On 6/17/05 11:54 AM, in article , "Iain M
Churches" wrote:

You are right, Dave. Things have changed, even nostalgia is not
what it used to be:-)

Sigh... Ok, let's all clean up after whoever thought it fun to crosspost
this all over hell and back...
Fix those crosspost address headers before hitting SEND kids!
It's Easy!
It's Fun!
It's the Right Thing To Do!

Thanks!

On 6/17/05 11:56 AM, in article
, "
wrote:


Not when it prints reviews meant not to inform, but to drive sales. :-(

Sigh... Ok, let's all clean up after whoever thought it fun to crosspost
this all over hell and back...
Fix those crosspost address headers before hitting SEND kids!
It's Easy!
It's Fun!
It's the Right Thing To Do!

Thanks!

IMO, most "electronic related" magazines are not what they used to be
pre 1980. They are all dumbed down for observers and not doers, and
foster a culture of end-users as opposed to true amateurs (lovers of
the hobby). I think it stems from the fact that the American male,
(with the exception of folks on groups like this), are no longer
do-it-yourselfers. [...]

In the 1980s they all went from building things to programming computers.
Then they went from programming computers to just playing computer games.

Signal wrote:
"Sander deWaal" emitted :

Because you wind up with something that perfectly
matches your
exact needs, instead of a product that someone in
marketing
decided would meet most users' needs.

Can you give an example? I'm struggling to think of a
D.I.Y.
electronics project that would impress a young person
now.

A Tesla coil ;-)

Been there, done that.

Extremely hazardous.

Teaches good electrical hygiene.

Signal wrote:

Magazines are not *responsible* for a decline in interest in D.I.Y.

Right. For that we can blame Radio Shack.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

wrote:
jeffc wrote:

wrote in message
groups.com...

Given that SP subscriptions are cheap, I may subscribe again
eventually.

It's a catch 22. Magazines that charge very low prices for subscriptions do
so for one reason - to get higher circulation. Do you really think they can
hire a staff of expert, objective reviewers, print a glossy magazine, and
mail it to your house for $1 each month? Ha! Of course not. All their
money comes from ads. Higher circulation = more ad money. More ad money
means less objective reviews. Less objective reviews means less
circulation, unless they lower the cost. etc., until they pay you to take
the magazine, at which point it becomes beyond worthless.



IMO, Stereophile crossed the "beyond worthless" threshold quite some
time ago. It is now simply an advertising vehicle for the
manufacturers. Period.

That's fine you feel that way about the magazine.
The simple solution to all of this is, don't read it.
Oh, I do subscribe and read it for the most part. Makes for some good
bathroom reading materal. The price is dirt cheap and I do get to read
about products that I would not even knew existed, whether I think they
are great or not.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:27:31 -0400, Howard Ferstler
wrote:

Sander deWaal wrote:

"William Sommerwerck" said:
.

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good".

What's wrong with that?

By your standards, this means that juke boxes in red-neck
bars are on the same audio-quality level as the very best
Wilson WAMM systems.

Howard Ferstler

They probably sound better than if the WAMMS were in the same bar.

On 17 Jun 2005 17:36:51 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Les Cargill wrote:

Why? Because Hefner used to put stuff in Playboy to tell
rawboned farm kids who went to college after a stint in the Army,
(and went to work on Madison Avenue) which fork to use, what
clothes to buy and what hi-fi set to buy.

He was more often accurate on the hi-fi recommendations than on the
clothing recommendations, anyway.

Oh, well.
--scott
(Now, do I eat the antepasto with the salad fork?)

Only in the anteroom.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:36:52 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On 17 Jun 2005 17:36:51 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Les Cargill wrote:

Why? Because Hefner used to put stuff in Playboy to tell
rawboned farm kids who went to college after a stint in the Army,
(and went to work on Madison Avenue) which fork to use, what
clothes to buy and what hi-fi set to buy.

He was more often accurate on the hi-fi recommendations than on the
clothing recommendations, anyway.

Oh, well.
--scott
(Now, do I eat the antepasto with the salad fork?)

