Honest question for Tom Nousaine
Barry Rothman
come up regarding review policies of various audio magazines. So
please answer the following based on your own experience
writing for Audio, Stereo Review (now Sound & Vision), The $ensible
Sound, The Audio Critic and all other audio publications for which you
have reviewed products. And since you are more than just a writer for
some publications and have knowledge about general policies, please
help us out with these questions as they might apply to other writers,
such as Tony Cordesman, Corey Greenberg, et. al.
1. What was the length of time reviewers are generally loaned product
samples to use/audition for the purpose of preparing review articles?
Included would be speakers, amps, preamps, surround sound processors,
CD players, subwoofers, etc.
2. Did the various publications have rules regarding different time
frames during which you could use/audition the said equipment being
reviewed? Did any publications place limits on how long reviewers
could
audition a piece of equipment.
3. What were the policies of the various publications you have written
for with respect to the purchase of the audition unit used for the
review? Did any of them have rules against purchasing the equipment
from the manufacturer at a discount from retail price?
I would greatly appreciate such answers as soon as possible. Please
post them to RAO, as well as send them direct to me via email (in case
BellSouth's newsgroup server remains on the fritz).
Barry Rothman
discussion I have now moved to a new thread entitled "The Propriety of
Audio Reviews", which hopefully will remain free of the petty
arguments that clog other threads. I think it will be interesting to
see how each publication differs, or perhaps doesn't, in terms of
policies and practices.
While there is obviously much disagreement and sentiment regarding
review methodologies, there is also undercurrents about how some
publications, and more specifically their reviewers, are in the
pockets of manufacturers due to the ability to use review samples for
extended periods of time and buy those samples at advantageous
prices. As well, it appears that some people merely assumed that
special rules exist for certain publications. Again, it is helpful
for people to understand that the policies you've noted are not just
fairly universal in the audio industry, but extend to many other
product genres as well.
Again, thanks.
BR
Nousaine wrote:
>
> Brothman asked:
>
> >In the course of a discussion with Gene Steinberg, the question has
> >come up regarding review policies of various audio magazines. So
> >please answer the following based on your own experience
> >writing for Audio, Stereo Review (now Sound & Vision), The $ensible
> >Sound, The Audio Critic and all other audio publications for which you
> >have reviewed products. And since you are more than just a writer for
> >some publications and have knowledge about general policies, please
> >help us out with these questions as they might apply to other writers,
> >such as Tony Cordesman, Corey Greenberg, et. al.>>>
>
> Happy to answer your questions as best I can. But because I have never reviewed
> products for Audio or Stereophile or other journals that Mr Greenberg.
> Cordesman et al have written for I can only partially comment. I have a fairly
> long reply that will appear at the end of the post.
>
> >1. What was the length of time reviewers are generally loaned product
> >samples to use/audition for the purpose of preparing review articles?
> >Included would be speakers, amps, preamps, surround sound processors,
> >CD players, subwoofers, etc.
> >
> Normally the time for review is relatively short because the lead-time tends to
> run with magazine publication schedules. Also anything more than a few weeks
> (start to finish may take 3-4 months from idea to publication) runs the risk of
> having the product disappear.
>
> >2. Did the various publications have rules regarding different time
> >frames during which you could use/audition the said equipment being
> >reviewed? Did any publications place limits on how long reviewers
> >could
> >audition a piece of equipment.
>
> Not that I am aware of. The magazines are acutely interested in getting copy to
> print in time to print it.
>
> >3. What were the policies of the various publications you have written
> >for with respect to the purchase of the audition unit used for the
> >review? Did any of them have rules against purchasing the equipment
> >from the manufacturer at a discount from retail price?
>
> I know of none that prohibit this. But anyone in the industry can get
> accomodation pricing for the asking. Not just reviewers.
>
> >I would greatly appreciate such answers as soon as possible. Please
> >post them to RAO, as well as send them direct to me via email (in case
> >BellSouth's newsgroup server remains on the fritz).
> >
>
> Okay for starters I am not now, nor have I ever been, on staff at any magazine.
> I am purely a contributor. Until 1998 I never had a agreement with any magazine
> that extended beyond the one I was currently working on.. Since then I have had
> an annual contract with Hachette covering my work with Stereo Review (now Sound
> & Vision.)
>
> I have reviewed products for Sound & Vision, Stereo Review, Video, Car Stereo
> Review and The $ensible Sound. I have never reviewed product for any other
> magazines. My work with Audio has been confined to feature articles and I do a
> column for The Audio Critic.
>
> The contracts all include language on ethics. With Hachette magazines you
> review the product and return it to the manufacturer. With Car Stereo Review
> you retain the product until after the review has been published and all
> parties have had a chance to comment on the review. Once a manufacturer
> complained about a review and when I received the product back for a recheck
> discovered it was not the same one that was submitted the first time.
>
> Many of the products reviewed in The $ensible Sound are already owned by the
> reviewer. Most of the non-speaker product reviews I have had published there
> were devices I had already purchased. The Lexicon surround processors are a
> good example. I have also availed myself of the Lexicon up-grades more than
> once. In every case I got exactly the same deal as any other owner.
>
> Most manufacturers have accommodation pricing available to anyone on the print
> industry whether you have reviewed the product or not. This will typically run
> from 50 to 75% of the MSRP. Certain manufacturers do not offer accommodation to
> anyone. Sometimes the manufacturer will ask you to agree to keep the product
> for 6 months or a year before reselling it. This keeps you from competing with
> their dealers.
>
> Review samples are often made available. One reason is that they can no longer
> be sold as new and often they have suffered cosmetic damage. They may have been
> shipped to several parties for review as well. Speakers are often in bad shape
> cosmetically when you get them. They are expensive and hard to package and
> ship. Often shipping and handling will amount to 20% of the MSRP for speakers.
>
> I have never purchased a review sample of any kind although I regularly
> purchase items at accommodation when I need them and I can get a good price. I
> have also regularly beat accommodation pricing.
>
> Also as Howard has mentioned sometimes products are hard to return. I once had
> a speaker I sent back that was returned with a comment from the service
> department that they "couldn't find anything wrong with it even though it was
> till under warranty." I sent it back again with a letter enclosed stating that
> it was a review sample and belonged to the company ( I also called the product
> manager and told him it was on the way back again.) About 3 weeks later a brand
> new factory sealed box with a bew speaker reappeared on my doorstep with a
> notation that although they still were unable to find anything wrong with it
> they were replacing ti with a new one.
>
> I just gave it to a neighbor.
>
>
Barry Rothman
help dispel some myths about the audio publishing industry. And this
isn't meant to be a knock or a boost to any publication, but rather a
good opportunity for some people here to understand how the world
works, and to understand that the playing field is actually pretty
even. I will admit, however, that I decided to pursue this only a way
to "pleasantly" demonstrate to the likes of Gene and Norm that they
hold some very inaccurate notions.
BR
Sandman wrote:
>
> I actually like and enjoy the Tom Nousaine who writes like this (very
> helpful and useful info):
>
> Sandman
>
> Nousaine <nous...@aol.com> wrote in article
> <19990805221919...@ng-ch1.aol.com>...
Nousaine
Sandman
helpful and useful info):
Sandman
Nousaine <nous...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990805221919...@ng-ch1.aol.com>...
Bruce J. Richman
>I actually like and enjoy the Tom Nousaine who writes like this (very
>helpful and useful info):
>
I agree.
Notice the absence of personal insults, derogation of other peoples' belief
systems, ridicule of alternative viewpoints, or attempts to target or designate
groups of people to be smeared.
Just factual information and absence of flames.
Others on that side of the artificial dichotomy that some have labored hard to
create on RAO to generate conflict and stifle opinion (the name of the group,
remember?) - should follow Tom's example.
Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist
Sandman
Bruce J. Richman <bjri...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990805233852...@ng-fj1.aol.com>...
> Sandman wrote:
>
>
> >I actually like and enjoy the Tom Nousaine who writes like this (very
> >helpful and useful info):
> >
>
> I agree.
>
> Notice the absence of personal insults, derogation of other peoples'
belief
> systems, ridicule of alternative viewpoints, or attempts to target or
designate
> groups of people to be smeared.
>
> Just factual information and absence of flames.
>
> Others on that side of the artificial dichotomy that some have labored
hard to
> create on RAO to generate conflict and stifle opinion (the name of the
group,
> remember?) - should follow Tom's example.
Having met Tom, I know he can be a pretty nice guy. Any time he or anyone
else puts aside the trolling/flaming hat and dons the hat he wore when he
wrote that post about magazine review philosophies, they'll always receive
my encouragement.
Sandman
Gene Steinberg
<brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>I will admit, however, that I decided to pursue this only a way
>to "pleasantly" demonstrate to the likes of Gene and Norm that they
>hold some very inaccurate notions.
Actually, no it doesn't. I gave you personal experiences with the
magazines for which I have written. Those policies are different,
obviously, from the ones that prevail among the audio magazines mentioned.
That magazines in another field do it differently doesn't reflect on what
the ones I wrote for do. Do you have a problem with that?
Arny Krüger
Sandman <sand...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:01bedfd6$423de2e0$235d...@hp-customer.we.mediaone.net...
> Any time he or anyone
> else puts aside the trolling/flaming hat and dons the hat he wore when he
> wrote that post about magazine review philosophies, they'll always receive
> my encouragement.
>
Compare and contrast with:
http://x29.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=487766388&CONTEXT=933942260.5734
40001&hitnum=10
"You don't know who and who hasn't checked the ABX web site."
"For your information, I have. I find it totally useless and utterly
lacking any any information backed by any scientific elaboration re:
protocols, test conditions, test subjects, elimation of variables, etc.,
etc., etc., ad nauseum."
Nice flame job on a web site that that is just reviews and information about
listening test protocols, test conditions, test subjects, elimination of
variables, etc.
Barry Rothman
Gene Steinberg wrote:
>
> In article <37AA563F...@bellsouth.net>, Barry Rothman
> <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >I will admit, however, that I decided to pursue this only a way
> >to "pleasantly" demonstrate to the likes of Gene and Norm that they
> >hold some very inaccurate notions.
>
> Actually, no it doesn't. I gave you personal experiences with the
> magazines for which I have written. Those policies are different,
> obviously, from the ones that prevail among the audio magazines mentioned.
> That magazines in another field do it differently doesn't reflect on what
> the ones I wrote for do. Do you have a problem with that?
Absolutely not. No problem at all. Just admit once and for all that
all this harping about Stereophile's reveiwers' receipt of equipment
and ability to purchase said equipment is not the issue you and Norm
once thought. Even Greg Pavlov has noted that this caught his
surprise, that Stereophile is not an exception to the rule.
Barry Rothman
some crap. Until now, we have had positive, useful and interesting
statements and friendly discourse. Try to keep it that way.
Arny Krüger
Barry Rothman <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:37AADB95...@bellsouth.net...
> This is what I mean, Arny, about you jumping into a thread and posting
> some crap.
It's true Barry. The post I cite seems like the usual crap from Sandman.
> Until now, we have had positive, useful and interesting
> statements and friendly discourse. Try to keep it that way.
If Sandman would be so kind as to explain the apparent contradiction, we can
all be on our ways!
Perhaps he has had a change of heart?
OTOH, how many posts from the past 2 days where Middius jumped in and posted
crap do you want me to quote? I don't see you complaining about that. Were
the posts lost when your ISP's NG services went south?
It looks very much like when someone you agree with does something that you
complain about when I do it, it's "sanctified".
If you are going to be the self-appointed RAO PC posting police force, why
not act with constancy and fairness?
Gene Steinberg
<brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I still think there's a potential here by issue of scale, since
Stereophile tends to review far more expensive items than other magazines.
In addition, there is more involvement on the part of the manufacturer in
sending reviewers equipment and, on occasion, setting them up for the
user. Stereophile's reviews are filled with such tales and there is always
the danger of undue influence in that regard. Surely if you want to give
an accurate report of a product from a user perspective, you want to work
with it same as any other regular owner, reporting the problems you have.
Remember the regular purchaser of the product isn't going to have the
designer or company president come to one's home to help out, unless it's
a very, very expensive, exotic component.
There has to be a separation here, and this is where the discussion should move.
In terms of the value of the issue in general: As I said, I was not
acquainted with the ins and outs of every magazine in that regard (which
is why I limited my factual comments to areas where I had direct
experience). I'm pleased that Ferstler and Nousaine explained how they
deal with the issue. I also think we all agree that there's nothing in the
way these two conduct themselves that indicates they are being influenced
by the ability to keep equipment for an extended period or the ability to
buy a product at dealer level pricing (since the latter is available for
most any product they'd want to buy).
This is where a discussion of this sort becomes productive, dealing with
facts and questions rather than personalities and insults.
Since you tell us you have a lot of PR experience in this field, surely
you know how magazines in other fields handle the issue of product
reviews. Care to share some specifics?
Gene Steinberg
<ar...@flash.net> wrote:
>If Sandman would be so kind as to explain the apparent contradiction, we can
>all be on our ways!
