Is Peter Aczel's "The Audio Critic" only pornographic propaganda?
Alan Derrida
I couldn't decide what to name this new discussion thread. So, here's
what I rejected, for the record:
Is Peter Aczel's "The Audio Critic" nothing more than propaganda?
Is Peter Aczel's "The Audio Critic" the world's most biased audio rag?
Should Peter Aczel's "The Audio Critic" be allowed to publish?
Is Peter Aczel's "The Audio Critic" the world's worst audio magazine?
Is "The Audio Critic" the world's first pornographic audio magazine?
Is Peter Aczel the biggest whore on the face of the planet?
(Ok, that last one wasn't actually a serious consideration, I just threw it
in!)
I've skimmed through previous issues of "The Audio Critic" in the past to
check out what appeared to be a new audio mag, and I admit I was thoroughly
unimpressed with it. I found it extremely biased, and that it had a very
ignorant, one-sided view of high fidelity audio, and a particular slant
towards trashing this part of the audio industry. A bit unusual for a
magazine that now counts Aragon, which is definitely not a mid-fi audio
co., as one of its few advertisers.
What prompted this expose of "The Audio Critic" was the latest issue, which
I had the displeasure of skimming through again while at the newsstand
recently, looking at more serious fare. It was such an absolute shock
to read, that I did not even realize that the state of journalism today
was at such an atrociously degrading level, and in a way, it reflects poorly
on *all* publications, in my view. By all standards of decency, it should
not be allowed to survive in the mainstream, much less share shelf space
with other established and well-respected audio publications.
One doesn't even have to go beyond the letters page of the latest issue to
see what I'm talking about. The editor of the magazine, Peter Aczel,
actually uses space in this part of his rag to slander and otherwise insult
one of the leading and more popular participants on this audio forum! In
fact, the entire publication seems to be little more than an outlet for
Peter's self-gratifying, egotistical excercises and narrow-minded
ideologies.
Tom Nousaine, also of RAO notoriety, is apparently a contributing staff
member of this journalistic farce. In what must be a first, at least in my
experience, a contributing staff member writes a letter to his own magazine
and the editor (naturally) prints it! In this letter, Nousaine continues
whining in his magazine about his rather UNscientific, self-indulgent and
immature rant against Steve Zipser (yes, the Zipster!), regarding the
meaningless ABX test that he administered many months ago.
There is nothing wrong with such a test being repeated in a proper manner
if the parties so desire. But there's something dreadfully deceitful about
the administrator boasting of a test in which the box failed at some point,
the subject was suffering from an alcohol-induced hangover (which I still
think was a very imprudent act on the part of the subject), and the
administrators are chatting away and flipping through magazines in the test
room during the course of the actual test! That Tom Nousaine is deceitfully
trying to propagate the results of a flawed test casts further doubt on the
objectivity he used to analyze his prior ABX tests. At the very least, it
does not follow high standards of scientific propriety. Whether the
properly administered ABX test itself is scientifically sound is still
another matter, which has been discussed far more than anyone cares about
over the years on this forum.
The rest of the magazine looks equally like it was written and designed by
an immature, snot-picking group of high school students who somehow managed
to hijack a printing press, and even more surprisingly, got 3 or 4 audio
advertisers to support their self-indulgent literary masturbations. There
are HUGE captions everywhere proclaiming to tell its readers the "TRUTH"
about audio, and then the propaganda ensues.
The Audio Critic is like what would happen if Rush Limbaugh started
producing an audio magazine. Honest-to-God there are so many similiarities
between them! Limbaugh has a couple of forums in which he widely
disseminates political propaganda. Although the F.A.I.R organziation (which
reports on accuracy in the media) and many others have repeatedly pointed
out Rush's many acts of misleading misinformation, Rush's "dittoheads"
continue to lap it all up and Rush continues to dish out his damaging,
misleading, ignorant propaganda. Why? Because he's always given his own
forum in which to do so, and because he refuses to appear in any other
forum in which he can directly be criticized, and thus widely exposed as a
self-deluded, egotistical, propagandist fool, disseminating dangerous
falsehoods with reckless abandon. Frontline had a good documentary once,
exposing the Rush "phenomenon", and showing the reality behind his "Wizard
of Oz" facade.