Only in the anteroom.

In the morning.

Kal

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 23:00:08 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote:

On 6/17/05 11:54 AM, in article , "Iain M
Churches" wrote:

You are right, Dave. Things have changed, even nostalgia is not
what it used to be:-)

Sigh... Ok, let's all clean up after whoever thought it fun to crosspost
this all over hell and back...
Fix those crosspost address headers before hitting SEND kids!
It's Easy!
It's Fun!
It's the Right Thing To Do!

Thanks!

Still crossposting I see...

Not much on the "cleaning up", I see...

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:29:34 -0400, TonyP
wrote:

IMO, Stereophile crossed the "beyond worthless" threshold quite some
time ago. It is now simply an advertising vehicle for the
manufacturers. Period.

That's fine you feel that way about the magazine.
The simple solution to all of this is, don't read it.
Oh, I do subscribe and read it for the most part. Makes for some good
bathroom reading materal. The price is dirt cheap and I do get to read
about products that I would not even knew existed, whether I think they
are great or not.

Right. I couldn't turn-down the $1 per issue offer, even though there
does not seem to be much of substance in the magazine.

As a rule, if any magazine in any way endorses mega-buck cables, they
immediately reveal their nature as a collection of nonsense not to be
taken seriously.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
It would more correct to compare the magazine under JGH's management with
it
under JA's.

Under JGH, the magazine's view was primarily that reproduced sound should
sound like live sound, and it was the magazine's role to determine which
equipment most closely achieved this goal.

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of "high
fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it
exists
primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to make.

I really agree with this! Thirty years ago, I valued each issue produced by
J. Gordon Holt. I dropped my subscription more than a decade ago. Based on
samples of the magazine since then, I don't regret it.

Ed Presson

"Iain M Churches" wrote in message
...
Any editor who receives letters from dis-satisfied
readers in large numbers will certainly not ignore them.
But, an editor who receives little or no feedback will assume
that the readers are happy with the magazine, as long as
circulation figures are maintained.

Right, so what good does it do to listen to the readers? All that matters
is the circulation numbers. If it drops, lower the subscription price.

"robert casey" wrote in message
ink.net...


IMO, Stereophile crossed the "beyond worthless" threshold quite some
time ago. It is now simply an advertising vehicle for the
manufacturers. Period.


I'd want a magazine somewhat similar to Consumer Reports,
one that has no ads. One that will tell you that there
is no significant difference between "Ultra Essense" speaker
wire and 14 gauge power cord bought from Ace Hardware. But
costs about 1/50th as much (thus freeing up money you
could spend towards something that *will* improve your system).

Yeah, but the problem with that approach is they can't tell what will
because they can't tell the difference between any 2 CD players or amps.
They can barely tell between 2 speakers, and then not between any speakers
that cost more than $600.

"robert casey" wrote in message
ink.net...
Any of these magazines ever come out and say that
Product X made by Company Y really sucked?

No, their basic approach is to only review high-dollar stuff, which, like
the other guy said, isn't going to suck. Or, they will review less
expensive stuff that they already happen to know is good. They essentially
never "waste readers' time" with stuff that isn't that good. Therefore, no
negative reviews.

wrote in message
oups.com...


Clyde Slick wrote:
"robert casey" wrote in message
ink.net...
Any of these magazines ever come out and say that
Product X made by Company Y really sucked?

The situation is that they are mostly reviewing extremely
expensive and high end products. Generally, such products do not really
suck.


SET amps, anyone? Shakti Stones? Shun Mook Mpingo discs? Bedini
Clarifiers? Power conditioners? High $ "interconnects"? High $ power
cords? Shall I go on?

With what? Those things never did anything to make your stereo sound bad.

"TonyP" wrote in message
...

IMO, Stereophile crossed the "beyond worthless" threshold quite some
time ago. It is now simply an advertising vehicle for the
manufacturers. Period.

That's fine you feel that way about the magazine.
The simple solution to all of this is, don't read it.