Arny, Sandman has pretty much explained to everyone that RAO is just a big
goof for him. He's here just to have fun and that's all. So don't take
what he says too seriously (even if it's really, really over the top). I
think, however, having gotten to know him better through some very
pleasant email exchanges, that if you deal with him just right you might
find him a more receptive audience.
I think you'd be surprised to find that some of the people you have pegged
as having one sort of character from their conduct in this newsgroup are
really not at all that way in person.
Examples: Jim Sanders, Bruce Richman, Marc Phillips.
These are three very intelligent individuals, and in private complete
gentlemen in every respect.
Maybe a different way of approaching these folks would make them more
interested in what you and I have to say about audio.
Let's see how it fares.
Barry Rothman
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
>
> Barry Rothman <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:37AADB95...@bellsouth.net...
> > This is what I mean, Arny, about you jumping into a thread and posting
> > some crap.
>
> It's true Barry. The post I cite seems like the usual crap from Sandman.
>
> > Until now, we have had positive, useful and interesting
> > statements and friendly discourse. Try to keep it that way.
>
> If Sandman would be so kind as to explain the apparent contradiction, we can
> all be on our ways!
The contradiction has nothing to do with this thread/subject.
>
> Perhaps he has had a change of heart?
>
> OTOH, how many posts from the past 2 days where Middius jumped in and posted
> crap do you want me to quote? I don't see you complaining about that. Were
> the posts lost when your ISP's NG services went south?
>
If George were to post in this thread some irrelevant crap, I would
tell him to take it elsewhere.
> It looks very much like when someone you agree with does something that you
> complain about when I do it, it's "sanctified".
>
Not true. I just said what I would have done, but since George has not
intefered with what is shaping up to be a friendly discourse, no
action with respect to him is required.
> If you are going to be the self-appointed RAO PC posting police force, why
> not act with constancy and fairness?
>
I am consistent. So far your post in this thread is the only one that
strays.
Barry Rothman
Gene Steinberg wrote:
>
> In article <37AADB31...@bellsouth.net>, Barry Rothman
> <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >Absolutely not. No problem at all. Just admit once and for all that
> >all this harping about Stereophile's reveiwers' receipt of equipment
> >and ability to purchase said equipment is not the issue you and Norm
> >once thought. Even Greg Pavlov has noted that this caught his
> >surprise, that Stereophile is not an exception to the rule.
>
> I still think there's a potential here by issue of scale, since
> Stereophile tends to review far more expensive items than other magazines.
Aren't you splitting some fine hairs here in order to rationalize
something that is simply inconsistent with reality?
> In addition, there is more involvement on the part of the manufacturer in
> sending reviewers equipment and, on occasion, setting them up for the
> user. Stereophile's reviews are filled with such tales and there is always
> the danger of undue influence in that regard. Surely if you want to give
> an accurate report of a product from a user perspective, you want to work
> with it same as any other regular owner, reporting the problems you have.
> Remember the regular purchaser of the product isn't going to have the
> designer or company president come to one's home to help out, unless it's
> a very, very expensive, exotic component.
>
But when we get to the heart of Norm's original thesis, that
Stereophile's reviewers are uniquely in a debtor relationship with
manufacturers, due to the free loan and the ability to purchase
equipment, we now see that it is more universal than unique.
> There has to be a separation here, and this is where the discussion should move.
> In terms of the value of the issue in general: As I said, I was not
> acquainted with the ins and outs of every magazine in that regard (which
> is why I limited my factual comments to areas where I had direct
> experience). I'm pleased that Ferstler and Nousaine explained how they
> deal with the issue. I also think we all agree that there's nothing in the
> way these two conduct themselves that indicates they are being influenced
> by the ability to keep equipment for an extended period or the ability to
> buy a product at dealer level pricing (since the latter is available for
> most any product they'd want to buy).
>
> This is where a discussion of this sort becomes productive, dealing with
> facts and questions rather than personalities and insults.
>
> Since you tell us you have a lot of PR experience in this field, surely
> you know how magazines in other fields handle the issue of product
> reviews. Care to share some specifics?
I will say that whenever you deal with subjective reviewing, you
immediately open up the field to all sorts of questions about
propriety, the abilities/expertise of the reviewer and the lack of any
standard methodology. This is especially true when one reads a review
that for whatever reason they find fault and/or disagree with the
review findings. I felt that way about the review Robert Deutsch
wrote for Stereophile about the very same preamp I own.
In my own personal experience, I found it exasperating to have a
reviewer appear so clueless as the esoteric functions of a particular
product and their inability to understand the added value brought by
such features and how they were intended to elevate a product beyond
"commodity" status.
It is even more exasperating when you deal with security analysts who
simply can't grasp the intent of business strategies or even
accounting treatments. My favorite was how hardly any of the
healthcare analysts who followed one particular client of mine in the
home healthcare field really understood the way that Medicare
reimbursement worked in this very unique application.
But getting back to your comment about how interaaction with
manufacturers and loan policies may create undue influence with
reviewers, it really all comes down to ethics. The ethics of the
publication and its editors, and the ethics of the reviewer. And when
one deals in subjective realms, ethics become all important. Now Tom
has already said that his publisher requires agreements about ethical
behavior.
Now the next step is to see what John Atkinson has to say from
Stereophile's point of view.
Barry Rothman
Gene Steinberg wrote:
>
> In article <g8Bq3.1678$rL2....@news.rdc1.mi.home.com>, "Arny Krüger"
> <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
>
> >If Sandman would be so kind as to explain the apparent contradiction, we can
> >all be on our ways!
>
George M. Middius
> > OTOH, how many posts from the past 2 days where Middius jumped in and posted
> > crap do you want me to quote? I don't see you complaining about that. Were
> > the posts lost when your ISP's NG services went south?
> If George were to post in this thread some irrelevant crap, I would
> tell him to take it elsewhere.
You were handling Fecal quite well on your own.
Anyway, as you and others have pointed out quite often, shifting
blame to someone else is Turdy's speciality. Even Diggun Waggoner
acknowledges that. ;-)
George M. Middius
Arny Krüger
>
>
> "Arny Krüger" wrote:
> >
> > Barry Rothman <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:37AADB95...@bellsouth.net...
> > > This is what I mean, Arny, about you jumping into a thread and posting
> > > some crap.
> >
> > It's true Barry. The post I cite seems like the usual crap from Sandman.
> >
> > > Until now, we have had positive, useful and interesting
> > > statements and friendly discourse. Try to keep it that way.
> >
can
> > all be on our ways!
>
> >
> > Perhaps he has had a change of heart?
> >
posted
> > crap do you want me to quote? I don't see you complaining about that.
Were
> > the posts lost when your ISP's NG services went south?
> >
>
> If George were to post in this thread some irrelevant crap, I would
> tell him to take it elsewhere.
Sure, Barry. Pigs fly. You are an expert on the Internet. NHT is not a
high end brand.
Arny Krüger
George M. Middius <Glan...@cais.net> wrote in message
news:37ce6f80....@newsreader.cais.net...
> Barry Rothman said to ShittyBorg:
>
posted
> > > crap do you want me to quote? I don't see you complaining about that.
Were
> > > the posts lost when your ISP's NG services went south?
>
> > If George were to post in this thread some irrelevant crap, I would
> > tell him to take it elsewhere.
>
>
> Anyway, as you and others have pointed out quite often, shifting
> blame to someone else is Turdy's speciality. Even Diggun Waggoner
> acknowledges that. ;-)
>
Truth or dare:
http://x37.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=509121017
--- begin long quote ---
Subject:Re: Krooger's Agenda Laid Bare
Date:1999/08/05
Author:Arny Krüger <ar...@flash.net>
says: "I have publically accepted my responsibility for some of the noise
level around here"
and says 3 times: " I do accept some responsibility for some of the noise
level around here."
--- end long quote ---
What sort of responsibility are you taking, George?
George M. Middius
> > If George were to post in this thread some irrelevant crap, I would
> > tell him to take it elsewhere.
> Sure, Barry. Pigs fly. You are an expert on the Internet. NHT is not a
> high end brand.
I thought I was out, but you pull me back in.....
You're a pig. Do you fly?
Barry is ten times the Internet business expert you are.
Oddly, you got the NHT thing right. It's the speakers,
stupid -- the 2.9 and 3.3 are high-end, the rest aren't.
Which ones do you own, PretenderBorg? ;-)
George M. Middius
George M. Middius
> What sort of responsibility are you taking, George?
I accept your admission of guilt at face value.
George M. Middius
Arny Krüger
> DisgustingCockSuckerBorg fellated:
>
> > What sort of responsibility are you taking, George?
>
> I accept your admission of guilt at face value.
>
Thank you George for not taking the opportunity to do the right thing, and
wraping what could be an olive branch in sarcasm and slander. It's nice to
know that some things are incapable of change.
Barry Rothman
intentionally knowing full well that he would come right back at you.
And so I say to each of you, take it elsewhere. Create a new thread
called "Arny accuses George of ......." and a counter thread of "Arny
is a .......".
Are you happy now, Arny?
Barry Rothman
Nhsns wrote:
>
> >
> >I do too, and I think seeing such comments here from Tom and Howard
> >help dispel some myths about the audio publishing industry. And this
> >isn't meant to be a knock or a boost to any publication, but rather a
> >good opportunity for some people here to understand how the world
> >works, and to understand that the playing field is actually pretty
> >even. I will admit, however, that I decided to pursue this only a way
> >to "pleasantly" demonstrate to the likes of Gene and Norm that they
> >hold some very inaccurate notions.
>
> Am I the "Norm" you're referring to in the above paragraph. If so, I don't
> understand your point at all. What are you talking about?
>
I'm talking abouth the fact that you don't know what you've been
talking about. The fact that equipment loans to reviewers and/or
their publications is essentially universal. The fact that the
ability of reviewers to buy review samples is essentially universal.
The fact that for all your bluster and trolling to the contrary,
Stereophile is not an island unto itself.
And what I'm talking about most is that you have constructed a set of
arguments that rank among the most fallacious ever presented on RAO.
George M. Middius
> > > What sort of responsibility are you taking, George?
> > I accept your admission of guilt at face value.
> Thank you George for not taking the opportunity to do the right thing, and
> wraping what could be an olive branch in sarcasm and slander. It's nice to
> know that some things are incapable of change.
Oh, the guilt! The shame! I am undone. I am the Bad Person.
Arnii, you are the angel of goodness. I shall not rest until I
have purged the evil from my soul. Out, out, damned sarcasm!
George M. Middius
Nhsns
>> Am I the "Norm" you're referring to in the above paragraph. If so, I don't
>> understand your point at all. What are you talking about?
>>
>
>I'm talking abouth the fact that you don't know what you've been
>talking about. The fact that equipment loans to reviewers and/or
>their publications is essentially universal. The fact that the
>ability of reviewers to buy review samples is essentially universal.
>The fact that for all your bluster and trolling to the contrary,
>Stereophile is not an island unto itself.
>
>And what I'm talking about most is that you have constructed a set of
>arguments that rank among the most fallacious ever presented on RAO.
I don't recall suggesting in any way that Stereophile is unique in their review
process. This is the way all trade magazines operate; you're absolutely right.
I pick out Stereophile because this was the example presented to me.
Stereophile was the magazine we were talking about.
Everything I said about Stereophile is applicable to all the other audio
publications--just as you said. It's indeed common practice in the industry.
Review samples ARE submitted gratis; special arrangements for purchase ARE made
with reviewers. All of this is true.
Norm Strong (nh...@aol.com) or (no...@scn.org)
2528 31st South, Seattle WA 98l44
Anonymous
>
> Barry Rothman said to ShittyBorg:
Now here's my condition: I will cease and desist all direct
references to Arnii Krooger on RAO. No attacks, no name-games,
nothing. For a period of, say, a week. During that time,
however, I want the other engineers to agree to catch Arnii up
short whenever his behavior descends into the antisocial level
to which he's accustomed.
For this to work, you'll have to get some kind of agreement from
a few of the real engineers who "respect" or "like" Arnii. Any
three will do -- as long as they're willing to be vigilant and
tune in regularly for a week or so. And the issue isn't to be
whether Arnii posted an "incorrect" statement. The issue is,
specifically and exactly, Arnii being nasty, demeaning, snotty,
or otherwise antisocial without provocation. For each occurrence
of such behavior, one of the engineer folks should post a
reprimand directly in response to the snot-post.
George M. Middius
--
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) is a proven:
liar http://x5.dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=369217967
scammer http://x5.dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=368363274
cheater http://x5.dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=374900703
Barry Rothman
Nhsns wrote:
>
>
> I don't recall suggesting in any way that Stereophile is unique in their review
> process. This is the way all trade magazines operate; you're absolutely right.
> I pick out Stereophile because this was the example presented to me.
> Stereophile was the magazine we were talking about.
>
> Everything I said about Stereophile is applicable to all the other audio
> publications--just as you said. It's indeed common practice in the industry.
> Review samples ARE submitted gratis; special arrangements for purchase ARE made
> with reviewers. All of this is true.
