On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 18:51:22 -0400, wrote:



I subscribed to Stereophile for a year to see what they were like
these days.

You know what they did to reward my paying them money? They turned me
over to some telemarketing company to annoy me at dinnertime and ask
me to re-subscribe.

They offered me a renewal at 86% off of cover price and I had to tell
them that it wasn't even worth that.

Oh, and in case you missed that, if you're paying more than about
$10-12 a year for Stereophile, you're getting even more ripped off
than normal. :-)


I quit reading stereophile when they had reviewers that thought the
tice clock really worked and that the diameter of a digital cable
affected the treble response.

AZ Nomad wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 18:51:22 -0400, wrote:

I subscribed to Stereophile for a year to see what they were like
these days.

You know what they did to reward my paying them money? They turned me
over to some telemarketing company to annoy me at dinnertime and ask
me to re-subscribe.

They offered me a renewal at 86% off of cover price and I had to tell
them that it wasn't even worth that.

Oh, and in case you missed that, if you're paying more than about
$10-12 a year for Stereophile, you're getting even more ripped off
than normal. :-)

I quit reading stereophile when they had reviewers that thought the
tice clock really worked and that the diameter of a digital cable
affected the treble response.

LMAO ! That's worth giving Atkinson a hard time over - subjective or not !

Do you have these articles handy ?

Graham

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 01:23:08 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:



AZ Nomad wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 18:51:22 -0400, wrote:

I subscribed to Stereophile for a year to see what they were like
these days.

You know what they did to reward my paying them money? They turned me
over to some telemarketing company to annoy me at dinnertime and ask
me to re-subscribe.

They offered me a renewal at 86% off of cover price and I had to tell
them that it wasn't even worth that.

Oh, and in case you missed that, if you're paying more than about
$10-12 a year for Stereophile, you're getting even more ripped off
than normal. :-)

I quit reading stereophile when they had reviewers that thought the
tice clock really worked and that the diameter of a digital cable
affected the treble response.

LMAO ! That's worth giving Atkinson a hard time over - subjective or not !

Do you have these articles handy ?

Sorry; that was around '89 plus or minus 2 years.

Simple search:
http://www.stereophile.com/accessory...84/index4.html

Kal

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 21:06:45 -0400, Kalman Rubinson wrote:


Simple search:
http://www.stereophile.com/accessory...84/index4.html

too funny!
"I later spent considerably more time listening to the two Tice clocks on my
own, and continued to hear subtle differences. While the midbass did not
appear to be changed in this longer audition, I continued to note a bit more
forwardness to the sound with the clocks plugged in. But ultimately I felt
that the elusive changes heard were not an improvement in my system; it was
simply a shade more open without the clocks."

and time to put away the crack pipe.

AZ Nomad wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 21:06:45 -0400, Kalman Rubinson wrote:

Simple search:
http://www.stereophile.com/accessory...84/index4.html

too funny!
"I later spent considerably more time listening to the two Tice clocks on my
own, and continued to hear subtle differences. While the midbass did not
appear to be changed in this longer audition, I continued to note a bit more
forwardness to the sound with the clocks plugged in. But ultimately I felt
that the elusive changes heard were not an improvement in my system; it was
simply a shade more open without the clocks."

and time to put away the crack pipe.

These 'reviewers' need to be filleted and barbequed !

Graham

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
Simple search:
http://www.stereophile.com/accessory...84/index4.html

Kal


Hardly a ringing endorsement. Or any endorsement at all. What it is is a
very skeptical review that if read with the usual care says "WATCH OUT".

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 22:31:45 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:


"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
.. .
Simple search:
http://www.stereophile.com/accessory...84/index4.html

Kal


Hardly a ringing endorsement. Or any endorsement at all. What it is is a
very skeptical review that if read with the usual care says "WATCH OUT".

Mebbe. Not the sort of product I would want to spend my time on.

Kal

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 22:31:45 -0400, Harry Lavo wrote:



"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
.. .
Simple search:
http://www.stereophile.com/accessory...84/index4.html

Kal


Hardly a ringing endorsement. Or any endorsement at all. What it is is a
very skeptical review that if read with the usual care says "WATCH OUT".

The one thing the reviewer refused to even consider what the possibility
that the clock didn't make any difference at all.
"subtle", my ass!

AZ Nomad wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 22:31:45 -0400, Harry Lavo wrote:

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
.. .
Simple search:
http://www.stereophile.com/accessory...84/index4.html

Kal

Hardly a ringing endorsement. Or any endorsement at all. What it is is a
very skeptical review that if read with the usual care says "WATCH OUT".

The one thing the reviewer refused to even consider what the possibility
that the clock didn't make any difference at all.
"subtle", my ass!

Utterly hilarious.