Peter Aczel *is* Rush Limbaugh, where audio is concerned. He controls the
forum which he uses to disseminate his audio propaganda, and there *is* no
audio magazine on the market today which is more blatantly propagandist
than the Audio Critic. Not even the most ardent, "hard-core" subjectivist
magazines are written in the hyper-biased vein of the Audio Critic, which
makes Stereo Review look almost impartial. To whit; in the letters section,
Aczel published the letter of a clearly pro-ABXer who affirmed the "value"
of ABX, but as well, merely brought up a few doubts about the ABX doctrine,
and how he thought ABXers may be fooling themselves with it. For this
letter, Aczel made sure he printed a reply to it. His reply was venomous,
patronizing and insulting. It was supposed to have been written to
"correct" all the author's misapprehensions, but more revealing about the
biases of this magazine was the way that Aczel phrased his reply. Without
quoting verbatim here, Aczel said something to the effect that he
ordinarily would not have printed the author's letter were it not for the
feeble attempt it made to understand the ABX doctrine. In other words, if
you don't trumpet the ABX party line in "The Audio Critic", **you don't
even get your letter printed**!! (Long time Stereophile readers on the
other hand know that it has printed letters critical of subjective testing
**to no end**!)
So efforts to cut off meaningful discourse on two sides of an issue is the
first sign that you are reading and/or paying for propagandist drivel. The
rest of the magazine, even down to it's grossly immature, slanted and
downright stupid cartoon blurbs, speak loudly for the magazine's extremely
radical biases. (One cartoon blurb actually shows Arnold Krueger typing his
"toilet wall scribblings" on the Internet!). Oh, and the magazine seems to
talk endlessly about the Internet audio groups, which is another very
unusual thing for me to see in a printed audio publication. However, it
doesn't even attempt to write objectively about the net audio groups
either. What it does is present the reader with Peter Aczel's own
particular highly biased views about the exchange of information on the net
audio groups. What comes across is that Aczel condemns all of the net audio
groups as full of, in his words, "toilet wall scribblings" from high-end
audio ne'er do well's who populate them. Shades of Arnold Kreuger's "High
End Audio Establishment Dupes" theory? You betcha!
Aczel tries to discourage people from reading the net audio groups and it
is clear to me why: because in them, they will find much evidence and
discussions against the ABX doctrine, as well as a vast majority of
participants who simply couldn't give a rat's patootie about ABX dogma. No
wonder, since the entire magazine seems to be a religious, sanctified
scripture on the ABX theory. It beats you over the head with ABX dogma
nearly every second page. There is a lot written, sometimes in large, bold
type, about how it is the magazine that will tell you the "Truth" about
audio, and how everyone else *but* "The Audio Critic" is trying to rip you
off! No kidding Gene Steinberg kept desperately trying to get everyone to
buy a subscription a while ago! His life long goal is probably to get on
the staff as a writer.
Being smashed in the gut with a magazine's credo on every 2nd page is not
even something I've ever experienced, even with dross like Stereo Review.
We need a very special category for a magazine like "The Audio Critic".
That is why I suggest filing this rag under the heading "Audio
Pornography". ie. Don't let your kids get near The Audio Critic, lest you
find they drop 20 IQ points, along with the rest of Aczel's "dittoheads"!
This rag has all the look and feel of an insignificant underground
publication that will not last for any length of time. I don't know how
true this is, but I'm told that there was a previous incarnation of "The
Audio Critic" where Peter Aczel had tried his magazine as a
subjectivist-oriented publication, and it failed, he folded, and brought it
back out again as a so-callled "objectivist"-oriented mag, because that's
the way the economic winds were blowing.
The last issue had about 3 or 4 different advertisers - (and I thought UHF
was scarce on advertisers!!) They consisted of:
Marantz (no surprise there)
Carver (no surprise there)
Aragon (surprise there!)
and possibly another. Considering the immature, irresponsible, hostile, and
extremely slanted prose of "The Audio Critic", I would consider boycotting
the advertisers just for supporting trash like this. If this kind of
garbage is supported, the entire audio mag scence could end up looking like
the National Enquirer has taken it over!
mdr...@earthlink.net
Alan Derrida wrote:
>
<snip>
> The Audio Critic is like what would happen if Rush Limbaugh started
> producing an audio magazine. Honest-to-God there are so many similiarities
> between them!
I have read that Peter Aczel is a big, fat (and presumably white) guy.
Rush Limbaugh is certainly a big, fat and white guy.
> Limbaugh has a couple of forums in which he widely
> disseminates political propaganda.
Derrida uses rao to disseminate personal venom. Too bad, because you,
Alan, used to also try to be helpful to people who had audio related
questions. What makes you so overwhelmingly negative these days?
> Although the F.A.I.R organziation (which
> reports on accuracy in the media)
You mean the FAIR organization that purports to advance a
"progressive" (read: liberal, or left-wing) agenda that is actually a
tired and failed agenda that countries around the world, even Cuba and
North Korea, are moving away from? The FAIR orgainization that
accepted, at face-value, the San Jose Mercury Journal series of
articles regarding allegations of the CIA shipping drugs to South
Central LA? The FAIR organization that attacks China for its human
rights abuses, but yet romanticizes the equally (and maybe even more)
abusive Cuban regime? Accuracy indeed!
