_Stereophile_ Class-Action Lawsuit

[[email protected]]

Does anyone know if _Stereophile_ was ever subjected to a class-action
lawsuit?

--124

[John Atkinson]

wrote:
> Does anyone know if _Stereophile_ was ever subjected to a class-action
> lawsuit?

For what? One was threatened once, on the grounds that our review
coverage lowered the resale value of the component involved. However,
nothing came of it.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Trevor Wilson]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Does anyone know if _Stereophile_ was ever subjected to a class-action
> lawsuit?

**Nope. AFAIK, SP has never reviewed Bose speakers. If they do review them
(honestly), then we can expect some real legal fireworks. SP would not
survive, as Bose has the best lawyers.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

"François Yves Le Gal" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 20:03:47 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
>>AFAIK, SP has never reviewed Bose speakers
>
> Meep. Try http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/425/index.html

**Ouch! I guess that review was done, before Bose could afford decent (now
there's a contradiction in terms) lawyers.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Robert Morein]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "François Yves Le Gal" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 20:03:47 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>AFAIK, SP has never reviewed Bose speakers
>>
>> Meep. Try http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/425/index.html
>
> **Ouch! I guess that review was done, before Bose could afford decent (now
> there's a contradiction in terms) lawyers.
>
>
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au
Stereophile is undoubtedly covered by the lawyers of the corporate parent. I
don't think Bose would take them on with the same abandon they would a small
company or individual.

[John Atkinson]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
>AFAIK, SP has never reviewed Bose speakers. If they do review them
> (honestly), then we can expect some real legal fireworks.

We did review the Bose 901. Stereophile Guide to Home Theater also
reviewed one of the satellite/woofer home theater packages at the end
of
the 1990s, for which I did the measurements. The reviewer compared the
Bose negatively with a PSB system; the measurements were dreadful,
with a 10dB rise from the low midrange through the high treble.

No, we were not sued.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[[email protected]]

I wrote:

> Does anyone know if _Stereophile_ was
> ever subjected to a class-action
> lawsuit?

John Atkinson wrote:

> For what?

Audiophiles who believe that they may
have been misled into buying extremely
expensive components when ordinary
components would have given them the
same sound--i.e., amps, CD players,
wires.

If I am not mistaken, it is widely agreed
among audio researchers and professors
of electrical engineering that _Stereophile_
is nonsense. Scientific data--specifically
from properly conducted and interpreted
double-blind tests--have repeatedly shown
that _Stereophile_ is nonsense.

These audiophiles may feel that you and
_Stereophile_ have enriched yourselves
at their expense.

Chocolate tastes better than vanilla--opinion.
The earth is flat--fantasy.

--124

[Ruud Broens]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
: I wrote:
:
: > Does anyone know if _Stereophile_ was
: > ever subjected to a class-action
: > lawsuit?
:
: John Atkinson wrote:
:
: > For what?
:
: Audiophiles who believe that they may
: have been misled into buying extremely
: expensive components when ordinary
: components would have given them the
: same sound--i.e., amps, CD players,
: wires.
:
: If I am not mistaken, it is widely agreed
: among audio researchers and professors
: of electrical engineering that _Stereophile_
: is nonsense. Scientific data--specifically
: from properly conducted and interpreted
: double-blind tests--have repeatedly shown
: that _Stereophile_ is nonsense.
:
: These audiophiles may feel that you and
: _Stereophile_ have enriched yourselves
: at their expense.
:
: Chocolate tastes better than vanilla--opinion.
: The earth is flat--fantasy.
:
: --124
:
is it McKelvy starting another sockpuppet 'swervice' ?
betting office opens at high noon :-)
R.

[dave weil]

On 14 Dec 2005 07:26:52 -0800,
wrote:

>I wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know if _Stereophile_ was
>> ever subjected to a class-action
>> lawsuit?
>
>John Atkinson wrote:
>
>> For what?
>
>Audiophiles who believe that they may
>have been misled into buying extremely
>expensive components when ordinary
>components would have given them the
>same sound--i.e., amps, CD players,
>wires.

Apparently there hasn't been.

I hope this clears up your "question".