>
Then why in all of your troll posts about how such loans and the
ability to buy equipment at discounts from retail creates a "debtor"
relationship between reviewer/publication and the manufacturer, you
only highlighted Stereophile, and did so repeatedly. On the other
hand, you never once mentioned Stereo Review/Sound & Vision, The Audio
Critic, The $ensible Sound or Audio. Why the continual references to
Stereophile, implying that they indeed share unique relationships with
manufacturers?
Give it up, Norm. When I gave you lists of other publications you
were silent. Now that we have incontrovertible evidence that you
don't know what you're talking about, you all of a sudden claim that
you've never thought otherwise. Like I predicted, you were barking up
a very wrong tree.
Anonymous
>
> XtremelyStupidBorg prated:
Anonymous
>
> DisgustingCockSuckerBorg fellated:
Ravinious Lupinus
Arny Krüger <ar...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:2xAq3.1677$rL2....@news.rdc1.mi.home.com...
>
> Sandman <sand...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:01bedfd6$423de2e0$235d...@hp-customer.we.mediaone.net...
> > Any time he or anyone
> > else puts aside the trolling/flaming hat and dons the hat he wore when
he
> > wrote that post about magazine review philosophies, they'll always
receive
> > my encouragement.
> >
>
> Compare and contrast with:
>
>
http://x29.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=487766388&CONTEXT=933942260.5734
> 40001&hitnum=10
>
> "You don't know who and who hasn't checked the ABX web site."
>
> "For your information, I have. I find it totally useless and utterly
> lacking any any information backed by any scientific elaboration re:
> protocols, test conditions, test subjects, elimation of variables, etc.,
> etc., etc., ad nauseum."
>
> Nice flame job on a web site that that is just reviews and information
about
> listening test protocols, test conditions, test subjects, elimination of
> variables, etc.
Actually, I'ld say that is a fair criticism. For example, I fail to see any
calibration and certification for all test equipment posted.. nor do I see
any specific protocals and documentation for each test.
All I see is generalities and summations.
Perhaps you should show me the exact page where there is a full disclosure
of the actual test conditions, subjects etc. for just one of the specific
tests that are summarized. For example, serial numbers and calibration
specs for the specific test box used in a specific test. A full description
of the listening room.. actual music selection per listener. The pattern of
AB switches, length of time on each.. music selection choices etc..
I may, of course, have overlooked the above information.
Nhsns
>Give it up, Norm. When I gave you lists of other publications you
>were silent. Now that we have incontrovertible evidence that you
>don't know what you're talking about, you all of a sudden claim that
>you've never thought otherwise. Like I predicted, you were barking up
>a very wrong tree.
OK, I admit it. I shouldn't have used Stereophile as an example. I should
have stated from the very beginning that my comments probably applied to all
the magazines you mentioned--except Consumer Reports.
Please accept my profound apology.
George M. Middius
> OK, I admit it. I shouldn't have used Stereophile as an example. I should
> have stated from the very beginning that my comments probably applied to all
> the magazines you mentioned--except Consumer Reports.
Please let us know when CR does a review of 200 wpc channel
like Nousiane's Bryston. TIA.
George M. Middius
George M. Middius
> OK, I admit it. I shouldn't have used Stereophile as an example. I should
> have stated from the very beginning that my comments probably applied to all
> the magazines you mentioned--except Consumer Reports.
Please let us know when CR does a review of 200 wpc channel
amps like Nousiane's Bryston. TIA.
George M. Middius
Anonymous
>
> AutoPostureBorg is fooling no one.
Now here's my condition: I will cease and desist all direct
references to Arnii Krooger on RAO. No attacks, no name-games,
nothing. For a period of, say, a week. During that time,
however, I want the other engineers to agree to catch Arnii up
short whenever his behavior descends into the antisocial level
to which he's accustomed.
For this to work, you'll have to get some kind of agreement from
a few of the real engineers who "respect" or "like" Arnii. Any
three will do -- as long as they're willing to be vigilant and
tune in regularly for a week or so. And the issue isn't to be
whether Arnii posted an "incorrect" statement. The issue is,
specifically and exactly, Arnii being nasty, demeaning, snotty,
or otherwise antisocial without provocation. For each occurrence
of such behavior, one of the engineer folks should post a
reprimand directly in response to the snot-post.
George M. Middius
--
Zipser is a liar http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=369217967
Zipser is a scammer http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=368363274
Zipser is a cheater http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=374900703
Zipser is a THIEF http://dejanews.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=509980240
Barry Rothman
Nhsns wrote:
>
> >
> >Give it up, Norm. When I gave you lists of other publications you
> >were silent. Now that we have incontrovertible evidence that you
> >don't know what you're talking about, you all of a sudden claim that
> >you've never thought otherwise. Like I predicted, you were barking up
> >a very wrong tree.
>
> OK, I admit it. I shouldn't have used Stereophile as an example. I should
> have stated from the very beginning that my comments probably applied to all
> the magazines you mentioned--except Consumer Reports.
>
> Please accept my profound apology.
>
Accepted. And I should point out that CR has great value in many
areas. But in some product genres they are simply out of their league
or just ignore high end areas. But if I want to know the reliability
rating of a car, washer/dryer, etc., they are excellent. And they do
offer good product comparisons.
Nousaine
<<Actually, I'ld say that is a fair criticism. For example, I fail to see any
calibration and certification for all test equipment posted.. nor do I see
any specific protocals and documentation for each test.
All I see is generalities and summations.
Perhaps you should show me the exact page where there is a full disclosure
of the actual test conditions, subjects etc. for just one of the specific
tests that are summarized. For example, serial numbers and calibration
specs for the specific test box used in a specific test. A full description
of the listening room.. actual music selection per listener. The pattern of
AB switches, length of time on each.. music selection choices etc..
I may, of course, have overlooked the above information.>>>
It's interesting that just the other day I was looking for this stuff on
Wolphie/Lupine's alleged blind tests. Can you supply same please?
Gene Steinberg
<brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Aren't you splitting some fine hairs here in order to rationalize
>something that is simply inconsistent with reality?
Not really. If your reviewing area is filled with ten grand amps and
similarly priced loudspeakers compared with $300 receivers and $500
bookshelf speakers, do you think there may be just a bit of a temptation
to do something to get more of those high-end toys? It doesn't mean a
specific reviewer is being somehow corrupted, but the temptations are
greater in the high-end.
>I will say that whenever you deal with subjective reviewing, you
>immediately open up the field to all sorts of questions about
>propriety, the abilities/expertise of the reviewer and the lack of any
>standard methodology. This is especially true when one reads a review
>that for whatever reason they find fault and/or disagree with the
>review findings. I felt that way about the review Robert Deutsch
>wrote for Stereophile about the very same preamp I own.
Now we get to the crux of the matter: Are the reviewers for these high-end
magazines really capable of doing their job and providing accurate
information? Do they have the technical competence to understand what's
inside the box and how the designs are executed in the real world?
In fact, do they even take steps to verify their listening sessions to
make sure they are reporting real audible differences rather than
imaginary ones?
Wouldn't you like to know?
Barry Rothman
Gene Steinberg wrote:
>
> In article <37AB3B37...@bellsouth.net>, Barry Rothman
> <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >Aren't you splitting some fine hairs here in order to rationalize
> >something that is simply inconsistent with reality?
>
> Not really. If your reviewing area is filled with ten grand amps and
> similarly priced loudspeakers compared with $300 receivers and $500
> bookshelf speakers, do you think there may be just a bit of a temptation
> to do something to get more of those high-end toys? It doesn't mean a
> specific reviewer is being somehow corrupted, but the temptations are
> greater in the high-end.
>
I don't think so. To you and I it certainly looks enticing. But I
think it becomes more like the kid who loves ice cream and gets a job
at the local soda shoppe. After few weeks he's likely to be sick of
ice cream, or at least his wide-eyed love affair has shrunk to normal
proportions. The fact that a reviewer is constantly surrounded by
expensive high end toys doesn't mean that this increases the
likelihood of corruption. Besides, what form could such corruption
take? Direct payments? If so, why would the payments be any less for
mid priced gear. After all, the total market for such gear dwarfs the
high end and it would behoove a mid fi manufacturer to actually pay
more to a reviewer than a high end manufacturer would. The return on
investment is far greater.
Nonetheless, your comments don't seem consistent with what John
Atkinson says. It seems like a reviewer's schedule is usually quite
full and often equipment sits around somewhere not even being listened
to.
> >I will say that whenever you deal with subjective reviewing, you
> >immediately open up the field to all sorts of questions about
> >propriety, the abilities/expertise of the reviewer and the lack of any
> >standard methodology. This is especially true when one reads a review
> >that for whatever reason they find fault and/or disagree with the
> >review findings. I felt that way about the review Robert Deutsch
> >wrote for Stereophile about the very same preamp I own.
>
> Now we get to the crux of the matter: Are the reviewers for these high-end
> magazines really capable of doing their job and providing accurate
> information? Do they have the technical competence to understand what's
> inside the box and how the designs are executed in the real world?
That they are performing subjective reviews inherrently means that
they are merely concerned with what they hear. The measurement side
is taken care of as well. To wit, I was leafing through a recent
issue of Stereophile and came across a review of an integrated tube
amp. In the article the sidebar technical data section (prepared by
someone other than the subjective reviewer) clearly states that the
product measures abysmally. The reviewer notes this in his comments
and then talks about the "sound" of the unit, as it clearly has (and
was designed as such) to have a particular sonic signature.
>In fact, do they even take steps to verify their listening sessions to
> make sure they are reporting real audible differences rather than
> imaginary ones?
>
> Wouldn't you like to know?
Gene, what you continue to come back to is the issue of how
Stereophile approaches the genre. They make no bones about being a
highly subjective review publication. Anyone who reads it and reads
the reviews understands this. Those who want something different
should obviously look elsewhere. And if they can't find such data,
then they either need to avoid buying such high end gear and follow
the advice you and Tom provide, or trust their own ears. I continue
to fail to see how this a problem worthy of a holy war? It's not like
anyone is trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.
Ravinious Lupinus
Nousaine <nous...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990807210339...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
Well, I never have done a "publication" in a rag magazine about it.. I have
posted quite a bit many years ago on Usenet. In my response prior to this
one, I pointed out that I can't give you the calibration certificate numbers
for the lab equipment used in question, etc.
Arny Krüger
>
>
> Gene, what you continue to come back to is the issue of how
> Stereophile approaches the genre. They make no bones about being a
> highly subjective review publication.
Then why all the charts and graphs?
> Anyone who reads it and reads the reviews understands this. Those who
want something different
> should obviously look elsewhere. And if they can't find such data,
> then they either need to avoid buying such high end gear and follow
> the advice you and Tom provide, or trust their own ears.
Why should Stereophile readers trust their ears when Strereophile obviously
doesn't?
Gene Steinberg
<brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Gene, what you continue to come back to is the issue of how
>Stereophile approaches the genre. They make no bones about being a
>highly subjective review publication. Anyone who reads it and reads
>the reviews understands this. Those who want something different
>should obviously look elsewhere.
I go along with Arny on this one. If only the subjective commentary is
part of their agenda, the measurements have no place, since very often
they seldom relate to the sounds described by the reviewers (which, of
course, is one good reason to suspect the subjective commentaries).
Besides, emphasizing subjective perceptions doesn't mean one shouldn't
make an attempt to validate those perceptions. That's where Stereophile
falls down.
Barry Rothman
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
>
> Barry Rothman <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:37AD9CFF...@bellsouth.net...
> >
> >
> > Gene, what you continue to come back to is the issue of how
> > Stereophile approaches the genre. They make no bones about being a
> > highly subjective review publication.
>
> Then why all the charts and graphs?
For the benefit of people who want to read them. And sometimes to
compare and contrast against their sighted subjective listening
analysis.
> > Anyone who reads it and reads the reviews understands this. Those who
> want something different
> > should obviously look elsewhere. And if they can't find such data,
> > then they either need to avoid buying such high end gear and follow
> > the advice you and Tom provide, or trust their own ears.
>
> Why should Stereophile readers trust their ears when Strereophile obviously
> doesn't?
Huh? I really think you're so far in left field that you can't even
see the infield, let alone home plate.
Barry Rothman
Gene Steinberg wrote:
>
> In article <37AD9CFF...@bellsouth.net>, Barry Rothman
> <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >Gene, what you continue to come back to is the issue of how
> >Stereophile approaches the genre. They make no bones about being a
> >highly subjective review publication. Anyone who reads it and reads
> >the reviews understands this. Those who want something different
> >should obviously look elsewhere.
>
> I go along with Arny on this one. If only the subjective commentary is
> part of their agenda, the measurements have no place, since very often
> they seldom relate to the sounds described by the reviewers (which, of
> course, is one good reason to suspect the subjective commentaries).
> Besides, emphasizing subjective perceptions doesn't mean one shouldn't
> make an attempt to validate those perceptions. That's where Stereophile
> falls down.
