the material I submitted recently.

> What's all too telling about this episode is that you're squirming and
> wriggling like mad to avoid admitting you screwed up.

Oh, no. I screwed up. I should have never copied and posted
the article here. I am well aware of that. And when my TAV
article was posted John admitted that he screwed up and had
turned it over to someone who went behind his back and
posted it. However, ultimately, John was responsible for the
goof. He should have never turned it loose.

> First you tried to
> turn it around on JA by claiming he was being precious and sensitive.

Well, by my standards he was. After all, I was not offended
by the edited version of my article being posted, even
though the purpose of the editing job was to make me look
bad.

> Now
> you're using Krooger's favorite defense, i.e. "somebody else did it to me
> first".

Well, they did.

> Luckily for you, the only thing that matters to Primedia is that
> the post be cancelled. If an apology and statement of accountability for
> your tortious act were required, your stubbornness would land you in the
> crosshairs of a lawsuit

Actually, I have apologized in several other posts, and did
so several hours ago. I am now working to get the damned
article deleted from Google - no small task.

Note that John contacted me and set up the requirements, and
I have done two of the three: apologized and deleted it from
the RAO threads. All that remains is the Google archives.

In the meantime, my old, edited TAV article can remain in
those archives, for anyone to read anytime they care to. So
far, it is no big deal for me. So far.

Howard Ferstler

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Howard Ferstler > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> >
> > In article >,
> > Howard Ferstler > wrote:
>
> > > I do believe that my posting of the article has been
> > > expunged. I had no idea you would be so touchy.
>
> > You might educate yourself here:
> >
> > http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/IntellectualProperty/cprtindx.htm#top
>
> Would this also apply to that RAO posting of that The
> Audiophile Voice article John had edited quite a while back?

Yes.

> He had asked for my permission to post the "revised" version
> (as a way to show how my writing talents were limited) and I
> had denied it. He then apparently sent the edited version to
> someone else for them to look over and they or someone else
> apparently posted it on RAO.

Yes, that was wrong of the anonymous third party.

> Was this little fiasco as bad as what I did?

Yes, because it was intentional and meant to cause you embarrasment.

> I mean, all I
> did was post a copy of a Stereophile article that lauded the
> work of people I admire. On the other hand, the TAV
> "editing" job was posted as a way to make me look bad.
>
> Who should sue whom?

You should sue the anonymous third party. JA is obligated to defend his
copyright, so he would essentially be forced to resort to legal action
should you not respond to his request to delete the post.

> In any case, I am working to delete my post from the
> archives, and, no, I do not intend to sue anybody for the
> posting of the "edited" TAV article. I don't work that way.

I thought of referring to the S'phile article when it first came out in
order to show the differences in audio philosophy exhibited therein.

Stephen

[Margaret von B.]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> "George M. Middius" wrote:
>>
>> John Atkinson said:
>>
>> > I was objecting to was Howard Ferstler's republishing of a
>> > Stereophile article in its entirety without permission, which is
>> > equally well-established as _not_ being "fair use."
>>
>> I've heard rule cited many times, and I'm not involved in the publishing
>> world. I'm sure Harold has heard it too. Maybe he figures he's entitled
>> to
>> an "accommodation" because of his "Professional Audio" credentials.
>
> Would this rule apply to the posting (without my permission)
> of that "edited" The Audio Voice Article some time ago? In
> that case, we did not have a simply transfer of data.
> Rather, we had the "editor" work to show that I published a
> poorly written article. Malice was a motive. That was not
> the case with the material I submitted recently.
>
> Howard Ferstler

Incompetence, ignorance and lack of professionalism *were* the motives. As
usual.

However, nobody will seriously consider Howard's pointless babble as an
"article" except in printed form -on soft paper- when one could considerer
it a bathroom "article".


Cheers,

Margaret

[[email protected]]

May I recommend a bathroom article....a rubber bottle filled with warm
vinegar solution and a long applicator? Or even a small bottle of Coke,
put your thumb over the top, shake it up, and put it up there to fizz.

[Margaret von B.]

> wrote in message
ps.com...
> May I recommend a bathroom article....a rubber bottle filled with warm
> vinegar solution and a long applicator? Or even a small bottle of Coke,
> put your thumb over the top, shake it up, and put it up there to fizz.
>

Is that how you keep the gerbil alive?

Cheers,

Margaret

[Margaret von B.]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...

> I had no idea you would be so touchy.
>
> Howard Ferstler

Is that what you say to all the people you plagiarize?


Margaret

[George M. Middius]

Margaret von B. said:

> > I had no idea you would be so touchy.

> Is that what you say to all the people you plagiarize?

Clerkie is always astonished when somebody takes him seriously.