[Margaret von B.]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> If I am not mistaken,

You *are* mistaken. And obviously clueless. Most likely a troll. And a bad
one at that. My guess is that you are McCarty or that loser bicycle luber.

Cheers,

Margaret

[Trevor Wilson]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>AFAIK, SP has never reviewed Bose speakers. If they do review them
>> (honestly), then we can expect some real legal fireworks.
>
> We did review the Bose 901. Stereophile Guide to Home Theater also
> reviewed one of the satellite/woofer home theater packages at the end
> of
> the 1990s, for which I did the measurements. The reviewer compared the
> Bose negatively with a PSB system; the measurements were dreadful,
> with a 10dB rise from the low midrange through the high treble.
>
> No, we were not sued.

**I guess, if you were, Bose would have to admit the truth about their
appallingly bad products in court. It's difficult to argue with the truth.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[John Atkinson]

wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > > Does anyone know if _Stereophile_ was
> > > ever subjected to a class-action lawsuit?
> >
> > For what?
>
> Audiophiles who believe that they may
> have been misled into buying extremely
> expensive components when ordinary
> components would have given them the
> same sound--i.e., amps, CD players,
> wires.

Really? Why would they do that?

> If I am not mistaken, it is widely agreed
> among audio researchers and professors
> of electrical engineering that _Stereophile_
> is nonsense.

Good gracious. That's terrible. It also means that
when I meet such people, they must be afraid to
let their true feelings be apparent. :-)

> Scientific data--specifically from properly
> conducted and interpreted double-blind
> tests--have repeatedly shown that _Stereophile_
> is nonsense.

Forgive me, but I cannot recall any such blind
listening test that published that specific conclusion.
Perhaps this is merely your interpretation? Or
your imagination. :-)

> These audiophiles may feel that you and
> _Stereophile_ have enriched yourselves
> at their expense.

If so, they are remarkably reticent at letting me
know their feelings. Perhaps they merely cease
reading my magazine in favor of ones that support
their worldview? (If they can find any that aren't
closing, or already closed, of course.)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Schizoid Man]

John Atkinson wrote:
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>>AFAIK, SP has never reviewed Bose speakers. If they do review them
>>(honestly), then we can expect some real legal fireworks.
>
>
> We did review the Bose 901. Stereophile Guide to Home Theater also
> reviewed one of the satellite/woofer home theater packages at the end
> of
> the 1990s, for which I did the measurements. The reviewer compared the
> Bose negatively with a PSB system; the measurements were dreadful,
> with a 10dB rise from the low midrange through the high treble.

Not at all surprising, since Bose make, for lack of a better word,
absolutely dreadful speakers.

If anything, it is Bose that should get sued by the Consumers Union not
the other way around.

The icing on the cake, of course, is their famous tagline of "Better
Sound Through Research". Surely this is completely misleading and
grounds for a class action lawsuit?

[[email protected]]

John Atkinson wrote:

> > I wrote:
> >
> > These audiophiles may feel that you and
> > _Stereophile_ have enriched yourselves
> > at their expense.
>
> If so, they are remarkably reticent at letting me
> know their feelings.

I do not know if Mr. James Randi is an audiophile, but
in the following link, he lets you know his feelings.
He does not appear to be remarkably reticent.

http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4


I think Mr. Arthur Salvatore _is_ an audiophile. In the
following link, he lets you know his feelings.
He does not appear to be remarkably reticent.

http://www.high-endaudio.com/RR-STEREOPHILE.html#Lies


> Perhaps they merely cease reading my magazine in
> favor of ones that support their worldview?

I agree with you that some may stop reading your
magazine. But some, like Tom Nousaine, read it for
entertainment purposes only. If by _worldview_ you
mean the view that is supported by scientific evidence,
I again agree with you.

> (If they can find any that aren't closing, or
> already closed, of course.)

It is a shame that magazines like _High Fidelity_,
_Audio_, and _The Audio Critic_ have disappeared or
have changed into a web 'zine. But readers should
not think that this means that the subjectivists'
position is the correct one. Objectivists are
correct.