> and many others have repeatedly pointed
> out Rush's many acts of misleading misinformation, Rush's "dittoheads"
> continue to lap it all up and Rush continues to dish out his damaging,
> misleading, ignorant propaganda. Why? Because he's always given his own
> forum
Leaving aside governments' role in the infrastructure of the media,
how is it that Rush Limbaugh was "given" his own forum? Rush Limbaugh
built his own career through his talents and hard work. He continues
to have his own "forum" because of his success. FAIR, and Frontline,
among others, built their *media empires* partially thru confiscation
of taxpayers dollars.
> in which to do so, and because he refuses to appear in any other
> forum in which he can directly be criticized, and thus widely exposed as a
> self-deluded, egotistical, propagandist fool, disseminating dangerous
> falsehoods with reckless abandon.
Alan, if Rush Limbaugh is a cowardly blowhard like you intimate, why
don't you call up his radio program or send him email at
Ru...@compuserv.com ? Rush Limbaugh is criticized everyday on his
program by people who disagree with him. If his radio program was
filled only with sycophants, then his radio program would be a whole
lot more boring.
> Frontline had a good documentary once,
> exposing the Rush "phenomenon", and showing the reality behind his "Wizard
> of Oz" facade.
1) That Frontline "documentary" didn't exactly question the accuracy
of Rush Limbaugh's assertions. 2) One of the *experts* on Rush in
that "documentary" was Paul Begala, a partisan Democrat who worked for
Clinton's 92 presidential campaign. 3) Rush Limbaugh refused to
cooperate with Frontline because he thought Frontline would be biased.
> Peter Aczel *is* Rush Limbaugh, where audio is concerned. He controls the
> forum
Alan, Rush Limbaugh allows plenty of dissent on his program, and,
unlike Aczel or you, he's not always rude or vituperous to them.
> which he uses to disseminate his audio propaganda, and there *is* no
> audio magazine on the market today which is more blatantly propagandist
> than the Audio Critic.
We finally might agree with something, Alan. TAS can also be as
"blatantly propagandist" though.
<snip>
> This rag has all the look and feel of an insignificant underground
> publication that will not last for any length of time.
That's why you spend so many lines to criticize The Audio Critic?
<snip>
> The last issue had about 3 or 4 different advertisers - (and I thought UHF
> was scarce on advertisers!!) They consisted of:
>
> Marantz (no surprise there)
> Carver (no surprise there)
> Aragon (surprise there!)
>
> and possibly another. Considering the immature, irresponsible, hostile, and
> extremely slanted prose of "The Audio Critic", I would consider boycotting
> the advertisers just for supporting trash like this.
Why? I know from personal experience that Aragon makes fine products
(no, I'm not paid by Avalonbob(?) from NJ). From what I read and
heard, it seems that all three companies advance high-end audio.
Speaking about irresponsible journalism, what was up with Stereophile
and Bob Carver? So Bob Carver is an innovative audio engineer and a
slick marketer who sold low-cost (by audiophile standards) products.
Was that any excuse for Stereophile to attack him?
And Alan, why do you continuously rehash personal attacks against
the same poeple you hold a grudge against? Because of people like
you, rao keeps on getting dragged down to a gutteral level. Even
Arny Kruger contributes helpful or positive advice to rao. It's about
time you start doing the same, instead of pursuing quixotic quests to
boycott The Audio Critic's advertisers and attack your detractors to
submission.
Richard Yoon (Rush Limbaugh and FAIR listener)
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)
Greg Pavlov wrote:
>
> mdr...@earthlink.net wrote:
> :
> : Alan, if Rush Limbaugh is a cowardly blowhard like you intimate, why
> : don't you call up his radio program or send him email at
> : Ru...@compuserv.com ? Rush Limbaugh is criticized everyday on his
> :
>
> 1. Rush's people carefully pick who is going to get on the air
> to disagree with him. It's like having a real live straw
> man to knock down.
> 2. Rush continues to "debate" people for minutes after he has
> cut them off.
>
> Like any good talk show entertainer, Limbaugh has a good
> collection of tools and techniques at his disposal to
> convey whatever image he wishes and/or to make other
> people appear to be idiots. This would be the case regard-
> less of what ersatz politics he represented, left, center,
> or right. I don't understand how after years of being
> bombarded by talk shows of every persuasion, people are
> still fooled by them.
>
Greg:
In a million years you will not post something I agree with more.