Who are you to say that measurements have no place? It is a consumer
publication, not a trade or scientific journal. They publish within
their pages that which they believe will get readers coming back for
more. And readers obviously want to see the measurements. Secondly,
you keep implying that they don't ever attempt to validate thier
perceptions. This is simply not true and either you skim read the
reviews or don't read them at all. Fact is, they do this quite often
and I even alluded to an example of this in the current issue.
And when you say that's where Stereophile falls down, let's clarify
that to read that "that's where they fall down for me".
greg pavlov
Steinberg) wrote:
>
>Not really. If your reviewing area is filled with ten grand amps and
>similarly priced loudspeakers compared with $300 receivers and $500
>bookshelf speakers, do you think there may be just a bit of a temptation
>to do something to get more of those high-end toys?
Maybe. But it is the $300 receivers and $500 speakers
that pose the bigger design challenges, so it seems
that it would be at least as interesting to look at the
successful ones in these categories.
greg pavlov
[not affiliated with DFCI or Harvard]
**************************************************************************
For the definitive intro guide to rao, see:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/
**************************************************************************
greg pavlov
Steinberg) wrote:
>
>I go along with Arny on this one. If only the subjective commentary is
>part of their agenda, the measurements have no place, since very often
>they seldom relate to the sounds described by the reviewers (which, of
>course, is one good reason to suspect the subjective commentaries). ...
>
You are taking the word "review" too literally. The function of
a review in a magazine like Stereophile is to provide some
information, entertain, increase interest & want for the subject
product, and increase interest & want for related products.
The vast majority of these reviews follow a standard script with
certain standard variations. This should be obvious to anyone
who is intelligent by the time he/she has waded through a dozen
or so. Measurements are part of the script, and there is a
tendency to emphasize or diminish their significance depending
on whether they are good or not so good and how the product
is priced. For example, if the product is very expensive and
the measurements are not very good, the measurements will
tend to be ignored or described as being not very significant.
>Besides, emphasizing subjective perceptions doesn't mean one shouldn't
>make an attempt to validate those perceptions. That's where Stereophile
>falls down.
I think that the more expensive a product is, the more
likely Stereophile is to validate subjective perceptions,
since invariably these perceptions will be positive.
Gene Steinberg
<brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Who are you to say that measurements have no place? It is a consumer
>publication, not a trade or scientific journal. They publish within
>their pages that which they believe will get readers coming back for
>more. And readers obviously want to see the measurements. Secondly,
>you keep implying that they don't ever attempt to validate thier
>perceptions. This is simply not true and either you skim read the
>reviews or don't read them at all. Fact is, they do this quite often
>and I even alluded to an example of this in the current issue.
I think you have this one twisted.
Problem one: Attempts to correlate listening results with measurements are
not always done.
Problem two: No, they do not attempt to validate their perceptions, which
would require a controlled listening test to be done reliably. When have
they done that?
Gene Steinberg
(greg pavlov) wrote:
>
> Maybe. But it is the $300 receivers and $500 speakers
> that pose the bigger design challenges, so it seems
> that it would be at least as interesting to look at the
> successful ones in these categories.
But would it be as tempting to have as the ten thousand dollar spread?
That's the point.
Arny Krüger
>
>
> "Arny Krüger" wrote:
> >
> > Barry Rothman <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:37AD9CFF...@bellsouth.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > Stereophile approaches the genre. They make no bones about being a
> > > highly subjective review publication.
> >
>
> For the benefit of people who want to read them. And sometimes to
> compare and contrast against their sighted subjective listening
> analysis.
>
>
> > want something different
> > > then they either need to avoid buying such high end gear and follow
> > > the advice you and Tom provide, or trust their own ears.
> >
> > Why should Stereophile readers trust their ears when Strereophile
obviously
> > doesn't?
>
>
> Huh? I really think you're so far in left field that you can't even
> see the infield, let alone home plate.
I think that like Shain, you would like to confuse hearing and seeing.
Arny Krüger
>
>
> Gene Steinberg wrote:
> >
> > In article <37AD9CFF...@bellsouth.net>, Barry Rothman
> > <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Gene, what you continue to come back to is the issue of how
> > >Stereophile approaches the genre. They make no bones about being a
> > >the reviews understands this. Those who want something different
> > >should obviously look elsewhere.
> >
> > part of their agenda, the measurements have no place, since very often
> > they seldom relate to the sounds described by the reviewers (which, of
> > course, is one good reason to suspect the subjective commentaries).
> > make an attempt to validate those perceptions. That's where Stereophile
> > falls down.
>
>
A reader who thinks and has an opinion. You know, Rothman with all the
jawboning about preference that comes out of your corner lately, I'd think
you'd be a little more politically correct, if not conssitent and true to
your stated beliefs.
> It is a consumer publication, not a trade or scientific journal.
So SP should bag the measurements if they are as meaningless as
Stereophile's Listener's Manifesto claims.
>They publish within their pages that which they believe will get readers
coming back for more.
Whether its really true, rational or consistent with reality, yes, I agree
with you about that, they'll put it in to sell the ragazine regardless.
> And readers obviously want to see the measurements.
I don't know about that. I guess that with a readership mostly composed of
a bunch of poorly-technically-educated boomers who still remember when they
were playing with their Gilbert Chemistry set, and want that same thrill
from their specialty audio magazines, yes. What about the people who are now
25-28 and are going to be spending the big bucks for the next 25-30 or so
years? SP is irrelevant to the vast majority of them.
SP, TAS, and HFN&RR rode a little nitch on the back of that big demographic
bulge called "boomers". We are into generation X, and seeing the rise of
generation Y, and other than HFN&RR, these old ladies are still carrying the
same tired, old shopping bag.
One of these days Stereophile will change or die a long, slow greusome
death.
> Secondly, you keep implying that they don't ever attempt to validate
thier perceptions.
"Imply"? How about "boldly state"?
> This is simply not true and either you skim read the reviews or don't
read them at all.
No, its just a matter of being able to see through the eyewash, which has
yet to be seen as a visible strength of yours.
> Fact is, they do this quite often and I even alluded to an example of this
in the current issue.
Your allusion was to an illusion.
> And when you say that's where Stereophile falls down, let's clarify that
to read that "that's where they fall down for me".
...and the people who stopped buying the stuff that was paying a lot of the
bills around there.
Barry, since you like to start new threads, why don't you start one and we
can debate this one on its own...
Barry Rothman
Gene Steinberg wrote:
>
> In article <37AEDBD3...@bellsouth.net>, Barry Rothman
> <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >Who are you to say that measurements have no place? It is a consumer
> >publication, not a trade or scientific journal. They publish within
> >their pages that which they believe will get readers coming back for
> >more. And readers obviously want to see the measurements. Secondly,
> >you keep implying that they don't ever attempt to validate thier
> >perceptions. This is simply not true and either you skim read the
> >reviews or don't read them at all. Fact is, they do this quite often
> >and I even alluded to an example of this in the current issue.
>
> I think you have this one twisted.
No, Gene, it is your logic that is a bit off. You make a classic
fallacious argument, stemming from your inability to accept the
premise that Stereophile is a purely subjective publication,
publishing no more than opinion pieces. That said, your individual
statements of:
>
> Problem one: Attempts to correlate listening results with measurements are
> not always done.
>
Not always? Perhaps a scattered few lack such measurements, but I
don't recall them. And every set of measurements from someone like
Norton include a commentary that relates to the reviewer's subjective
opinion of the equipment and nearly all reviews contain some statement
that relates back to Norton's (or whoever performed the measurements)
commentary.
> Problem two: No, they do not attempt to validate their perceptions, which
> would require a controlled listening test to be done reliably. When have
> they done that?
And this is the point where you fall victim to a flawed premise.
Stereophile is not a publisher of reviews utilizing such methodology.
The underlying philosophy, which is clearly evident and has been
openly heralded by its editors, is one of subjective, long term,
sighted listening tests. As such, they merely attempt to validate
their perceptions and explain discrepencies with measured results via
the use of their chosen methodology. Were they to hold true to the
use of the controlled tests you believe are more effacacious, then
your premise would lead to the conclusion you draw above.
But the fact is they don't, state so upfront, and seek to appeal to
base of consumers/readers interested in reading about the subjective
opinions of their reviewers. And since this is, I repeat, not a
scientific or trade journal, I once again ask you to explain why this
is such a problem for you. What is so difficult to accept?
Barry Rothman
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
>
> Barry Rothman <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:37AEDBD3...@bellsouth.net...
> >
> >
> > Gene Steinberg wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <37AD9CFF...@bellsouth.net>, Barry Rothman
> > > <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Gene, what you continue to come back to is the issue of how
> > > >Stereophile approaches the genre. They make no bones about being a
> > > >highly subjective review publication. Anyone who reads it and reads
> > > >the reviews understands this. Those who want something different
> > > >should obviously look elsewhere.
> > >
> > > I go along with Arny on this one. If only the subjective commentary is
> > > part of their agenda, the measurements have no place, since very often
> > > they seldom relate to the sounds described by the reviewers (which, of
> > > course, is one good reason to suspect the subjective commentaries).
> > > Besides, emphasizing subjective perceptions doesn't mean one shouldn't
> > > make an attempt to validate those perceptions. That's where Stereophile
> > > falls down.
> >
> >
> > Who are you to say that measurements have no place?
>
> A reader who thinks and has an opinion. You know, Rothman with all the
> jawboning about preference that comes out of your corner lately, I'd think
> you'd be a little more politically correct, if not conssitent and true to
> your stated beliefs.
>
If you are a reader who holds such opinions and obviously doesn't like
what he reads, then you are left with two choices. Stop reading
something that doesn't give you enjoyment (much like you don't turn on
TV shows or go to movies that you don't like), or buy out Stereophile
from it's publisher and do what you like with it.
As for political correctness, that's never been my thing. I don't
have a PC bone in my body.
> > It is a consumer publication, not a trade or scientific journal.
>
> So SP should bag the measurements if they are as meaningless as
> Stereophile's Listener's Manifesto claims.
That's your opinion. Which means that either you stop reading that
which doesn't give you pleasure or buy out the magazine and then
become the editor and print what you like.
> >They publish within their pages that which they believe will get readers
> coming back for more.
>
> Whether its really true, rational or consistent with reality, yes, I agree
> with you about that, they'll put it in to sell the ragazine regardless.
It's a consumer oriented, opinion based publication. When will you
ever just figure that out.
>
> > And readers obviously want to see the measurements.
>
> I don't know about that. I guess that with a readership mostly composed of
> a bunch of poorly-technically-educated boomers who still remember when they
> were playing with their Gilbert Chemistry set, and want that same thrill
> from their specialty audio magazines, yes. What about the people who are now
> 25-28 and are going to be spending the big bucks for the next 25-30 or so
> years? SP is irrelevant to the vast majority of them.
I still don't understand what is so difficult to accept. Just don't
read it. If you don't like the subject matter of a particular movie,
you don't go to the theater. If you don't like a TV show, you simply
don't tune to that station and watch the show. No one forces you,
Gene or anyone else to buy Stereophile.
>
> SP, TAS, and HFN&RR rode a little nitch on the back of that big demographic
> bulge called "boomers". We are into generation X, and seeing the rise of
> generation Y, and other than HFN&RR, these old ladies are still carrying the
> same tired, old shopping bag.
I repeat, I still don't understand what is so difficult to accept.
Just don't read it. If you don't like the subject matter of a
particular movie, you don't go to the theater. If you don't like a TV
show, you simply don't tune to that station and watch the show. No
one forces you, Gene or anyone else to buy Stereophile.
>
> One of these days Stereophile will change or die a long, slow greusome
> death.
What concern is that to you? You obviously don't like it, so why
concern yourself?
>
> > Secondly, you keep implying that they don't ever attempt to validate
> thier perceptions.
>
> "Imply"? How about "boldly state"?
>
> > This is simply not true and either you skim read the reviews or don't
> read them at all.
>
> No, its just a matter of being able to see through the eyewash, which has
> yet to be seen as a visible strength of yours.
>
> > Fact is, they do this quite often and I even alluded to an example of this
> in the current issue.
>
> Your allusion was to an illusion.
>
> > And when you say that's where Stereophile falls down, let's clarify that
> to read that "that's where they fall down for me".
>
> ...and the people who stopped buying the stuff that was paying a lot of the
> bills around there.
>
> Barry, since you like to start new threads, why don't you start one and we
> can debate this one on its own...
I repeat, I still don't understand what is so difficult to accept.
Just don't read it. If you don't like the subject matter of a
particular movie, you don't go to the theater. If you don't like a TV
show, you simply don't tune to that station and watch the show. No
one forces you, Gene or anyone else to buy Stereophile.
Gene Steinberg
<brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>And this is the point where you fall victim to a flawed premise.
>Stereophile is not a publisher of reviews utilizing such methodology.
>The underlying philosophy, which is clearly evident and has been
>openly heralded by its editors, is one of subjective, long term,
>sighted listening tests. As such, they merely attempt to validate
>their perceptions and explain discrepencies with measured results via
>the use of their chosen methodology. Were they to hold true to the
>use of the controlled tests you believe are more effacacious, then
>your premise would lead to the conclusion you draw above.