I guess that's a bit like saying if you didn't like his post, then you
shouldn't have replied to it.

"Jocelyn Major"
Phil Allison
** What gives you the right to completely change someone's post before
adding your asinine reply ??

???? I simply don't understand what is your problem.

** Answer the question - bitch:

" What gives you the right to completely change someone's post before
adding your asinine reply ?? "


I simply put back the text that *you* remove from Iain M Churches before
posting to make thing in the "correct" perspective.


** Answer the question - bitch:

" What gives you the right to completely change someone's post before
adding your asinine reply ?? "


Here is my text again!


** Already read that pile of dopey ****e.


Iain simply said that he "did'nt have the opportunity to read Stereophile"
so what?


** It means he is talking straight out his backside since he has never read
the mag in question.

The guy is a PITA ****wit.

You are even worse.





............. Phil

Sander deWaal wrote:

Pooh Bear said:

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good".

What's wrong with that?

The great un-eared love pseudo-bass for one. That background rumble that's
there when there's no actual bass instrument playing.

Those people usually don't care about how anything sounds, as long as
it provides a steady flow of non-silence.

Definition of a music system annum 2005: "A contraption that makes
noise in people's homes".

If you don't see what's wrong with that - you never will get 'hi-fi'.

Thank God.
My-Fi is my goal.

Well Sander - you are one of the few who appreciate an accurate sound !

Graham

Jocelyn Major wrote:

Phil you *still* have no reason to be so rude with Iain (or anybody else).
He was just giving a opinion that I personnaly find correct.

Don't bother debating the point with Phil. Your words will not so much fall on
deaf ears as inflame them !

He *always* knows best. He knows this for a fact. Therefore best left alone !

Graham

RickH wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:

I'm running a homebrew though. How many ppl have mirrored disks ?
Graham

I'm running 1 terrabyte on a Raid-5 array. I was going to use
mirroring (Raid-1) but too expensive (space-wise). Usually Raid-1 is
only used for extremely critical applications like payroll or credit
cards, etc. I get great redundancy, lots of space, and the ability to
swap drives in/out with no data loss. Raid-1 mirroring is overkilll
and too expensive for my needs, Raid-5 is just right.

Needs more disks though ! I admit that would be my perfect solution. But
do I need it ?

I simply wanted data integrity hence it fitted my needs fine. It was a
steal end-of-line mobo purchase too. Highpoint 370 controller integrated.
Total of 4 IDE channels.

Graham

Signal wrote:

"Pooh Bear" emitted :

Magazines are not *responsible* for a decline in interest in D.I.Y.

If we're talking about youngsters taking an interest in the subject ( as I
did many yrs ago ) I think the main issue is that it's not 'kewl' to have
hobbies any more.

Was it *ever* "kewl" to stay indoors and build electronics projects?

Nobody ever 'dissed' me for doing it.

Not mutually exclusive..

You just hang out with your gangsta friends - that's 'kewl' !

True, but you can't really blame them can you. It's just youthful
rebellion (rockers, mods, skins etc.) but taken to the next cultural
progression. The thing that gets my blood boiling is parents making
excuses like.. "Give Johnny a break... he smashes windows because
there's nothing for him to do where he lives."

Well... my hobby was sound engineering - which meant I went on to do sound for
bands which meant I met more girls.....

Fine by me ! :-)

Hey mon, sound engineering *is* kewl.

And yes - the parents today are to blame. Too many stick their kids in front of
the TV and expect it to act like parents for them 'cos they can't be bothered.

Once upon a time if the neighbours kid was playing up you could
threaten to talk to the parents and they would behave. If you do that
now you can expect a hostile reaction from the parents themselves.. eg
"How dare you talk to my [brats name] like that!" or similar.

'Society' appears to have lost the plot it seems. Aimless kids seem numerous and I
admit it troubles me - for them ( the kids ) as much as anything.

Graham

Phil Allison wrote:
"Jocelyn Major"

Phil Allison

** What gives you the right to completely change someone's post before
adding your asinine reply ??

???? I simply don't understand what is your problem.