Nice job on Crush Bimbo :)
Cheers
Zip
--
Sunshine Stereo, Inc. 9535 Biscayne Blvd. Miami Shores FL 33138
Gallo Acoustics, Cabasse, N.E.A.R., Energy & Veritas, NHT, Duntech,
DH Cones, Camelot, Audible Illusions, Kinergetics,, Carver, Shakti,
Sound Dynamics, NSM, ESP, Rega, PASS Labs, Parasound, Solid Steel,
Chiro, Quicksilver, CODA, Straightwire, Magnum Dynalab, Lightstar,
RoomTunes, Chesky, Reference Recordings,
Adrian305
Derrida wrote:
>I don't know how true this is, but I'm told that there was a
>previous incarnation of "The Audio Critic" where Peter Aczel
>had tried his magazine as a subjectivist-oriented publication,
>"objectivist"-oriented mag, because that's the way the economic
>winds were blowing.
Aczel has honestly documented his shift from (mild) subjectivism to
real-world objectivism in the pages of his magazine - something
which took guts.
And "economic winds"? Aczel can't be accused of following them -
those winds have favored undisciplined subjectivism like Stereophile,
rather than TAC.
>The last issue had about 3 or 4 different advertisers - (and I thought
UHF
>was scarce on advertisers!!) They consisted of:
>Marantz (no surprise there)
>Carver (no surprise there)
>Aragon (surprise there!)
>and possibly another.
You left out Bryston, B&K, Hsu Research, Velodyne, Waveform,
Legacy and Sunfire (not Carver).
>Considering the immature, irresponsible, hostile, and
>extremely slanted prose of "The Audio Critic", I would consider
>boycotting the advertisers just for supporting trash like this.
I always have the opposite reaction. I consider companies who
advertise in The Audio Critic among the few I can trust to not
try and sell me snake oil.
adrian.
Tom Melanson
Alan Derrida wrote:
>
> I couldn't decide what to name this new discussion thread. So, here's
> what I rejected, for the record:
>
>
Why is it that the most "liberal" always want to silence those with whom
they disagree?
> By all standards of decency, it should
> not be allowed to survive in the mainstream, much less share shelf space
> with other established and well-respected audio publications.
If you don't agree with it BAN it!
> The Audio Critic is like what would happen if Rush Limbaugh started
> producing an audio magazine. Honest-to-God there are so many similiarities
Sorry, I see none.
> Peter Aczel *is* Rush Limbaugh, where audio is concerned. He controls the
> forum which he uses to disseminate his audio propaganda, and there *is* no
> audio magazine on the market today which is more blatantly propagandist
Those with whom you disagree are mere propagandists, whilst you have THE
TRUTH!
> Aczel tries to discourage people from reading the net audio groups and it
Sheesh, I think advocating the banning of a publication goes beyond
"discouraging", don't you?
Tom
Gene
Alan Derrida <derr...@internauts.ca> incorrectly concludes:
> The last issue had about 3 or 4 different advertisers - (and I thought
> UHF was scarce on advertisers!!) They consisted of:
>
> Marantz (no surprise there) Carver (no surprise there) Aragon (surprise
> there!)
Actually, 8 advertisers, some buying several pages. Carver Corp. was not
amongst them.
> and possibly another. Considering the immature, irresponsible, hostile,
> and extremely slanted prose of "The Audio Critic", I would consider
> boycotting the advertisers just for supporting trash like this. If this
> kind of garbage is supported, the entire audio mag scence could end up
> looking like the National Enquirer has taken it over!
Since you fail to deliver a single example of where The Audio Critic is in
any way incorrect in its reviews or in what it states about the high-end
industry, I'd suggest one direct their boycotts to more productive uses,
such as your messages, which are replete with attacks but no facts.
Peace,
Gene
Arny Krüger
Greg Pavlov <pav...@niktow.canisius.edu> wrote in article
<5m0p1j$1...@niktow.canisius.edu>...
>
> 1. Rush's people carefully pick who is going to get on the air
> to disagree with him. It's like having a real live straw
> man to knock down.
> 2. Rush continues to "debate" people for minutes after he has
> cut them off.
>
If you look at this right, you've got exactly Derrida's strategy, but done
by Limbaugh first.
mdr...@earthlink.net
> : don't you call up his radio program or send him email at
> : Ru...@compuserv.com ? Rush Limbaugh is criticized everyday on his
> :
>
> 1. Rush's people carefully pick who is going to get on the air
> to disagree with him. It's like having a real live straw
> man to knock down.
If Rush Limbaugh only put people on his show so that he
could knock them down easily, then his show would be very
boring. This is not the case. Maybe you should listen to
his show more than once-or-twice before you use your
preconceived notions about him.