The point I raised remains. They do nothing to determine if their sighted
evaluations have any basis in fact. This being the case, you will get
neither consistency nor reliability in their reports.
>
>But the fact is they don't, state so upfront, and seek to appeal to
>base of consumers/readers interested in reading about the subjective
>opinions of their reviewers. And since this is, I repeat, not a
>scientific or trade journal, I once again ask you to explain why this
>is such a problem for you. What is so difficult to accept?
I am aware of their limitations. I am also aware that they are leading my
consumers down a path that is not productive, because they are delivering
information that is not correct. They have helped produce a class of
readers who expect that certain categories of equipment without
demonstrated sonic differences (except in rare cases) can be perceived
audibly from one another, if you're a Golden Ear. It creates a class
distinction that's not valid. If you don't hear these differences, you're
deaf or your equipment is faulty or you're a liar. Sounds like the sort of
nonsense bandied about in this newsgroup.
The class of readers who believed in this stuff didn't predate the
existence of those magazines. They created the market by promulgating an
illusion.
Mike Bates
>
> In article <37B03473...@bellsouth.net>, Barry Rothman
> <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >And this is the point where you fall victim to a flawed premise.
> >Stereophile is not a publisher of reviews utilizing such methodology.
> >The underlying philosophy, which is clearly evident and has been
> >openly heralded by its editors, is one of subjective, long term,
> >sighted listening tests. As such, they merely attempt to validate
> >their perceptions and explain discrepencies with measured results via
> >the use of their chosen methodology. Were they to hold true to the
> >use of the controlled tests you believe are more effacacious, then
> >your premise would lead to the conclusion you draw above.
>
> The point I raised remains. They do nothing to determine if their sighted
> evaluations have any basis in fact. This being the case, you will get
> neither consistency nor reliability in their reports.
Stereophile readers already know this. That's why in almost every
review the mention "to listen for yourself". As with most readers,
I take all the reviews as a "review", not a method to be 100% assured
that if they like it, it's gotta be good for me.
> >
> >But the fact is they don't, state so upfront, and seek to appeal to
> >base of consumers/readers interested in reading about the subjective
> >opinions of their reviewers. And since this is, I repeat, not a
> >scientific or trade journal, I once again ask you to explain why this
> >is such a problem for you. What is so difficult to accept?
>
> I am aware of their limitations. I am also aware that they are leading my
> consumers down a path that is not productive, because they are delivering
> information that is not correct.
Your consumers? What does that mean? They are reviewing gear that
is part of a hobby. You don't have to read it, nor do YOUR consumers.
> They have helped produce a class of
> readers who expect that certain categories of equipment without
> demonstrated sonic differences (except in rare cases) can be perceived
> audibly from one another, if you're a Golden Ear. It creates a class
> distinction that's not valid. If you don't hear these differences, you're
> deaf or your equipment is faulty or you're a liar. Sounds like the sort of
> nonsense bandied about in this newsgroup.
It's a hobby, if you don't enjoy it, do something else.
> The class of readers who believed in this stuff didn't predate the
> existence of those magazines. They created the market by promulgating an
> illusion.
The class of readers are much smarter than you give them credit for.
That is your obvious problem.
Mike Bates
Edward M. Shain
Steinberg) wrote:
>>
Barry wrote------>
>>But the fact is they don't, state so upfront, and seek to appeal to
>>base of consumers/readers interested in reading about the subjective
>>opinions of their reviewers. And since this is, I repeat, not a
>>scientific or trade journal, I once again ask you to explain why this
>>is such a problem for you. What is so difficult to accept?
>
Gene responds possessively----------->
>I am aware of their limitations. I am also aware that they are leading my
"My???"
That's a remarkable statement or unintended slip, Gene.
>consumers down a path that is not productive, because they are delivering
>information that is not correct. They have helped produce a class of
>readers who expect that certain categories of equipment without
>demonstrated sonic differences (except in rare cases) can be perceived
>audibly from one another, if you're a Golden Ear. It creates a class
>distinction that's not valid.
"Class distinction?"
Your vocabulary is remarkable, Gene, not even a nod to whether
your statements here are fact or opinion. I'm assuming this is an
opinion rather than a claim, but feel free to offer substantiation if
this is, in fact, a genuine claim on your part.
I'm assuming you're referring to your own reactions here.
While I've heard many say they intensely disliked some of the
associated snobbery and elitism in the high end (and, God knows, it's
certainly there in some quarters) I've never heard anyone dismiss the
entire category as you have just done on the basis of it being an
improper class.
If you accept the validity of exotic speakers - and I assume
you do, then you must also accept the collateral gear that accompany
it: high current amps, transparent pre-amps, even devices that may
obtrusively color the sound in the direction of a buyer's preference.
It all flows naturally from the same point.
One can argue that xyz ain't worth the money, or that abc
doesn't do what it purports to do, but the speakers are true and
honest, Gene, and they validate the entire category. The rest is a
matter of opinion and preference. After spending $20,000 on a pair of
speakers, does it matter what the hell the poor slob buys to round out
the system?
Further, some idiosyncratic speakers have certain requirements
out of the ordinary. Do we ignore this? IOW, if one has a beef, the
beef has to be specific, not categorical.
You appear to be saying you object to the high end precisely
because it *is* the high end.
> If you don't hear these differences, you're
>deaf or your equipment is faulty or you're a liar. Sounds like the sort of
>nonsense bandied about in this newsgroup.
Actually, it sounds most like it's fraternal twin, the
"objectivist" who insists that people aren't experiencing what they
report as experiencing.
>
>The class of readers who believed in this stuff didn't predate the
>existence of those magazines. They created the market by promulgating an
>illusion.
So why all the bother, then? It's a tiny market serving
carriage trade interests and a few people who dearly love well-built,
exotic audio toys.I don't understand why it continues to irritate for
so long.
Why not ignore? It has little influence. Few people
participate in the market, and it's definitively out of the main
stream.
Unless it's the class warfare that's so attractive...
Ed
Barry Rothman
Gene Steinberg wrote:
>
> In article <37B03473...@bellsouth.net>, Barry Rothman
> <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >And this is the point where you fall victim to a flawed premise.
> >Stereophile is not a publisher of reviews utilizing such methodology.
> >The underlying philosophy, which is clearly evident and has been
> >openly heralded by its editors, is one of subjective, long term,
> >sighted listening tests. As such, they merely attempt to validate
> >their perceptions and explain discrepencies with measured results via
> >the use of their chosen methodology. Were they to hold true to the
> >use of the controlled tests you believe are more effacacious, then
> >your premise would lead to the conclusion you draw above.
>
> The point I raised remains. They do nothing to determine if their sighted
> evaluations have any basis in fact. This being the case, you will get
> neither consistency nor reliability in their reports.
Neither consisistency nor reliability by your terms. But then again,
they are a compendium of sighted, highly subjective listening
reviews. The term "subjective" in itself implies that they are not
about creating cubbyholes and placing equipment into painted boxes.
And anyone who wants methodical testing of the sort you long for needs
to go elsewhere. Just skip this show. Tune in another channel. Why
is that so hard to understand?
> >
> >But the fact is they don't, state so upfront, and seek to appeal to
> >base of consumers/readers interested in reading about the subjective
> >opinions of their reviewers. And since this is, I repeat, not a
> >scientific or trade journal, I once again ask you to explain why this
> >is such a problem for you. What is so difficult to accept?
>
> I am aware of their limitations. I am also aware that they are leading my
> consumers down a path that is not productive, because they are delivering
> information that is not correct.
"Your" consumers? Have you inherited some obligation to protect
consumers? Have you been elected, appointed, annointed?
> They have helped produce a class of
> readers who expect that certain categories of equipment without
> demonstrated sonic differences (except in rare cases) can be perceived
> audibly from one another, if you're a Golden Ear.
Have they really created or merely catered to a class of readers?
Again, I know of not one person who told me that they ran out and
plunked down tens of thousands of dollars because Stereophile told
them so. And anyone who goes out and buys stuff without hearing it
first, particularly at these price levels, is a moron who gets what
they deserve.
>It creates a class
> distinction that's not valid. If you don't hear these differences, you're
> deaf or your equipment is faulty or you're a liar. Sounds like the sort of
> nonsense bandied about in this newsgroup.
I don't see people saying anyone is a liar for claiming they
personally don't hear a difference. What I see people saying is that
anyone who proclaims that all equipment sounds the same is a liar (or
just plain unknowledgeable). Those are two very different sentiments.
>
> The class of readers who believed in this stuff didn't predate the
> existence of those magazines. They created the market by promulgating an
> illusion.
They did? I have a small bit of information for you, Gene. I became
interested in high end equipment long before I knew that Stereophile
existed and even when I knew of it I didn't read it much. In my case,
and the case of many people I know, I heard a high end system and knew
that my midfi system was nowhere near it sonically. That's what
sparked my interest.
Your problem is that you confuse two very seperate issues, and perhaps
intentionally. One is the propriety of spending large amounts on high
end gear, and two is the propriety of magazines that promote that
behavior. They are not one and the same. And your statement that the
publications precede the product is ludicrous.
And I have a question that I would like to see you answer honestly.
If you woke up tomorrow and found that simultaneously Stereophile and
TAS had closed their doors, what would your next move be? Would it be
to begin to attack high end product manufacturers and get them to sell
their products with "warning" labels on them, like cigarette packs -
"Warning - controlled testing demonstrates that products such as this
may not provide sonic enhancement". Will that be your next crusade?
Be honest.
Barry Rothman
"Edward M. Shain" wrote:
>
>
>
> Why not ignore? It has little influence. Few people
> participate in the market, and it's definitively out of the main
> stream.
>
> Unless it's the class warfare that's so attractive...
>
> Ed
Perhaps here you've hit the nail on the head. It is a class
distinction to some and the source of their irritation. You see it in
Gene's comment, Howard's continual references to "plutocrats", Arny's
sneering at "elitists" and his attempts to administer "social
consciousness litmus tests", and others raging on about how the
"hobby" has lost its way, moving from one where many built their own
equipment to one where expensive solutions are offered in fancy
salons.
However, this class distinction is seen in but a few high end owners
(who likely view everything in those terms) and a similar fringe
element of high end haters. By and large, most high end buyers/owners
just buy what they like, some of them forsaking all other hobbies in
order to afford audio, and the overwhelming majority of mid fi buyers
(the total number of whom dwarfs the high end) either don't know about
the high end, don't care and are quite happy with what they have.
There is no class warfare, no problems with "snobbery" or elitism.
Nhsns
>> Maybe. But it is the $300 receivers and $500 speakers
>> that pose the bigger design challenges, so it seems
>> that it would be at least as interesting to look at the
>> successful ones in these categories.
>
>But would it be as tempting to have as the ten thousand dollar spread?
>
>That's the point.
Just as tempting to me, that's for sure. I'm not tempted by speakers that cost
$10,000. You can buy an excellent speaker for very little money, so long as
you don't have to go too loud or too low in frequency. I feel confident in
claiming that you can get clean response down to 32Hz for under $1000/pr.
Beyond this point the main things you get are the ability to project this clean
response at a substantially higher volume. Secondarily, expensive speakers may
match each other a bit better and hug the zero db line a bit closer.
Below 32Hz it's almost always better to add a subwoofer; not because of sound,
but because you only have to buy one.
Norm Strong (nh...@aol.com) or (no...@scn.org)
2528 31st South, Seattle WA 98l44
greg pavlov
Steinberg) wrote:
>
>But would it be as tempting to have as the ten thousand dollar spread?
>
>That's the point.
I believe that if I were doing an average of 2-4 reviews a
month for an extended period of time, I would much rather
look at products (particularly speakers, where the truly
significant differences lie) across the entire spectrum; it
would be much more interesting.
Alan Dana
(Nhsns) wrote:
> Just as tempting to me, that's for sure. I'm not tempted by speakers that cost
> $10,000. You can buy an excellent speaker for very little money, so long as
> you don't have to go too loud or too low in frequency. I feel confident in
> claiming that you can get clean response down to 32Hz for under $1000/pr.
> Beyond this point the main things you get are the ability to project
this clean
> response at a substantially higher volume. Secondarily, expensive
speakers may
> match each other a bit better and hug the zero db line a bit closer.
That's not all you get Norm.
I'm still toxicated by what I heard from a pair of $6000 Sonus
Faber bookshelves, that could neither play below 32Hz or cleanly
at very high volume levels. And the same goes for Quad ESL63's.
Even if you limited your musical selection to a piece that
stays between 60Hz to 10KHz, and limited volume levels to
peaks of 95dB, the difference can be stunning. Even vs good
quality $500-$600 bookshelves.
Now whether its worth paying up to 10X the difference is
a matter of priorities.
Dana
--
Note: I frequently only check my personal email at this
address once every 7-14 days. Please expect delays if
you write to me.
Barry Rothman
Nhsns wrote:
>
> >
> Just as tempting to me, that's for sure. I'm not tempted by speakers that cost
> $10,000. You can buy an excellent speaker for very little money, so long as
> you don't have to go too loud or too low in frequency. I feel confident in
> claiming that you can get clean response down to 32Hz for under $1000/pr.