** Answer the question - bitch:

" What gives you the right to completely change someone's post before
adding your asinine reply ?? "



I simply put back the text that *you* remove from Iain M Churches before
posting to make thing in the "correct" perspective.



** Answer the question - bitch:

" What gives you the right to completely change someone's post before
adding your asinine reply ?? "



Here is my text again!



** Already read that pile of dopey ****e.



Iain simply said that he "did'nt have the opportunity to read Stereophile"
so what?



** It means he is talking straight out his backside since he has never read
the mag in question.

The guy is a PITA ****wit.

You are even worse.





............ Phil




Go get ****ed by a cactus...smegma sucker.
I hope you die of a heartattack,in the next week.

Some peoples children.

What an incedible ASSHOLE....I didn't think it was humanly
possible,Untill Phil popped out of Satans loins..
Jesus...What a ****-wit.
Go choke on a pretzel.
Asshole.

Pooh Bear wrote:
Signal wrote:

"Pooh Bear" emitted :

Magazines are not *responsible* for a decline in interest in D.I.Y.

If we're talking about youngsters taking an interest in the subject ( as I
did many yrs ago ) I think the main issue is that it's not 'kewl' to have
hobbies any more.

Was it *ever* "kewl" to stay indoors and build electronics projects?

Nobody ever 'dissed' me for doing it.


You just hang out with your gangsta friends - that's 'kewl' !

True, but you can't really blame them can you. It's just youthful
rebellion (rockers, mods, skins etc.) but taken to the next cultural
progression. The thing that gets my blood boiling is parents making
excuses like.. "Give Johnny a break... he smashes windows because
there's nothing for him to do where he lives."

Well... my hobby was sound engineering - which meant I went on to do sound
for bands which meant I met more girls.....

Mmmmm, girls.

Fine by me ! :-)

And yes - the parents today are to blame. Too many stick their kids in front of
the TV and expect it to act like parents for them 'cos they can't be bothered.

My "Johnny" has zero interest in TV, but quite a bit in girls. I hope
he learns to fix up amps before I get too old to play guitar. He's a
great kid, with better taste in music than most adults. His favorite
since he was only months old was Neil Young. He loves Cream, The
Clash, Classical & Baroque (Tchaikofsky, Bach, etc.), The Stones, and
way more Beatles than I care to hear, but hey, he's a child, and most
of that McCartney and Harrison stuff really is children's music.
We might wake to him playing Steely Dan or the Velvet Underground,
Bowie, John Lennon, The Stooges, NY Dolls or Beethoven.
Johnny (his legal name) is 3-1/2, and can already kind of read, and can
certainly do simple addition and subtraction. I'm not bragging about
good genes here, but saying keep your kids, grandkids, nieces and
nephews away from that idiot box. Get them dolls, erector sets, Lego
blocks. Let them play with mud and sticks. TV and video games cause
weakened brains and weakened bodies.
Books, playgrounds and non-electronic toys do the opposite.

Graham

--Bryan

"Ptaylor"


** Cancer is too good for some - like this psychopathic Taylor Puke.



............. Phil

Phil Allison wrote:
"Jocelyn Major"

Phil Allison

** What gives you the right to completely change someone's post before
adding your asinine reply ??

???? I simply don't understand what is your problem.


** Answer the question - bitch:

Phil's (and Sokolich's, aka The Ghost) problem:

http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/fsckhead.html


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Signal wrote:
"Bob Cain" emitted :


Magazines are not *responsible* for a decline in interest in D.I.Y.

Right. For that we can blame Radio Shack.


Eh?

There was a time, many moons ago, when every town had a
reasonably good electronics store or two. A hobbyist could
get just about anything needed to build about anything.
Radio Shack came along to most all towns and initially had a
pretty complete selection of component and hobby stuff too.
They drove all the local businesses out of town pretty
much nation wide and having done that they rather quickly
dumped the line of components and other good stuff to make
room for the retail junk that was higher profit. This was
the marketing plan from the gitgo and it worked. The
hobbyist was left rather high and dry other than via catalog
and hobby/experimental/diy electronics just doesn't work
that well from a catalog. Having figured out the problem,
you need that part now!