> 2. Rush continues to "debate" people for minutes after he has
> cut them off.
Not most of the time.
> Like any good talk show entertainer, Limbaugh has a good
> collection of tools and techniques at his disposal to
> convey whatever image he wishes and/or to make other
> people appear to be idiots. This would be the case regard-
> less of what ersatz politics he represented, left, center,
> or right. I don't understand how after years of being
> bombarded by talk shows of every persuasion, people are
> still fooled by them.
Rush is a professional talk show host. It's his job to be
articulate and to be a good debator. Using another example,
who would be more articulate and convincing when giving advice
regarding home audio equipment, a non-audiophile whose idea of
great stereo is a minisystem? Or audiophile salesperson?
I doubt that most of Rush's callers are *professional*
callers, so oftentimes they don't seem to be as articulate nor
as convincing as him. But that still doesn't prevent many
people from arguing their points in an articulate, and
sometimes, convincing manner against Limbaugh. Based on my
listening experience with the Limbaugh program, the only people
who look like idiots are those who make themselves look like
idiots, or those who don't get Limbaugh's occasional satire.
No media outlet, Limbaugh included, is perfect. They all
quote people out-of-context, and use their own agenda to
*color* news stories. But at least with Limbaugh and FAIR,
you know what their agenda is, and you can digest their news
tidbits using your own BS filter, unlike with the "mainstream
news media" that purports to be unbiased when it obviously
is (look at the Lt. Kelly Flynn adultery case for example).
My response to Alan Derrida's comments about Rush Limbaugh
was to show that he didn't know what he talking about.
Fact: Rush Limbaugh has appeared in forums, like ABC News'
Nightline, where others debated him. Fact: The Frontline
story regarding Limbaugh hardly attempted to refute statements
he made on his radio program. Fact: not all of Limbaugh's
callers are "straw men" who are so easily knocked down by
Limbaugh. Fact: Derrida, and maybe even Aczel (I have read
relatively few of Aczel's propaganda), are more venomous than
Limbaugh and FAIR.
Richard Yoon
HEA...@ix.netcom.com
mdr...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> Alan Derrida wrote:>
> > Peter Aczel *is* Rush Limbaugh, where audio is concerned. He controls the
> > forum
>
> Alan, Rush Limbaugh allows plenty of dissent on his program, and,
> unlike Aczel or you, he's not always rude or vituperous to them.
That's a joke, and anyone who's listened to Limbaugh for any period of
time knows it. Do you really believe that the only people who call
Rush to take issue with his agenda are inarticulate morons? That's the
impression you must come away with if you listen to the show. And, if
someone intelligent sneaks through and actually presents a cogent
viewpoint that runs counter to Rush's bluster, all of a sudden it's
time for a commercial break. I would bet all I have that Bo Snurdley's
instructions are to lose the intelligent-sounding callers and usher
the half-wits to the front of the line, so Rush can illustrate to
America just what a "Liberal" sounds like.
Brian
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)
Adrian305 wrote:
> Aczel has honestly documented his shift from (mild) subjectivism
Mild? Mild? Are you NUTS! The man was a reving looney tune! I sold
him a pair of $6000 Marko Levinson ML-6A's, to go with his KRELL amp and
his BEVERIDGE MODEL THREE loudspeakers, whiich he decreed the second
coming, until he made those wooden bathtubs, AKA, Fourrier Ones!
> real-world objectivism in the pages of his magazine - something
> which took guts.
No, he was a financial FAILURE as a subjectivist, he folded his tent and
disappeared with 10000 subscriber's money, just like a Carni-Barker, and
came back after getting the Noussaine religion?
PUHHHHHLEASE!!!!!
> And "economic winds"? Aczel can't be accused of following them -
> those winds have favored undisciplined subjectivism like Stereophile,
> rather than TAC.
He was an abject failure as a subjectivist, so the Cynic saw money in
going the other way! He is a crass commercial Madison Avenue Ad Copy
writer.
> >The last issue had about 3 or 4 different advertisers - (and I thought
> UHF
> >was scarce on advertisers!!) They consisted of:
> >Marantz (no surprise there)
> >Carver (no surprise there)
> >Aragon (surprise there!)
> >and possibly another.
Wow, I'm impressed.
> You left out Bryston, B&K, Hsu Research, Velodyne, Waveform,
> Legacy and Sunfire (not Carver).
Oh yeah, can't forget his slick buddy Bobby Carver, the one he's been in
cahoots with for YEARS!!!!!
> >Considering the immature, irresponsible, hostile, and
> >extremely slanted prose of "The Audio Critic", I would consider
> >boycotting the advertisers just for supporting trash like this.