Sometimes I wonder if these guys aren't simply intentionally pulling everyone's
leg !

Graham

Stuart Krivis wrote:
On 21 Jun 2006 17:17:38 -0700, "vlad"
wrote:


I cancelled my subscription after reading article of Michael Fremer
about virtues of analog. His statement about "infinite resolution"
of analog showed to me that he is ignorant in technical issues.


As far as I know he is still there.


I actually have some respect for MF because he knows what he likes and
he sticks with it. He's also quite knowledgable about music.

I don't agree that vinyl is superior. I would suggest that the "sound"
of vinyl he likes so much is really a distortion that's inherent in
the the whole mastering/pressing/playback process of vinyl records.

I guess I never saw, or just skipped as uninteresting, any articles
where he tried to defend vinyl as being superior. He should really
stick to reviewing and leave the science and engineering to those that
can understand it. (Well... that's true of most audio reviewers.)

The ones I can't stand are the ones like ST that are really gullible
and rave about whatever someone pushed at them this week as if it were
the Second Coming or something.

At least Stereophile is more worthwhile than TAS. :-)

I assume that the Triangle speakers might be an example of this? He
reviewed the heck out of them. While I don't believe any company
deserves that many reviews in such a short span I can say the speakers
are excellent. Yes I own them (Celius 202)

Kalman Rubinson wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 22:31:45 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:


"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
. ..

Simple search:
http://www.stereophile.com/accessory...84/index4.html

Kal


Hardly a ringing endorsement. Or any endorsement at all. What it is is a
very skeptical review that if read with the usual care says "WATCH OUT".


Mebbe. Not the sort of product I would want to spend my time on.

Kal

This thread made me think of something that has always puzzled me. Many
reviewers in many magazines say they hear slight changes - either with
tweaks or equipment. How many slight changes add up to something not
slight? I bet most reviewers have a dozen or more changes in their
system that added a slight difference. I wonder if removing all of them
in unison would reveal a difference the average audiophile could easily
hear?

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 21:31:12 -0600, MD wrote:

This thread made me think of something that has always puzzled me. Many
reviewers in many magazines say they hear slight changes - either with
tweaks or equipment. How many slight changes add up to something not
slight? I bet most reviewers have a dozen or more changes in their
system that added a slight difference. I wonder if removing all of them
in unison would reveal a difference the average audiophile could easily
hear?

Hard to say, of course. OTOH, I am not much of a tweaker and find
most of these small differences almost dispensible since their effects
are less than those induced by temperature/humidity swings or the
physiological variations of the listener. IMHO, of course.

Kal

Pooh Bear wrote:
AZ Nomad wrote:
I quit reading stereophile when they had reviewers that thought the
tice clock really worked and that the diameter of a digital cable
affected the treble response.

LMAO ! That's worth giving Atkinson a hard time over - subjective or not !

Do you have these articles handy ?

Kal gave you the URL for Stereophile's coverage of the Tice Clock.
Hardly the ringing endorsement the original poster appears to think,
as Tice canceled all of its advertising following publication.
Regarding
the second claim, I don't recall Stereophile publishing anything like
"the diameter of a digital cable affected the treble response." Could
someone give a reference please.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

On 27 Jun 2006 04:14:56 -0700, "John Atkinson"
wrote:


Pooh Bear wrote:
AZ Nomad wrote:
I quit reading stereophile when they had reviewers that thought the
tice clock really worked and that the diameter of a digital cable
affected the treble response.

LMAO ! That's worth giving Atkinson a hard time over - subjective or not !

Do you have these articles handy ?

Kal gave you the URL for Stereophile's coverage of the Tice Clock.
Hardly the ringing endorsement the original poster appears to think,
as Tice canceled all of its advertising following publication.

This is an interesting revelation as it touches directly on the cause
of much of the hostility around here toward hi-fi mags. I wonder if
the concellation caused you surprise or---dare I say it?--grief? Was
the possibility discussed before publication? Did you contact Tice
beforehand to warn them the review would contain negative material?
Did you feel before agreeing to the review that there was an inherent
conflict of interest (since you were carrying Tice ads). Have you
since agreed to review products you carry advertising for? Is there
now a tendency to shy away from reviewing products you carry
advertising for? Do you like ice cream?

Sorry. The last question was just to see if you were still reading.
:-)

On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 12:13:22 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:

On 27 Jun 2006 04:14:56 -0700, "John Atkinson"
wrote:


Pooh Bear wrote:
AZ Nomad wrote:
I quit reading stereophile when they had reviewers that thought the
tice clock really worked and that the diameter of a digital cable
affected the treble response.

LMAO ! That's worth giving Atkinson a hard time over - subjective or not !

Do you have these articles handy ?