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

jeffc wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


Clyde Slick wrote:
"robert casey" wrote in message
ink.net...
Any of these magazines ever come out and say that
Product X made by Company Y really sucked?

The situation is that they are mostly reviewing extremely
expensive and high end products. Generally, such products do not really
suck.


SET amps, anyone? Shakti Stones? Shun Mook Mpingo discs? Bedini
Clarifiers? Power conditioners? High $ "interconnects"? High $ power
cords? Shall I go on?

With what? Those things never did anything to make your stereo sound bad.


We differ on SET amps, I guess. As for the rest, I object to products
that are frauds and the magazines that recommend them. (And you're
right, they don't do anything to make your stereo sound bad, but only
because they don't do *anything* other than waste your time and money.)

Writing letters to the editor complaining about Stereophile is a sort
of a sport, and surprisingly, Atkinson publishes many of them.

Stereophile is one of the few magazines that publishes (it seems) virtually
every coherent letter it receives. Whether JA is trying to provide an open
forum, or he just wants additional pages to justify additional advertising,
I don't know. Probably both.

William Sommerwerck said:

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of "high
fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it
exists
primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to
make.

You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal people make their
choices. If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to
tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as
"too much bass" or "great imaging".

I don't find it odd at all. Like most businesses, Stereophile tries to
appeal to the lowest common denominator.

George M. Middius wrote:

William Sommerwerck said:

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of
"high
fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it
exists
primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to
make.

You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal people make their
choices. If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to
tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as
"too much bass" or "great imaging".

If you value "good" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you
whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too
much bass" or "great imaging".

You're missing the point of what I wrote and how Mr. Middius responded.
There's a vast gulf between buying something simply because you like it, and
having an "expert" justify your purchase.

The following claims are not the same:
1: the magazine is beholden to advertisers
2: the magazine has no objective standards
3. justify whatever choice the reader wants to make

These have all been made as derogatory, but they are different.

No one ever said (or implied) they were equivalent (though #2 and #3 are at
least Velcro'ed at the hip).

2: the magazine has no objective standards

Arguable. SP does do technical tests.

But when have they ever been correlated with what one "actually" (???)
hears? An "objective" test is objective only if it correlates with valid
subjective tests. Otherwise it's meaningless. To the best of my knowledge,
Stereophile has never performed listening tests that might provide this
correlation (or show there was none). Stereophile's technical tests are
largely window dressing.

20+ years ago, when JA introduced cumulative decay spectra as a speaker
measurement, I urged him to hold off for a year or so, to do additional
listening tests in the hope they would reveal correlations between the
measurements and specific subjective aspects of the speaker's sound. This,
like every other suggestion I made to JA, was instantly rejected.

It's worth noting that, when I reviewed the AKG K1000 ear speakers, I ran a
waterfall plot that correlated with the 'phones' extreme midrange "honking".
JA's reaction was to ask me whether I'd run the tests properly.

William Sommerwerck said to Thing:

You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal people make their
choices. If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to
tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as
"too much bass" or "great imaging".

If you value "good" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you
whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too
much bass" or "great imaging".

You're missing the point of what I wrote and how Mr. Middius responded.
There's a vast gulf between buying something simply because you like it, and
having an "expert" justify your purchase.

Good luck getting Thing's teeth marks off your shoes. :-(

William Sommerwerck wrote:
George M. Middius wrote:

William Sommerwerck said:

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of
"high
fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it
exists
primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to
make.

You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal people make their
choices. If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to
tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as
"too much bass" or "great imaging".

If you value "good" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you
whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too
much bass" or "great imaging".

You're missing the point of what I wrote and how Mr. Middius responded.
There's a vast gulf between buying something simply because you like it, and
having an "expert" justify your purchase.