> Beyond this point the main things you get are the ability to project this clean
> response at a substantially higher volume. Secondarily, expensive speakers may
> match each other a bit better and hug the zero db line a bit closer.
If all you think you get is higher volume, so be it. But you are
incorrect. A pair of Vandersteen 1C's are great buy at $900 with
their bases. But they sound nothing like a good pair of $4,000
speakers or even more expensive ones.
Gene Steinberg
<brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Neither consisistency nor reliability by your terms. But then again,
>they are a compendium of sighted, highly subjective listening
>reviews. The term "subjective" in itself implies that they are not
>about creating cubbyholes and placing equipment into painted boxes.
>And anyone who wants methodical testing of the sort you long for needs
>to go elsewhere. Just skip this show. Tune in another channel. Why
>is that so hard to understand?
You are aware that even blind listening tests are subjective, right?
>
>"Your" consumers? Have you inherited some obligation to protect
>consumers? Have you been elected, appointed, annointed?
Just a misspelling. It's "many" consumers, as you'd realize in the context
of the phrase. You are quibbling over a non-issue here.
>Have they really created or merely catered to a class of readers?
>Again, I know of not one person who told me that they ran out and
>plunked down tens of thousands of dollars because Stereophile told
>them so. And anyone who goes out and buys stuff without hearing it
>first, particularly at these price levels, is a moron who gets what
>they deserve.
If you look at the way folks wax poetic about the alleged sound of an
audio product in this newsgroup and elsewhere, using terminology right out
of those magazines, you'd see what I'm talking about.
In terms of amplifiers, where specs tell all, you can indeed go out and
buy something without hearing it if you know what specs to look for (and
Stereo Review published that sort of stuff over and over again). And you
will be right 100% of the time, so long as the amp isn't defective.
>I don't see people saying anyone is a liar for claiming they
>personally don't hear a difference. What I see people saying is that
>anyone who proclaims that all equipment sounds the same is a liar (or
>just plain unknowledgeable). Those are two very different sentiments.
Since nobody here proclaims "all equipment sounds the same" what's your point?
>They did? I have a small bit of information for you, Gene. I became
>interested in high end equipment long before I knew that Stereophile
>existed and even when I knew of it I didn't read it much. In my case,
>and the case of many people I know, I heard a high end system and knew
>that my midfi system was nowhere near it sonically. That's what
>sparked my interest.
If you knew that in terms of amps and CD players and cables, most were
identical or near-identical, how would you react?
>And I have a question that I would like to see you answer honestly.
>If you woke up tomorrow and found that simultaneously Stereophile and
>TAS had closed their doors, what would your next move be? Would it be
>to begin to attack high end product manufacturers and get them to sell
>their products with "warning" labels on them, like cigarette packs -
>"Warning - controlled testing demonstrates that products such as this
>may not provide sonic enhancement". Will that be your next crusade?
>Be honest.
No move. If they closed their doors, it would be symptomatic of the
high-end industry as it exists today not being large enough to support
those magazines with advertising.
Arny Krüger
As usual, you seem to think that you are the master owner of the list of
options. There are additional options, such as:
(3) Read Stereophile, TAS and HFN&RR and ask yourself the following
question: "Are these guys for real?" Costs a little more than reading Analog
and asking the same question, but with Stereophile, the question seems to be
a bit more intellectually challenging.
(4) Read Stereophile, TAS and HFN&RR and then amuse yourself thinking about
how many people there are who think they are tremendously smarter than you
but actually believe and act on what they read in these ragazines.
(5) Read Stereophile, TAS and HFN&RR and try to pick out the truth from the
chaff.
> As for political correctness, that's never been my thing. I don't
> have a PC bone in my body.
And you don't contribute to the level of noise around here, either. ROTF!
> > > It is a consumer publication, not a trade or scientific journal.
> > So SP should bag the measurements if they are as meaningless as
> > Stereophile's Listener's Manifesto claims.
> That's your opinion.
No, that's the opinion of the current editor of TAS, and one that is
supported by the current editor of SP.
>Which means that either you stop reading that
> which doesn't give you pleasure or buy out the magazine and then
> become the editor and print what you like.
Another one of Barry's master list of alternatives made with the blinders
on. ;-(
Or plan C, do something better independent of them.
> > >They publish within their pages that which they believe will get
readers
> > coming back for more.
> >
> > Whether its really true, rational or consistent with reality, yes, I
agree
> > with you about that, they'll put it in to sell the ragazine regardless.
> It's a consumer oriented, opinion based publication. When will you ever
just figure that out.
It's OSAF in many cases.
> > > And readers obviously want to see the measurements.
> > I don't know about that. I guess that with a readership mostly composed
of
> > a bunch of poorly-technically-educated boomers who still remember when
they
> > were playing with their Gilbert Chemistry set, and want that same thrill
> > from their specialty audio magazines, yes. What about the people who are
now
> > 25-28 and are going to be spending the big bucks for the next 25-30 or
so
> > years? SP is irrelevant to the vast majority of them.
> I still don't understand what is so difficult to accept.
I accept it! See, I just described it to a "T"!
> Just don't read it.
Like RAO, sometimes its just too much fun to ignore...
> If you don't like the subject matter of a particular movie, you don't go
to the theater.
Well, how do you know whether you are going to like a movie without seeing
it?
Aren't you the guy who says that people should judge for themselves? Being a
little self-contradictory here? Or, are all movies the same?
> If you don't like a TV show, you simply don't tune to that station and
watch the show.
Another one of Barry's master list of alternatives made with the blinders
on. ;-(
Plan B: watch the show until you decide its too boring, then grab the remote
and surf on, dude!
> No one forces you, Gene or anyone else to buy Stereophile.
True, but I admit it, I sometimes go out of my way to see the results of car
& train accidents.
> > SP, TAS, and HFN&RR rode a little nitch on the back of that big
demographic
> > bulge called "boomers". We are into generation X, and seeing the rise of
> > generation Y, and other than HFN&RR, these old ladies are still carrying
the
> > same tired, old shopping bag.
> I repeat, I still don't understand what is so difficult to accept.
I accept it! See, I just described it to a "T"!
> Just don't read it. If you don't like the subject matter of a
> particular movie, you don't go to the theater.
Another one of Barry's master list of alternatives made with the blinders
on. ;-(
Number 1, you can't really know what the subject material of a movie is in
deatil and for sure without watching it.
> If you don't like a TV show, you simply don't tune to that station and
watch the show.
Some TV shows have variable quality or appeal, and are interestng at some
times and not interesting at others. Classic case: A&E's Biography series.
> No one forces you, Gene or anyone else to buy Stereophile.
Just morbidity, I guess.
> > One of these days Stereophile will change or die a long, slow greusome
> > death.
> What concern is that to you? You obviously don't like it, so why concern
yourself?
Just morbitity, I guess.
> > > Secondly, you keep implying that they don't ever attempt to validate
> > thier perceptions.
> >
> > "Imply"? How about "boldly state"?
> > > This is simply not true and either you skim read the reviews or don't
read them at all.
> >
> > No, its just a matter of being able to see through the eyewash, which
has yet to be seen as a visible strength of yours.
> > > Fact is, they do this quite often and I even alluded to an example of
this in the current issue.
> > Your allusion was to an illusion.
> > > And when you say that's where Stereophile falls down, let's clarify
that to read that "that's where they fall down for me".
> > ...and the people who stopped buying the stuff that was paying a lot of
the bills around there.
> > Barry, since you like to start new threads, why don't you start one and
we
> > can debate this one on its own...
> I repeat, I still don't understand what is so difficult to accept.
I accept it! See, I just described it to a "T"!
> Just don't read it.
But it appeals to my morbitity so much, just like reading a post from
Middius or Singh.
< Barry started going in tight circles - redundant text removed>
Arny Krüger
>
> Perhaps here you've hit the nail on the head. It is a class
> distinction to some and the source of their irritation. You see it in
> Gene's comment, Howard's continual references to "plutocrats", Arny's
> sneering at "elitists" and his attempts to administer "social
> consciousness litmus tests", and others raging on about how the
> "hobby" has lost its way, moving from one where many built their own
> equipment to one where expensive solutions are offered in fancy
> salons.
Actually, you are either making this up, or blowing a little game I played
with you into a generalization.
Let's look at your first false claim in this post:
'Arny's sneering at "elitists" '
I recommend that one and all try the following retrieval: ~a
(ar...@flash.net) & ~g (rec.audio.opinion) & elitists
As of me typing in this post, there were zero, nine, nichts, nada posts.
After I post it there will be one, 1, uno.
Obviously, Barry is just being delusional again! ;-)
Secondly, Barry is still smarting about some questions I asked him, and
basically just him about his social awareness. His answers should have been
embarassing to him, but he keeps bringing this up, so I guess they weren't.
Obviously, Barry is just being deceptive again! ;-)
Thirdly, whether or not the hobby of audio has lost its way would depend on
how one defines audio. I surely don't define my audio hobby as being limited
to that tiny weird niche called "Specialty Audio".
Obviously, Barry is just trying to limit the topic to his exceedingly narrow
view of audio.
I've tried to broaden Bary's horizons, but you know about old dogs and new
tricks, and taking that horse to water... ;-)
Arny Krüger
> If you woke up tomorrow and found that simultaneously Stereophile and
> TAS had closed their doors, what would your next move be?
Do what any competitive publisher would do. Try to figure out how to pick
the bones. However, as slow as some of these can be expected to slide, there
won't be much meat left when the animals die.
Barry Rothman
Gene Steinberg wrote:
>
> In article <37B06A6F...@bellsouth.net>, Barry Rothman
> <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >Neither consisistency nor reliability by your terms. But then again,
> >they are a compendium of sighted, highly subjective listening
> >reviews. The term "subjective" in itself implies that they are not
> >about creating cubbyholes and placing equipment into painted boxes.
> >And anyone who wants methodical testing of the sort you long for needs
> >to go elsewhere. Just skip this show. Tune in another channel. Why
> >is that so hard to understand?
>
> You are aware that even blind listening tests are subjective, right?
>
In the end, if you rely on human perceptions, it becomes subjective.
Did you think I missed that point? Nonetheless, you still have not
answered my response. And I repeat, anyone who wants methodical
testing of the sort you long for needs to go elsewhere. Just skip
this show. Tune in another channel. Why is that so hard to
understand?
> >"Your" consumers? Have you inherited some obligation to protect
> >consumers? Have you been elected, appointed, annointed?
>
> Just a misspelling. It's "many" consumers, as you'd realize in the context
> of the phrase. You are quibbling over a non-issue here.
It was one of the most interesting spelling errors I've seen.
>
> >Have they really created or merely catered to a class of readers?
> >Again, I know of not one person who told me that they ran out and
> >plunked down tens of thousands of dollars because Stereophile told
> >them so. And anyone who goes out and buys stuff without hearing it
> >first, particularly at these price levels, is a moron who gets what
> >they deserve.
>
> If you look at the way folks wax poetic about the alleged sound of an
> audio product in this newsgroup and elsewhere, using terminology right out
> of those magazines, you'd see what I'm talking about.
But do you have any empirical evidence that people actually practice
this behavior. That they run down and buy what Stereophile says
sounds good, sight unseen, or should I say unheard. And you also
neatly sidestep the issue of Stereophile's catering to a class of
consumers rather than creating one. Again, you have based a pretty
serious argument upon a very important, and I believe highly flawed,
premise. Don't you think it behooves a vocal critic such as yourself
to back it up with some facts.
>
> In terms of amplifiers, where specs tell all, you can indeed go out and
> buy something without hearing it if you know what specs to look for (and
> Stereo Review published that sort of stuff over and over again). And you
> will be right 100% of the time, so long as the amp isn't defective.
Will you be? With very demanding speakers? Surely you don't suggest
this. By the way, please cite me one single amplifier review in
Stereophile that doesn't contain this sort of data. I will also point
you to Audio Magazine's recent review in the issue of a Pass amplifier
wherein there is NO such data. And this is the same publisher as
Stereo Review. Please explain.
>
> >I don't see people saying anyone is a liar for claiming they
> >personally don't hear a difference. What I see people saying is that
> >anyone who proclaims that all equipment sounds the same is a liar (or
> >just plain unknowledgeable). Those are two very different sentiments.
>
> Since nobody here proclaims "all equipment sounds the same" what's your point?
But you just did. You said it when you said that:
> "In terms of amplifiers, where specs tell all, you can indeed go out and
> buy something without hearing it if you know what specs to look for (and
> Stereo Review published that sort of stuff over and over again). And you
> will be right 100% of the time, so long as the amp isn't defective."
If this is not what you are claiming then please illuminate.
And it is very interesting to read your response to this statement by
me:
> >They did? I have a small bit of information for you, Gene. I became
> >interested in high end equipment long before I knew that Stereophile
> >existed and even when I knew of it I didn't read it much. In my case,
> >and the case of many people I know, I heard a high end system and knew
> >that my midfi system was nowhere near it sonically. That's what
> >sparked my interest.