--124

[dave weil]

On 15 Dec 2005 05:54:38 -0800,
wrote:

>John Atkinson wrote:
>
>> > I wrote:
>> >
>> > These audiophiles may feel that you and
>> > _Stereophile_ have enriched yourselves
>> > at their expense.
>>
>> If so, they are remarkably reticent at letting me
>> know their feelings.
>
>I do not know if Mr. James Randi is an audiophile, but
>in the following link, he lets you know his feelings.
>He does not appear to be remarkably reticent.
>
>http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4

And, as such, he is likely not to be a subscriber.

>I think Mr. Arthur Salvatore _is_ an audiophile. In the
>following link, he lets you know his feelings.
>He does not appear to be remarkably reticent.
>
>http://www.high-endaudio.com/RR-STEREOPHILE.html#Lies

And, as such, he's likely not to be a subscriber.

Now you've covered two people. That isn't much of a class action suit.

>> Perhaps they merely cease reading my magazine in
>> favor of ones that support their worldview?
>
>I agree with you that some may stop reading your
>magazine. But some, like Tom Nousaine, read it for
>entertainment purposes only. If by _worldview_ you
>mean the view that is supported by scientific evidence,
>I again agree with you.

So, other than trying to give the impression of a class action suit
against Stereophile by simply saying the words in a subject header,
what's yer point?

>> (If they can find any that aren't closing, or
>> already closed, of course.)
>
>It is a shame that magazines like _High Fidelity_,
>_Audio_, and _The Audio Critic_ have disappeared or
>have changed into a web 'zine. But readers should
>not think that this means that the subjectivists'
>position is the correct one. Objectivists are
>correct.

So you say, Mr. Numbers. However, even 2 of the 3 magazines that you
mention offered the SAME sort of "entertainment" that you describe
coming from Stereophile and were guilty of the same sort of
"scientific abuse" that you claim from Stereophile.

So, once again, one has to ask, what's yer point?

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:
> > favor of ones that support their worldview?

> I agree with you that some may stop reading your
> magazine. But some, like Tom Nousaine, read it for
> entertainment purposes only. If by _worldview_ you
> mean the view that is supported by scientific evidence,
> I again agree with you.


They keep sending me discount subscription offers.
I'm torn as to whether the enterainment value is
worth $12. I guess I need to know if they
plan to be running any interviews with Mark
Levinson on how digital audio cripples listeners,
or reviews of Shakti (preferably by expert whistler
Jason Serinus), or more reviews like the one for the
WAVAC where the bench results are amusingly at odds
with the subjective report.

Promise me entertainment along those lines, and I'm
so *there*!

Better yet, hire Nousaine as a columnist..and then have
him proctor some listening tests with Stereophile's
resident golden ears. That would
show some real cojones. Oh, the howling that
would ensue....the letters column alone would become
twice as entertaining.

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
> John Atkinson wrote:
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>AFAIK, SP has never reviewed Bose speakers. If they do review them
>>>(honestly), then we can expect some real legal fireworks.
>>
>>
>> We did review the Bose 901. Stereophile Guide to Home Theater also
>> reviewed one of the satellite/woofer home theater packages at the end
>> of
>> the 1990s, for which I did the measurements. The reviewer compared the
>> Bose negatively with a PSB system; the measurements were dreadful,
>> with a 10dB rise from the low midrange through the high treble.
>
> Not at all surprising, since Bose make, for lack of a better word,
> absolutely dreadful speakers.
>
> If anything, it is Bose that should get sued by the Consumers Union not
> the other way around.
>
> The icing on the cake, of course, is their famous tagline of "Better Sound
> Through Research". Surely this is completely misleading and grounds for a
> class action lawsuit?

All in the ear of the beholder, certainly not anything I would buy, but they
have produced technology that can be used and improved upon. 6th order
bandpass being one example.

I happen to think that their direct reflecting speakers could be very good
if they used something better than the $12.00 drivers found in their current
systems. Imagine it with some Scan-Speak drivers and you just might have
something to write home about. Although the cost would be considerably
higher. 9 of them working together would sound a helluva lot better than
whatever crap they have in there now. Just for the hell of it I wonder what
the 901's would sound like with a real subwoofer connected and crossed over
at 80 Hz.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
dave weil > wrote:

> However, even 2 of the 3 magazines that you
> mention offered the SAME sort of "entertainment" that you describe
> coming from Stereophile and were guilty of the same sort of
> "scientific abuse" that you claim from Stereophile.