Kal gave you the URL for Stereophile's coverage of the Tice Clock.
Hardly the ringing endorsement the original poster appears to think,
as Tice canceled all of its advertising following publication.

This is an interesting revelation as it touches directly on the cause
of much of the hostility around here toward hi-fi mags. I wonder if
the concellation caused you surprise or---dare I say it?--grief? Was
the possibility discussed before publication? Did you contact Tice
beforehand to warn them the review would contain negative material?
Did you feel before agreeing to the review that there was an inherent
conflict of interest (since you were carrying Tice ads). Have you
since agreed to review products you carry advertising for? Is there
now a tendency to shy away from reviewing products you carry
advertising for? Do you like ice cream?

When did you stop beating your wife?

Kal

paul packer wrote:
On 27 Jun 2006 04:14:56 -0700, "John Atkinson"
wrote:
Kal gave you the URL for Stereophile's coverage of the Tice Clock.
Hardly the ringing endorsement the original poster appears to think,
as Tice canceled all of its advertising following publication.

I wonder if the concellation caused you surprise or---dare I say
it?--grief?

No. None.

Was the possibility discussed before publication?

I have no idea. I don't discuss advertising with companies.

Did you contact Tice beforehand to warn them the review would
contain negative material?

Not a warning, no. But every manufacturer whose products are
reviewed in Stereophile is sent a preprint of the edited review, so
that they can prepare a "Manufacturer's Comment" letter for
publication. This happened with our Tice coverage, as with every
other review.

Did you feel before agreeing to the review that there was an
inherent conflict of interest (since you were carrying Tice ads).

No.

Have you since agreed to review products you carry advertising
for?

Stereophile reviews approximately equal numbers of products
from advertisers and non-advertisers.

Is there now a tendency to shy away from reviewing products
you carry advertising for?

No. Why should there be?

Do you like ice cream?

Yes, but I do try to remember that ice cream is basically lard, sugar,
and ice.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson said:

Do you like ice cream?

Yes, but I do try to remember that ice cream is basically lard, sugar,
and ice.

Does that help if you're trying to remember how to spell Arnii Krooborg's
name? Apparently my refusal to eat ice cream every day has, in fact,
interfered with that important aspect of my memory.

BTW, paul packer is impervious to patronizing.




--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 15:14:15 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:

BTW, paul packer is impervious to patronizing.

But not ice cream, George. :-)

Actually I'm not sure I understand your statement.

paul packer said:

BTW, paul packer is impervious to patronizing.

But not ice cream, George. :-)

Watch those empty calories, old man.

Actually I'm not sure I understand your statement.

As I read it, John was mock-patronizing in response to your attempt to be
jocular about the deadly serious business of audio publishing. I could be
wrong, of course. (But probably not.)



--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


paul packer said:

BTW, paul packer is impervious to patronizing.

But not ice cream, George. :-)

Watch those empty calories, old man.

Actually I'm not sure I understand your statement.

As I read it, John was mock-patronizing in response to your attempt to be
jocular about the deadly serious business of audio publishing. I could be
wrong, of course. (But probably not.)


ARe you ridiculing him again?



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 22:47:31 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



paul packer said:

BTW, paul packer is impervious to patronizing.

But not ice cream, George. :-)

Watch those empty calories, old man.

I'm a whale these days. At 20 I weighed 8 stone. Now I'm nearly 60 and
twice that.

"Now I'm twice the man I used to be,
there's a shadow hanging over me
but I believe in Yesterday"

Actually I'm not sure I understand your statement.

As I read it, John was mock-patronizing in response to your attempt to be
jocular about the deadly serious business of audio publishing. I could be
wrong, of course. (But probably not.)

I'd have said unhelpful or a little defensive rather than patronising.
But as this whole business is a minefield, with any mis-statement by
John likely to be pounced on by any number of posters, that's
understandable.

On 27 Jun 2006 11:16:53 -0700, "John Atkinson"
wrote:

Is there now a tendency to shy away from reviewing products
you carry advertising for?

No. Why should there be?

Hmmm. What an interesting answer. I had a sudden vision of a naked
(but bearded) cherub floating in the air, innocent of the wiles of the
world.

Do you like ice cream?

Yes, but I do try to remember that ice cream is basically lard, sugar,
and ice.

But no less delicious for that. :-)

"paul packer" wrote in message
Hmmm. What an interesting answer. I had a sudden vision of a naked
(but bearded) cherub floating in the air, innocent of the wiles of the
world.


But no less delicious for that. :-)


Explains everything.

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:11:30 +1000, "bassett"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
Hmmm. What an interesting answer. I had a sudden vision of a naked
(but bearded) cherub floating in the air, innocent of the wiles of the
world.


But no less delicious for that. :-)


Explains everything.

And that means what, bassett?

woof, woof.