>
> I always have the opposite reaction. I consider companies who
> advertise in The Audio Critic among the few I can trust to not
> try and sell me snake oil.
> adrian.
Yeah, that coming from a changed man! HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA
Doug Plumb
Gene <ge...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970522115...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> Alan Derrida <derr...@internauts.ca> incorrectly concludes:
>
> > The last issue had about 3 or 4 different advertisers - (and I thought
> > UHF was scarce on advertisers!!) They consisted of:
> >
> > Marantz (no surprise there) Carver (no surprise there) Aragon (surprise
> > there!)
>
> Actually, 8 advertisers, some buying several pages. Carver Corp. was not
> amongst them.
>
> > and possibly another. Considering the immature, irresponsible, hostile,
> > and extremely slanted prose of "The Audio Critic", I would consider
> > boycotting the advertisers just for supporting trash like this. If this
> > kind of garbage is supported, the entire audio mag scence could end up
> > looking like the National Enquirer has taken it over!
>
> Since you fail to deliver a single example of where The Audio Critic is
in
> any way incorrect in its reviews or in what it states about the high-end
> industry, I'd suggest one direct their boycotts to more productive uses,
> such as your messages, which are replete with attacks but no facts.
>
> Peace,
> Gene
You're supposed to read these magazines, not just look at the pictures!.
Try reading it!
If you like ads so much, just go to a store and grab a wack of pamphlets.
The paper is nicer and the pictures are bigger.(ie you can see them from
further away).
--
Doug Plumb, B. Eng e...@osha.igs.net
Alan Derrida
Arny Kr=FCger on Arny Kr=FCger:
Greg Pavlov <pav...@niktow.canisius.edu> wrote in article
<5m0p1j$1...@niktow.canisius.edu>...
:>=091. Rush's people carefully pick who is going to get on the air
:>=09 to disagree with him. It's like having a real live straw
:>=09 man to knock down.
:>=092. Rush continues to "debate" people for minutes after he has
:>=09 cut them off.
: If you look at this right, you've got exactly Derrida's strategy, but don=
e
: by Limbaugh first.
Krueger, you're incorrigible. You're speaking about your own behaviour
again of course. One of YOUR Limbaughist tactics is to keep using my
name in some disparaging way inside one of your discussions with someone
in some thread I have nothing to do with and have never posted to.
Thus you attempt to *pretend* you're having a debate with me when all
you're doing is blabbering out one-sided rhetoric and showing what a
belligerent fool you really are!!
MattPos
Regardless of which school of thought you patronize, Peter Aczel's article
on White Hats/Black Hats was very unbecoming of the author himself,
especially since many of the Black Hat capsules seemed very personal and
vindictive--the one about Michael Fremer, for example. Even if Peter
Aczel's audio philosophy is diametrically opposed to Fremer's, his
description of Fremer as a person shows that there is something much more
than an objectivity/subjectivity debate at stake here. Peter Aczel comes
across as very petty, bitter, and perhaps even envious in this article.
Why all the rancor? Is it to disguise some deep jealousy? The very
motivation to write such an article is enough to question his
comprehensive insight into everything, not just audio matters. If Peter
is so correct in his audio assertions, why are there so many prominent
people in the audio world with the so-called Black Hats? Are they all
wrong? If they are, why don't they go after Peter with the same invidious
tone that he goes after them? I am not a proponent of one side or the
other as far this audio philosophy debate goes, but after reading this
article I know this: Peter Aczel will win a lot more enemies than friends
and it won't be based on whether people agree or disagree with his
understanding of audio.
Matt Posillico
mp
MattPos <mat...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970526042...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> Regardless of which school of thought you patronize, Peter Aczel's
article
> on White Hats/Black Hats was very unbecoming of the author himself,
> especially since many of the Black Hat capsules seemed very personal and
> vindictive--the one about Michael Fremer, for example.
Actually, I thought the piece was pretty funny and made a point. He called
Fremer vulgar, abusive, and intellectually dishonest. There comes a time
when descriptives serve a greater purpose than mere name calling. From
reading Mr. Fremer's correspondence in the pages of the magazine I am not
surprised by any of this.
Hell, I have never personally attacked anyone in this newsgroup, but have
been called petty names by a few routine posters all because of my views.
Fremer should consider himself lucky. I'd much prefer to be insulted (if
you want to call it that) by someone with more than a banal working
knowledge of English.