Is that the same Sensible Sound whose current issue praises JA's
measurements?

Stephen

[John Atkinson]

wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > > I wrote:
> > > These audiophiles may feel that you and
> > > _Stereophile_ have enriched yourselves
> > > at their expense.
> >
> > If so, they are remarkably reticent at letting me
> > know their feelings.
>
> I do not know if Mr. James Randi is an audiophile, but
> in the following link, he lets you know his feelings.
> He does not appear to be remarkably reticent.
>
> http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4

No, but he also attributes things to me I never wrote.
Randi is a publicity-seeking old carnie who doesn't
feel bound by the standards he demands of others.

> I think Mr. Arthur Salvatore _is_ an audiophile. In the
> following link, he lets you know his feelings.
> He does not appear to be remarkably reticent.
>
> http://www.high-endaudio.com/RR-STEREOPHILE.html#Lies

No, but again, Mr. Salvatore is not backward in inventing
things. And it is fair to point out that in all the 1000s of
words these two gentlemen havedevoted to me and to
Stereophile, neither has accused me of "enriching" myself
"at their expense," which was the accusation you were
trying to flesh out.

> It is a shame that magazines like _High Fidelity_,
> _Audio_, and _The Audio Critic_ have disappeared or
> have changed into a web 'zine. But readers should
> not think that this means that the subjectivists'
> position is the correct one. Objectivists are
> correct.

No further discussion is possible when one of the
participants declares hmself the winner. Congrats.
Let me know how you get on with your lawsuit.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Trevor Wilson]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
> ...
>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>>AFAIK, SP has never reviewed Bose speakers. If they do review them
>>>>(honestly), then we can expect some real legal fireworks.
>>>
>>>
>>> We did review the Bose 901. Stereophile Guide to Home Theater also
>>> reviewed one of the satellite/woofer home theater packages at the end
>>> of
>>> the 1990s, for which I did the measurements. The reviewer compared the
>>> Bose negatively with a PSB system; the measurements were dreadful,
>>> with a 10dB rise from the low midrange through the high treble.
>>
>> Not at all surprising, since Bose make, for lack of a better word,
>> absolutely dreadful speakers.
>>
>> If anything, it is Bose that should get sued by the Consumers Union not
>> the other way around.
>>
>> The icing on the cake, of course, is their famous tagline of "Better
>> Sound Through Research". Surely this is completely misleading and grounds
>> for a class action lawsuit?
>
> All in the ear of the beholder, certainly not anything I would buy, but
> they have produced technology that can be used and improved upon. 6th
> order bandpass being one example.

**They stole the idea from KEF. Their 'Acoustic Wave' was stolen from Prof
Bailey. The only orginal stuff from Bose was the rear/reflecting speaker.
Which was a con-job anyway.

>
> I happen to think that their direct reflecting speakers could be very good
> if they used something better than the $12.00 drivers found in their
> current systems. Imagine it with some Scan-Speak drivers and you just
> might have something to write home about. Although the cost would be
> considerably higher. 9 of them working together would sound a helluva lot
> better than whatever crap they have in there now. Just for the hell of it
> I wonder what the 901's would sound like with a real subwoofer connected
> and crossed over at 80 Hz.

**Crap with bass.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

"François Yves Le Gal" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:43:12 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
>> The only orginal stuff from Bose was the rear/reflecting speaker.
>
> Original ? Nope : at least a dozen designs predated the 901 and it's
> derivatives. Some by 40 years!