What? "Middius" asked: "If you value 'realistic' sound, do you need
some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it?". I asked
essentially the same question, but changed 'realistic' sound (the old
SP paradigm) to 'good' sound (the new SP paradigm). IOW, if you do not
need a reviewer to tell you what sounds "realistic", why would you need
a reviewer to tell you what sounds "good"? At least "realistic" sound
has some sort of objective standard, so you have an idea of where the
reviewer is coming from. "Good" sound is *completely* subjective. What
sounds "good" to you (or JA or someone else) may not sound "good" to
me.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 04:36:57 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

IMO, Stereophile crossed the "beyond worthless" threshold quite
some time ago. It is now simply an advertising vehicle for the
manufacturers. Period.

It would more correct to compare the magazine under JGH's management with it
under JA's.

Under JGH, the magazine's view was primarily that reproduced sound should
sound like live sound, and it was the magazine's role to determine which
equipment most closely achieved this goal.

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of "high
fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it exists
primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to make.

Compare music now and music then and you'll understand why "comparing
recorded music to live music" is too narrow a definition of what
hi-fidelity is and why the magazine might have expanded its definition
of the utility of a piece of equipment.

Under JGH, the magazine's view was primarily that reproduced sound should
sound like live sound, and it was the magazine's role to determine which
equipment most closely achieved this goal.

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of "high
fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it
exists
primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to
make.

Compare music now and music then and you'll understand why "comparing
recorded music to live music" is too narrow a definition of what
hi-fidelity is and why the magazine might have expanded its definition
of the utility of a piece of equipment.

It's not "too-narrow" a definition -- it's the only _valid_ definition.

If I were running an audiophile magazine, I would categorically bar reviews
of non-acoustic music, and reviewers would not be allowed to use such music
in judging equipment. But that wouldn't sell very many magazines.

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 06:27:51 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

Under JGH, the magazine's view was primarily that reproduced sound should
sound like live sound, and it was the magazine's role to determine which
equipment most closely achieved this goal.

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it sounds
good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of "high
fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it
exists
primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to
make.

Compare music now and music then and you'll understand why "comparing
recorded music to live music" is too narrow a definition of what
hi-fidelity is and why the magazine might have expanded its definition
of the utility of a piece of equipment.

It's not "too-narrow" a definition -- it's the only _valid_ definition.

So you say. But I disagree. With you AND Harry Pearson.

If I were running an audiophile magazine, I would categorically bar reviews
of non-acoustic music, and reviewers would not be allowed to use such music
in judging equipment. But that wouldn't sell very many magazines.

And it wouldn't be a very useful magazine either.

Please remember that there's not a system on the planet that can sound
exactly like a live performance. All systems are a series of
compromises and there's no system or component that offers an absolute
reference vis a vis live or "acoustic" music. Different components and
systems have strengths and weaknesses that can also be judged by
"non-acoustic" music, especially since there's precious little music
that hasn't been processed electronically in one way or another (and
I'm not *just* talking about the physical act of recording either,
which imposes its own "signature").

George M. Middius wrote:
William Sommerwerck said to Thing:

You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal
people make
their choices. If you value "realistic" sound, do you
need some
reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it? That
judgment
is as subjective as "too much bass" or "great imaging".

If you value "good" sound, do you need some reviewer to
tell you
whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as
subjective as "too
much bass" or "great imaging".

You're missing the point of what I wrote and how Mr.
Middius
responded. There's a vast gulf between buying something
simply
because you like it, and having an "expert" justify your
purchase.

Good luck getting Thing's teeth marks off your shoes. :-(

Thus Middius tries to distract us from the fact that his
response was some place between irrelevant and redundant.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
William Sommerwerck said:

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction
of "if it
sounds good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the
original
meaning of "high fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile
has no
"objective" standards; it exists primarily to justify
whatever
purchase a particular reader wishes to make.

You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal
people make
their choices. If you value "realistic" sound, do you
need some
reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it? That
judgment is
as subjective as "too much bass" or "great imaging".

I don't find it odd at all. Like most businesses,
Stereophile tries to
appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Some common denominators can be so low as to be useless.