Michael
Thomas Nulla
mat...@aol.com (MattPos) wrote:
>Regardless of which school of thought you patronize, Peter Aczel's article
>on White Hats/Black Hats was very unbecoming of the author himself,
>especially since many of the Black Hat capsules seemed very personal and
>vindictive--the one about Michael Fremer, for example. Even if Peter
>Aczel's audio philosophy is diametrically opposed to Fremer's, his
>description of Fremer as a person shows that there is something much more
>than an objectivity/subjectivity debate at stake here. Peter Aczel comes
>across as very petty, bitter, and perhaps even envious in this article.
>Why all the rancor? Is it to disguise some deep jealousy? The very
>motivation to write such an article is enough to question his
>comprehensive insight into everything, not just audio matters. If Peter
>is so correct in his audio assertions, why are there so many prominent
>people in the audio world with the so-called Black Hats? Are they all
>wrong? If they are, why don't they go after Peter with the same invidious
>tone that he goes after them? I am not a proponent of one side or the
>other as far this audio philosophy debate goes, but after reading this
>article I know this: Peter Aczel will win a lot more enemies than friends
>and it won't be based on whether people agree or disagree with his
>understanding of audio.
>Matt Posillico
Actually, despite liking TAC's technical content, I agree that much of
the 'Black Hats' stuff was ill-considered and a waste of space. Issue
#24 is not as well-done as some earlier issues. I wish Peter Aczel
would make his points from a higher plane than his adversaries, not the
same gutter; these labels are NOT informative!
However, if Aczel was going to pick on someone, Fremer is far from an
innocent victim. His irrational anti-digital diatribes in 'Stereophile'
made him a pretty good subject for a rant like Aczel's. Remember,
Fremer's belief system is such that he was originally claiming that
"analog has infinite resolution", though I seem to recall that he
_finally_ recanted this ridiculous notion in his column.
But to put Ray Kimber and David Wilson, for example, in the same
category...I don't think so. Someone will 'shear the sheep'; might as
well be someone who gives them a high-quality, well-designed product for
their fleece. These men are _not_ in the same category as the 'aligned
electrons' or 'final energy component' guys, IMO!
The blanket condemnation of high-end dealers also does an injustice to
some people I've dealt with for years in an atmosphere of trust and
mutual (I hope! :-) respect...though I've met a few Black Hats here as
well...
Hmm...maybe Aczel was just kicking the anthill! ;-)
Thomas <now playing: Current 93, "Starres Are Marching Sadly Home">
http://www.io.com/~nulla (high fidelity and miscellany)
*** The humor-impaired should avoid this page. ***
Listening room .jpg, John Dunlavy r.a.h-e archive to 8 May 1997
"When dogma enters the brain, all intellectual activity ceases."- R.A.W.
Adrian305
Matt wrote:
>Regardless of which school of thought you patronize, Peter Aczel's
article
>on White Hats/Black Hats was very unbecoming of the author himself,
>especially since many of the Black Hat capsules seemed very personal and
>vindictive--the one about Michael Fremer, for example.
You'd have to read the "letters" Fremer has written to The Audio Critic in
the past, as well as Aczel's account of being confronted by Fremer while
he was trying to carry on a conversation with David Hall of Velodyne. I
don't pretend to understand what motivates Fremer - one letter writer in
Stereophile theorized it might be Short Man Syndrome - nor do I
see how he can write while balancing that huge chip on his shoulder.
>If Peter is so correct in his audio assertions, why are there so many
>prominent people in the audio world with the so-called Black Hats?
>Are they all wrong? If they are, why don't they go after Peter with the
>same invidious tone that he goes after them? I am not a proponent
>of one side or theother as far this audio philosophy debate goes,
>but after reading this article I know this: Peter Aczel will win a lot
>more enemies than friends and it won't be based on whether people
>agree or disagree with his understanding of audio.
I count 26 white hats as opposed to only 17 black hats - obviously
Aczel believes there are plenty of good people involved in audio. And
I believe Aczel himself is one of the white hats - despite these charges
by Zipser and maybe a few others with a very old axe to grind.
adrian.
Doug Plumb
Its not overly difficult to see that Peter Aczel is highly technically
competent, much more so than his opposition. I'de like to see him proven
incorrect. (another challenge). If Peter was wrong he'd have been proven a
fool long ago. Some of the stuff in the high end is really rediculous, and
it takes away interest from things that really do matter...things that the
non technical person could really generate headway..in the same way as
ameteur star gazers do for astronomy. This field is wide open for
discovery, and people are thinking about !!?!!Speaker Cables !!?!!. Much
experimentation could be done to yield real world results.