>
> If you knew that in terms of amps and CD players and cables, most were
> identical or near-identical, how would you react?
Identical or near-identical? You mean sound the same or almost
exactly? Nevertheless I'll tell you how I reacted. One day I heard a
system that sounded unbelievable. And I then on another day I walked
in, unannounced, and heard the same speakers, CD player and preamp,
but through a different amp and it sounded great, but something was
missing. And I didn't know that the amp had changed, since I merely
walked into a listening room and sat down, and was a neophyte to
boot. All I recognized was the speakers (a wonderful pair of
ProAcs). And that told me that something real existed beyond the mid
fi realm I previously knew.
>
> >And I have a question that I would like to see you answer honestly.
> >If you woke up tomorrow and found that simultaneously Stereophile and
> >TAS had closed their doors, what would your next move be? Would it be
> >to begin to attack high end product manufacturers and get them to sell
> >their products with "warning" labels on them, like cigarette packs -
> >"Warning - controlled testing demonstrates that products such as this
> >may not provide sonic enhancement". Will that be your next crusade?
> >Be honest.
>
> No move. If they closed their doors, it would be symptomatic of the
> high-end industry as it exists today not being large enough to support
> those magazines with advertising.
But does that have to do with question of the propriety of high end
equipment and the fraud being perpetrated on unsuspecting consumers.
Barry Rothman
what a publication prints and wants them to change their ways or stop
publising. I said it's no different than simply deciding not to watch
a TV show that rubs you the wrong way. And you come up with the most
moronic set of comments I've yet seen. And you wonder why I
contribute to the noise level?
Wowser.
By the way, where are your accusations. We're waiting, chicken boy.
Barry Rothman
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
>
> Barry Rothman <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:37B06A6F...@bellsouth.net...
>
> > If you woke up tomorrow and found that simultaneously Stereophile and
> > TAS had closed their doors, what would your next move be?
>
> Do what any competitive publisher would do. Try to figure out how to pick
> the bones. However, as slow as some of these can be expected to slide, there
> won't be much meat left when the animals die.
So here we have the truth about Arny. He does in fact view himself as
a competitive publisher to Stereophile. I hope John Atkinson, the
management at Petersen and all of their attorneys see this comment.
It casts Arny in a new light and gives great cause to deal with his
comments appropriately. Once such comments move from the ravings a
lunatic to those of someone attempting to compete in business, they
take on a whole different meaning and import.
Thanks for putting your foot in your mouth.
Barry Rothman
Barry asked:
> > If you woke up tomorrow and found that simultaneously Stereophile and
> > TAS had closed their doors, what would your next move be?
And Arny proudly proclaimed:
>
> Do what any competitive publisher would do. Try to figure out how to pick
> the bones. However, as slow as some of these can be expected to slide, there
> won't be much meat left when the animals die.
Thank you Arny for admitting your agenda.
Kenneth Kirkpatrick
Barry Rothman wrote:
And just how many manufactures do you think will want to advertise in Arny's
new magazine? My guess.... maybe a few Japanese firms, and NHT. It would be a
quick death and hopefully cost Arny whatever money he has saved up. I would
cherish the moment.
George M. Middius
> And just how many manufactures do you think will want to advertise in Arny's
> new magazine? My guess.... maybe a few Japanese firms, and NHT. It would be a
> quick death and hopefully cost Arny whatever money he has saved up. I would
> cherish the moment.
I doubt we'll ever get to dance on the grave of Arniizine.
The truth is that the Kroobitch controls all expenses over
$25 in the Krooger menage. And, despite the evidence of her
nuttiness for staying with Filthy for all these years, we
know she can handle money. Arnii could never have gotten a
mortgage on his $18K annual income from pushing bottom-out
PC clones.
George M. Middius
Gene Steinberg
<brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Gene says he hates
>what a publication prints and wants them to change their ways or stop
>publising.
No I didn't say that. Stop putting words in my mouth!
Gene Steinberg
Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net (Edward M. Shain) wrote:
> That's a remarkable statement or unintended slip, Gene.
Neither. A typo. Drop it, because harping on that one makes you you foolish.
> Your vocabulary is remarkable, Gene, not even a nod to whether
>your statements here are fact or opinion. I'm assuming this is an
>opinion rather than a claim, but feel free to offer substantiation if
>this is, in fact, a genuine claim on your part.
This newsgroup substantiates the statement.
>
> I'm assuming you're referring to your own reactions here.
>While I've heard many say they intensely disliked some of the
>associated snobbery and elitism in the high end (and, God knows, it's
>certainly there in some quarters) I've never heard anyone dismiss the
>entire category as you have just done on the basis of it being an
>improper class.
I didn't say it referred to the entire category, but the attitude created
by those magazine's can cause it.
> One can argue that xyz ain't worth the money, or that abc
>doesn't do what it purports to do, but the speakers are true and
>honest, Gene, and they validate the entire category. The rest is a
>matter of opinion and preference. After spending $20,000 on a pair of
>speakers, does it matter what the hell the poor slob buys to round out
>the system?
Or factual measurements and controlled listening tests.
>
> Further, some idiosyncratic speakers have certain requirements
>out of the ordinary. Do we ignore this? IOW, if one has a beef, the
>beef has to be specific, not categorical.
Not a part of the discussion.
>
> You appear to be saying you object to the high end precisely
>because it *is* the high end.
Nope. Only describing a realistic condition that infects at least part of it.
> Actually, it sounds most like it's fraternal twin, the
>"objectivist" who insists that people aren't experiencing what they
>report as experiencing.
The so-called "objectivist" will only say that if the evidence shows it to
be so.
Gene Steinberg
<brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>In the end, if you rely on human perceptions, it becomes subjective.
>Did you think I missed that point? Nonetheless, you still have not
>answered my response. And I repeat, anyone who wants methodical
>testing of the sort you long for needs to go elsewhere. Just skip
>this show. Tune in another channel. Why is that so hard to
>understand?
Controlled listening tests rely on human perceptions.
>It was one of the most interesting spelling errors I've seen.
Totally irrelevant.
>
>But do you have any empirical evidence that people actually practice
>this behavior. That they run down and buy what Stereophile says
>sounds good, sight unseen, or should I say unheard. And you also
>neatly sidestep the issue of Stereophile's catering to a class of
>consumers rather than creating one. Again, you have based a pretty
>serious argument upon a very important, and I believe highly flawed,
>premise. Don't you think it behooves a vocal critic such as yourself
>to back it up with some facts.
Read messages here where someone pops in and says people who can't hear
differences in cables and other products are deaf or don't have a system
of sufficient resolution. Or have you missed them, despite the fact such
claims are made reuglarly.
>
>Will you be? With very demanding speakers? Surely you don't suggest
>this. By the way, please cite me one single amplifier review in
>Stereophile that doesn't contain this sort of data. I will also point
>you to Audio Magazine's recent review in the issue of a Pass amplifier
>wherein there is NO such data. And this is the same publisher as
>Stereo Review. Please explain.
No explanation necessary. Audio had two review policies. One, Auricle,
mimicked what you see in the regular high-end rags, the other contained
extensive measurements. The magazine is being redesigned, and some
elements of both review styles will apparently be integrated.
Obviously if you have demanding speakers, you will buy amplifiers with
specs that show they will meet the requirements. You've only proven what I
wrote here.
I wrote:
>
>> "In terms of amplifiers, where specs tell all, you can indeed go out and
>> buy something without hearing it if you know what specs to look for (and
>> Stereo Review published that sort of stuff over and over again). And you
>> will be right 100% of the time, so long as the amp isn't defective."
>
You screwed up and assume the above meant that all amps sound the same
(which was never implied), when you wrote:
>If this is not what you are claiming then please illuminate.
I simply said specs correlate with what you hear in an amplifier. Inferior
specs, inferior sound may result. Stop making up these false claims that
someone is saying all amps sound the same, when all I said was that there
was a correlation between measurements and audible results. Pay attention
please!
>
>> >They did? I have a small bit of information for you, Gene. I became
>> >interested in high end equipment long before I knew that Stereophile
>> >existed and even when I knew of it I didn't read it much. In my case,
>> >and the case of many people I know, I heard a high end system and knew
>> >that my midfi system was nowhere near it sonically. That's what
>> >sparked my interest.
The dealers were influenced by it. You bought your high-end equipment at a
dealer, or did it just show up out of thin air?
>Identical or near-identical? You mean sound the same or almost
>exactly? Nevertheless I'll tell you how I reacted. One day I heard a
>system that sounded unbelievable. And I then on another day I walked
>in, unannounced, and heard the same speakers, CD player and preamp,
>but through a different amp and it sounded great, but something was
>missing. And I didn't know that the amp had changed, since I merely
>walked into a listening room and sat down, and was a neophyte to
>boot. All I recognized was the speakers (a wonderful pair of
>ProAcs). And that told me that something real existed beyond the mid
>fi realm I previously knew.
This has been discussed before, and the unreliability of sighted listening
has been demonstrated over and over again. The information is out there;
maybe you should try learning about it rather than making claims.
>But does that have to do with question of the propriety of high end
>equipment and the fraud being perpetrated on unsuspecting consumers.
The evidence ofbears out that a certain percentage of the high-end
industry is indeed making claims that have no factual basis.
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
news:gene-12089...@ip72.phoenix10.az.pub-ip.psi.net...
> In article <37B1764C...@bellsouth.net>, Barry Rothman
> <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >Gene says he hates
> >what a publication prints and wants them to change their ways or stop
> >publising.
>
>
Did too!
Zip
Barry Rothman
Gene Steinberg wrote:
>
> In article <37B17575...@bellsouth.net>, Barry Rothman
> <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >In the end, if you rely on human perceptions, it becomes subjective.
> >Did you think I missed that point? Nonetheless, you still have not
> >answered my response. And I repeat, anyone who wants methodical
> >testing of the sort you long for needs to go elsewhere. Just skip
> >this show. Tune in another channel. Why is that so hard to
> >understand?
>
> Controlled listening tests rely on human perceptions.
What does this have to do with the statement that people who want
controlled listening tests used in reviews needs to look elsewhere as
Stereophile is very upfront about their position this matter. Just
answer this question.
>
> >But do you have any empirical evidence that people actually practice
> >this behavior. That they run down and buy what Stereophile says
> >sounds good, sight unseen, or should I say unheard. And you also
> >neatly sidestep the issue of Stereophile's catering to a class of
> >consumers rather than creating one. Again, you have based a pretty
> >serious argument upon a very important, and I believe highly flawed,
> >premise. Don't you think it behooves a vocal critic such as yourself
> >to back it up with some facts.
>
> Read messages here where someone pops in and says people who can't hear
> differences in cables and other products are deaf or don't have a system
> of sufficient resolution. Or have you missed them, despite the fact such
> claims are made reuglarly.
What does this have to do with your assertion that people practice the
behavior of running out and blindly buying what Stereophile says
sounds good. In fact, they've hardly reviewed 5% of the high priced
cables that many people buy.
I earlier said:
> >> >They did? I have a small bit of information for you, Gene. I became
> >> >interested in high end equipment long before I knew that Stereophile
> >> >existed and even when I knew of it I didn't read it much. In my case,
> >> >and the case of many people I know, I heard a high end system and knew
> >> >that my midfi system was nowhere near it sonically. That's what
> >> >sparked my interest.
And you showed great ignorance by saying:
> The dealers were influenced by it. You bought your high-end equipment at a
> dealer, or did it just show up out of thin air?
In fact, I think you will find that a very large number of dealers
don't sell at all based on what Stereophile says or pick their lines
on that basis. In fact, my dealer doesn't advertise in the
publication and actually isn't a very big fan. He actually eschews
all such reviews and uses his ears to determine what he recommends and
what lines he carries, and recommends that his customers use their own
ears as well.
And you finally make this statement:
>
> The evidence ofbears out that a certain percentage of the high-end
> industry is indeed making claims that have no factual basis.
No factual basis using a methodology you and some other endorse. But
either way, what does this have to do with the underlying statement
that if people don't feel such subjective, non controlled listening
test reviews are worthwhile, that they should simply NOT bother to
read Stereophile, which makes no bones about it's methods and
practices.
Gene Steinberg
<brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>What does this have to do with the statement that people who want
>controlled listening tests used in reviews needs to look elsewhere as
>Stereophile is very upfront about their position this matter. Just
>answer this question.
They are upfront about not using it, but not upfront as to the
implications, which they cloud with non-issues and incorrect information.
Do we need to discuss the implications to such a magazine?
>
>What does this have to do with your assertion that people practice the
>behavior of running out and blindly buying what Stereophile says
>sounds good. In fact, they've hardly reviewed 5% of the high priced
>cables that many people buy.
What I really said was that magazines such as Stereophile have created
expectations about how equipment sounds and how one describes the
differences you think you hear. Whether they review a specific product
doesn't have anything to do with what one is led to believe about such
product categories.