[bassett]

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:11:30 +1000, "bassett"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
Hmmm. What an interesting answer. I had a sudden vision of a naked
(but bearded) cherub floating in the air, innocent of the wiles of the
world.


But no less delicious for that. :-)


Explains everything.

And that means what, bassett?

woof, woof.

Please to consider, the effects of a cold product on what passes for your
brain

howl, howl.

[John Atkinson]

John Atkinson wrote:
AZ Nomad wrote:
I quit reading stereophile when they had reviewers that thought...
the diameter of a digital cable affected the treble response.

I don't recall Stereophile publishing anything like "the diameter of a
digital cable affected the treble response." Could someone give a
reference please.

As expected, it's almost a week later and no-one, least of all
"AZNomad," has come up with a reference for this statement.
I suspect he either made it up, or got confused when a
Stereophile reviewer was discussing how the geometry of
a digital datalink affects its characteristic impedance.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Orbatrox]

I
AZ Nomad wrote:
I quit reading stereophile when they had reviewers that thought the
tice clock really worked and that the diameter of a digital cable
affected the treble response.

LMAO ! That's worth giving Atkinson a hard time over - subjective or not !

Do you have these articles handy ?

Kal gave you the URL for Stereophile's coverage of the Tice Clock.
Hardly the ringing endorsement the original poster appears to think,
as Tice canceled all of its advertising following publication.
Regarding
the second claim, I don't recall Stereophile publishing anything like
"the diameter of a digital cable affected the treble response." Could
someone give a reference please.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I remember reading that review too and from I can recall the review pretty much
said "bull****" to the claims.

That Tice Clock was one of the more memorable blatant attempts at ripping off
the public.

That green marker was a good one too.

[Jenn]

In article ,
Orbatrox wrote:

I
AZ Nomad wrote:
I quit reading stereophile when they had reviewers that thought the
tice clock really worked and that the diameter of a digital cable
affected the treble response.

LMAO ! That's worth giving Atkinson a hard time over - subjective or not !

Do you have these articles handy ?

Kal gave you the URL for Stereophile's coverage of the Tice Clock.
Hardly the ringing endorsement the original poster appears to think,
as Tice canceled all of its advertising following publication.
Regarding
the second claim, I don't recall Stereophile publishing anything like
"the diameter of a digital cable affected the treble response." Could
someone give a reference please.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I remember reading that review too and from I can recall the review pretty
much
said "bull****" to the claims.

That Tice Clock was one of the more memorable blatant attempts at ripping off
the public.

That green marker was a good one too.

How much did the marker cost?

[Orbatrox]

Do you like ice cream?

Yes, but I do try to remember that ice cream is basically lard, sugar,
and ice.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile



Damn; you make it sound so tasty.

[paul packer]

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 22:44:54 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


That green marker was a good one too.

How much did the marker cost?

Depends whether you bought it in a hi-fi shop or from a newsagent.
Either way it did nothing.

[AZ Nomad]

On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 01:32:08 GMT, paul packer wrote:


On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 22:44:54 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


That green marker was a good one too.

How much did the marker cost?

Depends whether you bought it in a hi-fi shop or from a newsagent.
Either way it did nothing.

I bet the middiot has a ten thousand dollar collection of markers and
compares their sounds like a wine taster wannabe.

[Clyde Slick]

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Orbatrox wrote:

I
AZ Nomad wrote:
I quit reading stereophile when they had reviewers that thought the
tice clock really worked and that the diameter of a digital cable
affected the treble response.

LMAO ! That's worth giving Atkinson a hard time over - subjective or
not !

Do you have these articles handy ?

Kal gave you the URL for Stereophile's coverage of the Tice Clock.
Hardly the ringing endorsement the original poster appears to think,
as Tice canceled all of its advertising following publication.
Regarding
the second claim, I don't recall Stereophile publishing anything like
"the diameter of a digital cable affected the treble response." Could
someone give a reference please.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I remember reading that review too and from I can recall the review
pretty
much
said "bull****" to the claims.

That Tice Clock was one of the more memorable blatant attempts at ripping
off
the public.

That green marker was a good one too.

How much did the marker cost?

Deepends if you used the 'right one' ($15, Imthink)
or a generic one, 99cents.
I tired both, they both made a difference, both made most of
the cd's sound worse.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[paul packer]

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 19:26:01 +1000, "bassett"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:11:30 +1000, "bassett"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
Hmmm. What an interesting answer. I had a sudden vision of a naked
(but bearded) cherub floating in the air, innocent of the wiles of the
world.


But no less delicious for that. :-)


Explains everything.

And that means what, bassett?

woof, woof.

Please to consider, the effects of a cold product on what passes for your
brain

howl, howl.

Whatever passes for my brain, it can't make anything out of what
passed from your brain into this post. Please to explain.