--
Doug Plumb, B. Eng,
MattPos <mat...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970526042...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> Regardless of which school of thought you patronize, Peter Aczel's
article
> on White Hats/Black Hats was very unbecoming of the author himself,
> especially since many of the Black Hat capsules seemed very personal and
> vindictive--the one about Michael Fremer, for example. Even if Peter
> Aczel's audio philosophy is diametrically opposed to Fremer's, his
> description of Fremer as a person shows that there is something much more
> than an objectivity/subjectivity debate at stake here. Peter Aczel comes
> across as very petty, bitter, and perhaps even envious in this article.
> Why all the rancor? Is it to disguise some deep jealousy? The very
> motivation to write such an article is enough to question his
> comprehensive insight into everything, not just audio matters. If Peter
> is so correct in his audio assertions, why are there so many prominent
> people in the audio world with the so-called Black Hats? Are they all
> wrong? If they are, why don't they go after Peter with the same
invidious
> tone that he goes after them? I am not a proponent of one side or the
> other as far this audio philosophy debate goes, but after reading this
> article I know this: Peter Aczel will win a lot more enemies than friends
> and it won't be based on whether people agree or disagree with his
> understanding of audio.
> Matt Posillico
>
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)
Doug Plumb wrote:
>
> Its not overly difficult to see that Peter Aczel is highly technically
> competent,
At writing ads on Madison Avenue, where he spent most of his life when
he wasn't raising Bull Mastiff. Those are definitely requisites for
ebing technically sound................NOT!
> much more so than his opposition. I'de like to see him proven
> incorrect. (another challenge). If Peter was wrong he'd have been proven a
> fool long ago.
Go readissues 1 - 12 before he absonded with subscribers' money :)
> Some of the stuff in the high end is really rediculous, and
> it takes away interest from things that really do matter...things that the
> non technical person could really generate headway..in the same way as
> ameteur star gazers do for astronomy. This field is wide open for
> discovery, and people are thinking about !!?!!Speaker Cables !!?!!. Much
> experimentation could be done to yield real world results.
Let's see, you are a recording engineer. How come most high-end gear
sounds great and how come morst recordings sound like SHIT!!
Zip
--
Nousaine
Steve Zipser asks
<<<Let's see, you are a recording engineer. How come most high-end gear
sounds great and how come morst recordings sound like SHIT!!>>
Hmmm....well then tell us how come you couldn't pick out your $14K great
sounding Class A monoblocks from a 10 year old Japanese integrated
amplifier in your personal reference system with your own recordings with
NO SWITCHBOX and a straight wire cable swap. What's the deal here? How
come all high end gear sounds exactly like everything else when the
blindfolds come out? Same question no matter how hard you evade it!
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)
Notice Noussaine comes out of his closet to defend his creep buddy
Aczel. Yes, the same Aczel who reviewed products made by companies that
HE OWNED! The same Aczel that folded his magazine and SCREWED 10,000
subscribers out of their subscription money. Yhe saame Aczel that took
that money and started a speaker company! This is the clown that Tommy
the Tool Noussaine's trying to defend!
Too bad Tom.
Zip
Armand
In article <339002...@netrunner.net>, z...@netrunner.net says...
>
>Notice Noussaine comes out of his closet to defend his creep buddy
>Aczel. Yes, the same Aczel who reviewed products made by companies that
>HE OWNED! The same Aczel that folded his magazine and SCREWED 10,000
>subscribers out of their subscription money. Yhe saame Aczel that took
>that money and started a speaker company! This is the clown that Tommy
>the Tool Noussaine's trying to defend!
>
>Too bad Tom.
>
>Zip
After reading the latest issue, it's apparent this guy has a hellova chip on
his shoulder. It came across more as a hate mag then an audio one. To name
drop the way he does is extremely unprofessional. And of course there's the
disgusting visual of a fat man with a white hat on.....:}
Armand
Alan Derrida
nous...@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote:
From this test in Miami, where Steve had a hangover on the first day and
where Nousaine's box failed on the second day and the test was never
properly completed, he concludes that, and I quote:
"All high end gear sounds exactly like everything else when the blindfolds
come out"
I think that pretty much says it all for Mr. Tom Nousaine's objectivity
and credibility as a scientist folks. In light of this, all of his written
material on ABX should be taken with a grain of salt, or better yet,
ignored.
Doug Plumb
Alan Derrida <derr...@CAM.ORG> wrote in article
<Pine.GSO.3.94.970603...@Stratus.CAM.ORG>...
Ya right, everybody should listen to you and Zip when it comes to advice on
audio :)
Doug Plumb, B.Eng(electrical) E...@osha.igs.net
>
>
>
Mikeylikst
ZIP IS just not capable of telling the truth. he knows these are lies and
yet he still he persists in spreading them. really makes you want to trust
him as you audio dealer huh?
mike