**I stand corrected. Bose has developed nothing, except the art of hyperbole
('Helically Wound Voice Coils' indeed!) and litigation.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>AFAIK, SP has never reviewed Bose speakers. If they do review them
>>>>>(honestly), then we can expect some real legal fireworks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We did review the Bose 901. Stereophile Guide to Home Theater also
>>>> reviewed one of the satellite/woofer home theater packages at the end
>>>> of
>>>> the 1990s, for which I did the measurements. The reviewer compared the
>>>> Bose negatively with a PSB system; the measurements were dreadful,
>>>> with a 10dB rise from the low midrange through the high treble.
>>>
>>> Not at all surprising, since Bose make, for lack of a better word,
>>> absolutely dreadful speakers.
>>>
>>> If anything, it is Bose that should get sued by the Consumers Union not
>>> the other way around.
>>>
>>> The icing on the cake, of course, is their famous tagline of "Better
>>> Sound Through Research". Surely this is completely misleading and
>>> grounds for a class action lawsuit?
>>
>> All in the ear of the beholder, certainly not anything I would buy, but
>> they have produced technology that can be used and improved upon. 6th
>> order bandpass being one example.
>
> **They stole the idea from KEF. Their 'Acoustic Wave' was stolen from Prof
> Bailey. The only orginal stuff from Bose was the rear/reflecting speaker.
> Which was a con-job anyway.
>
How is it a con job?

>>
>> I happen to think that their direct reflecting speakers could be very
>> good if they used something better than the $12.00 drivers found in their
>> current systems. Imagine it with some Scan-Speak drivers and you just
>> might have something to write home about. Although the cost would be
>> considerably higher. 9 of them working together would sound a helluva
>> lot better than whatever crap they have in there now. Just for the hell
>> of it I wonder what the 901's would sound like with a real subwoofer
>> connected and crossed over at 80 Hz.
>
> **Crap with bass.
>
>
An opinion you get to have, the question is why you think it would be. The
only demo I ever heard of a 901 was impressive except for the bass and the
rolled off highs. With a couple of decent tweeters and different drivers
there just might be something worth having.

[Trevor Wilson]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>
>>> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>AFAIK, SP has never reviewed Bose speakers. If they do review them
>>>>>>(honestly), then we can expect some real legal fireworks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We did review the Bose 901. Stereophile Guide to Home Theater also
>>>>> reviewed one of the satellite/woofer home theater packages at the end
>>>>> of
>>>>> the 1990s, for which I did the measurements. The reviewer compared the
>>>>> Bose negatively with a PSB system; the measurements were dreadful,
>>>>> with a 10dB rise from the low midrange through the high treble.
>>>>
>>>> Not at all surprising, since Bose make, for lack of a better word,
>>>> absolutely dreadful speakers.
>>>>
>>>> If anything, it is Bose that should get sued by the Consumers Union not
>>>> the other way around.
>>>>
>>>> The icing on the cake, of course, is their famous tagline of "Better
>>>> Sound Through Research". Surely this is completely misleading and
>>>> grounds for a class action lawsuit?
>>>
>>> All in the ear of the beholder, certainly not anything I would buy, but
>>> they have produced technology that can be used and improved upon. 6th
>>> order bandpass being one example.
>>
>> **They stole the idea from KEF. Their 'Acoustic Wave' was stolen from
>> Prof Bailey. The only orginal stuff from Bose was the rear/reflecting
>> speaker. Which was a con-job anyway.
>>
> How is it a con job?

**The Direct/Reflecting system was created to simulate a concert hall. ANY
recording made in a concert hall, will already have the ambient cues. Worse,
the Bose system does not even come remotely close to any concert hall
anywhere on the planet. IOW: It doesn't work, nor could it work as
advertised.

>
>>>
>>> I happen to think that their direct reflecting speakers could be very
>>> good if they used something better than the $12.00 drivers found in
>>> their current systems. Imagine it with some Scan-Speak drivers and you
>>> just might have something to write home about. Although the cost would
>>> be considerably higher. 9 of them working together would sound a
>>> helluva lot better than whatever crap they have in there now. Just for
>>> the hell of it I wonder what the 901's would sound like with a real
>>> subwoofer connected and crossed over at 80 Hz.
>>
>> **Crap with bass.
>>
>>
> An opinion you get to have, the question is why you think it would be.

**Because Bose 901s are crap sounding speakers. They destroy any and all
imaging which may be in the recording. HF response is utterly appalling.

The
> only demo I ever heard of a 901 was impressive except for the bass and the
> rolled off highs. With a couple of decent tweeters and different drivers
> there just might be something worth having.

**LOL! Thanks for making my point.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au