>In fact, I think you will find that a very large number of dealers
>don't sell at all based on what Stereophile says or pick their lines
>on that basis. In fact, my dealer doesn't advertise in the
>publication and actually isn't a very big fan. He actually eschews
>all such reviews and uses his ears to determine what he recommends and
>what lines he carries, and recommends that his customers use their own
>ears as well.
One more time, we are talking of philosophy here, not the review of a
specific product. You seem to keep getting this one mixed up.
>No factual basis using a methodology you and some other endorse. But
>either way, what does this have to do with the underlying statement
>that if people don't feel such subjective, non controlled listening
>test reviews are worthwhile, that they should simply NOT bother to
>read Stereophile, which makes no bones about it's methods and
>practices.
Maybe they just don't know that the methodology isn't valid :)
Clearly you don't.
Barry Rothman
Gene Steinberg wrote:
>
> In article <37B30986...@bellsouth.net>, Barry Rothman
> <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >What does this have to do with the statement that people who want
> >controlled listening tests used in reviews needs to look elsewhere as
> >Stereophile is very upfront about their position this matter. Just
> >answer this question.
>
> They are upfront about not using it, but not upfront as to the
> implications, which they cloud with non-issues and incorrect information.
>
Okay, let's take your logic a bit further. It can be shown that
Consumer Reports has over the years found many car models and makes to
have less than favorable reliability. Nonetheless, several car
magazines have given some of those makes and models high marks, and
the dealers say nothing about such bad "test data" when you go to the
showroom to consider and/or buy those cars. Should we begin to
lambast those auto manufacturers, dealers and publications for not
disclosing or discussing factual, objective data based on vehicle
ownership reports? Hell, those same players often ballyhoo the fact
that JD Powers or someone gives their car a high ranking, so why
should they get away with the low rankings being swept under the
carpet.
I frankly have trouble understanding your goals as a "consumer
advocate".
> Do we need to discuss the implications to such a magazine?
>
>
Yes, go ahead and list the terrible effect they have had on society at
large.
> >What does this have to do with your assertion that people practice the
> >behavior of running out and blindly buying what Stereophile says
> >sounds good. In fact, they've hardly reviewed 5% of the high priced
> >cables that many people buy.
>
> What I really said was that magazines such as Stereophile have created
> expectations about how equipment sounds and how one describes the
> differences you think you hear. Whether they review a specific product
> doesn't have anything to do with what one is led to believe about such
> product categories.
>
They create no more than Car & Driver creates about a new car model.
> >In fact, I think you will find that a very large number of dealers
> >don't sell at all based on what Stereophile says or pick their lines
> >on that basis. In fact, my dealer doesn't advertise in the
> >publication and actually isn't a very big fan. He actually eschews
> >all such reviews and uses his ears to determine what he recommends and
> >what lines he carries, and recommends that his customers use their own
> >ears as well.
>
> One more time, we are talking of philosophy here, not the review of a
> specific product. You seem to keep getting this one mixed up.
But that philosophy guides the review, and it is the review that you
say guides the buyer.
>
> >No factual basis using a methodology you and some other endorse. But
> >either way, what does this have to do with the underlying statement
> >that if people don't feel such subjective, non controlled listening
> >test reviews are worthwhile, that they should simply NOT bother to
> >read Stereophile, which makes no bones about it's methods and
> >practices.
>
> Maybe they just don't know that the methodology isn't valid :)
>
> Clearly you don't.
So you say.
Arny Krüger
> All I can say Arny is that you are truly a putz. Gene says he hates
> what a publication prints and wants them to change their ways or stop
> publising. I said it's no different than simply deciding not to watch
> a TV show that rubs you the wrong way. And you come up with the most
> moronic set of comments I've yet seen. And you wonder why I
> contribute to the noise level?
Thanks for admitting that you accept partial responsibility for the noise
level around here.
Frankly, I think the real reason is that you are clueless about audio. It
seems like all you know how to do about sound is spend money.
Arny Krüger
Gene Steinberg <ge...@genesteinberg.com> wrote in message
news:gene-12089...@ip72.phoenix10.az.pub-ip.psi.net...
> <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >Gene says he hates
> >what a publication prints and wants them to change their ways or stop
> >publising.
>
It's his way...
Barry Rothman
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
>
> Barry Rothman <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:37B1764C...@bellsouth.net...
> > All I can say Arny is that you are truly a putz. Gene says he hates
> > what a publication prints and wants them to change their ways or stop
> > publising. I said it's no different than simply deciding not to watch
> > a TV show that rubs you the wrong way. And you come up with the most
> > moronic set of comments I've yet seen. And you wonder why I
> > contribute to the noise level?
>
> Thanks for admitting that you accept partial responsibility for the noise
> level around here.
>
I never denied it. And I never signed up for one of those exercises
in reducing noise, most of which called for ignoring your daily lies.
> Frankly, I think the real reason is that you are clueless about audio. It
> seems like all you know how to do about sound is spend money.
Really? Have you ever heard my system? I'll bet it blows the doors
off of your's. Ya think those NHT's compare with my Mini Utopias and
Vandy sub?
By the way, when does the doctor feel the effect of the mushrooms will
wear off?
Arny Krüger
George M. Middius <Glan...@cais.net> wrote in message
news:37feffbc....@newsreader.cais.net...
That's right, George. And since I do have a mortage on a ca. 3,000 square
foot house in one of the nicer middle class- upper middle class suburbs in
the Detroit area, I must as a rule, be making more than $18k a year.
But since you seem to be making an issue about personal income, mind
revealing what your personal income was last year? ;-)
Arny Krüger
>
> Okay, let's take your logic a bit further. It can be shown that
> Consumer Reports has over the years found many car models and makes to
> have less than favorable reliability. Nonetheless, several car
> magazines have given some of those makes and models high marks, and
> the dealers say nothing about such bad "test data" when you go to the
> showroom to consider and/or buy those cars.
Barry, can you tell the difference between issues of reliability and issues
of performance.
I'd paraphrase and clarify your previous paragraph as follows:
(1) Consumer Reports has over the years found many car models have
less-than-average reliability.
(2) Several car magazines have given some of those makes and models high
marks for their performance.
(3) Car dealers say nothing about the poor past relability of their cars
when you go to the showroom to consider and/or buy those cars.
How is there a conflict between (1) and (2)?
Isn't (3) just the reason why "Caveat Emptor" is often said?
> Should we begin to
> lambast those auto manufacturers, dealers and publications for not
> disclosing or discussing factual, objective data based on vehicle
ownership reports?
It would seem like this has been done in the press over and over again.
> Hell, those same players often ballyhoo the fact
> that JD Powers or someone gives their car a high ranking, so why
> should they get away with the low rankings being swept under the
> carpet.
Because the JD Powers ratings cited are generally clearly stated to relate
to "Initial Quality". "Initial quality" is a lot closer to "performance"
than it is to "reliability".
> I frankly have trouble understanding your goals as a "consumer
> advocate".
>
> > Do we need to discuss the implications to such a magazine?
If on some wierd day you would like to change your style and compare apples
to apples, we could get into the fact that most of the Borg complaints with
the specialty audio ragazines relates to issues of "initial quality" or
"performance" of equipment. ;-)
Arny Krüger
> >
> > > If you woke up tomorrow and found that simultaneously Stereophile and
> > > TAS had closed their doors, what would your next move be?
> >
pick
> > the bones. However, as slow as some of these can be expected to slide,
there
> > won't be much meat left when the animals die.
>
>
> a competitive publisher to Stereophile.
This surprises you?
> I hope John Atkinson, the management at Petersen and all of their
attorneys see this comment.
I would hardly expect them to be surprised.
> It casts Arny in a new light and gives great cause to deal with his
> comments appropriately. Once such comments move from the ravings a
> lunatic to those of someone attempting to compete in business, they
> take on a whole different meaning and import.
I compete with the specialty audio ragazines and web sites the old fashioned
way: Find something that people want that they don't provide and provide it.
In my case it's a simple thing: reliable, scientifically sound,
reality-based truth.
> Thanks for putting your foot in your mouth.
I hardly put my foot in my mouth. I simply said something sbout how things
are.
Given all the demonstrable false claims and slanders that John Atkinson has
posted on RAO about me, his humble competition, I would sincerily hope that
his lawyers take him aside and fill him in on his potential liabilities.
Arny Krüger
Kenneth Kirkpatrick <ken...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:37B180AA...@gte.net...
>
>
> Barry Rothman wrote:
>
> > Barry asked:
and
> > > > TAS had closed their doors, what would your next move be?
> >
> > >
> > > Do what any competitive publisher would do. Try to figure out how to
pick
> > > the bones. However, as slow as some of these can be expected to slide,
there
> > > won't be much meat left when the animals die.
> >
>
Arny's
> new magazine? My guess.... maybe a few Japanese firms, and NHT. It would
be a
> quick death and hopefully cost Arny whatever money he has saved up. I
would
> cherish the moment.
I have no magazine and sincerely hope never to have one. Of course, I also
sincerely never hoped to be a publisher, and now I am one.;-)
I have a web site, www.pcavgech.com that is about 18 months old.
I do have advertisers, but I intentionally select them to be as non-audio
as possible, despite the fact that this is the less-lucrative way to go. I
think that advertising a Brittany Spears CD is as close as my web site has
gotten to advertising audio products.
Arny Krüger
> > > All I can say Arny is that you are truly a putz. Gene says he hates
> > > what a publication prints and wants them to change their ways or stop
> > > publising. I said it's no different than simply deciding not to watch
> > > a TV show that rubs you the wrong way. And you come up with the most
> > > moronic set of comments I've yet seen. And you wonder why I
> > > contribute to the noise level?
> >
noise
> > level around here.
> >
> I never denied it.
No, but I don't recall you admitting it before.
> And I never signed up for one of those exercises in reducing noise, most
of which called for ignoring your daily lies.
Actually, there is plenty of proof that I can post well in a noise-free
environment, and plenty of missing proof that you can do the same.
> > Frankly, I think the real reason is that you are clueless about audio.
It
> > seems like all you know how to do about sound is spend money.
> Really? Have you ever heard my system?
I believe that you have admitted that you heavily relied on others to guide
your equipment choices. One difference between me and you is that you seem
to rely heavily on others to guide your equpment choices, and about 20,000
people a month rely on me to guide theirs.
> I'll bet it blows the doors off of your's. Ya think those NHT's compare
with my Mini Utopias and Vandy sub?
I really don't know, Barry. But you are in the Miami area, and after living
there for a year it would take more than an opportunity to listen to your
stereo to get me there!
It's well known that an absolute technical ditz can have a great stereo if
he's willing to take advice and spend money.
> By the way, when does the doctor feel the effect of the mushrooms will
wear off?
I think you just might be hallucinating a bit yourself.
I think that anybody who equates their abiltiy to take advice and spend
money with technical expertiese has got some ego problems.
As I rule I don't eat many mushrooms, and the ones I eat are ordinary
food-grade product guaranteed to have no psychoactive effects.
Gene Steinberg
<brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Okay, let's take your logic a bit further. It can be shown that
>Consumer Reports has over the years found many car models and makes to
>have less than favorable reliability. Nonetheless, several car
>magazines have given some of those makes and models high marks, and
>the dealers say nothing about such bad "test data" when you go to the
>showroom to consider and/or buy those cars. Should we begin to
>lambast those auto manufacturers, dealers and publications for not
>disclosing or discussing factual, objective data based on vehicle
>ownership reports? Hell, those same players often ballyhoo the fact
>that JD Powers or someone gives their car a high ranking, so why
>should they get away with the low rankings being swept under the
>carpet.
There are reliability ratings and there are reliability ratings, and
before you comment on things, you should see how the process is done. J.D.
Powers will usually survey based on a new car owner's experiences with a
particular make (I just filled out one recently, a couple of months after
my recent car purchase). Consumer Reports is using their reader survey to
gauge long-term reliability of products, extending over several years. The
auto magazines seldom have the chance to do such surveys (since vehicles
are turned back after review most times), but they do perform long-term
tests on occasion, and you will see problems arise. When you compare those
to the reliability ratings from Consumer Reports, you may find a different
story.
But you are making assumptions here. Do some comparisons yourself.
>Yes, go ahead and list the terrible effect they have had on society at
>large.
You mean like spending a grand on cables that sound no different than the
$3 brand?
>>
>They create no more than Car & Driver creates about a new car model.
Car & Driver measures how well a car performs on the test track, then
relates it to the subjective impressions of using that same vehicle. Are
you saying their measurements are fake or don't correlate with the
impressions?
>
>So you say.
As that a comment from you admitting you know Stereophile's test
philosophy doesn't stand up?
Thanks for the admission.
George M. Middius
> > I doubt we'll ever get to dance on the grave of Arniizine.
> > The truth is that the Kroobitch controls all expenses over
> > $25 in the Krooger menage. And, despite the evidence of her
> > nuttiness for staying with Filthy for all these years, we
> > know she can handle money. Arnii could never have gotten a
> > mortgage on his $18K annual income from pushing bottom-out
> > PC clones.
> That's right, George. And since I do have a mortage on a ca. 3,000 square
> foot house in one of the nicer middle class- upper middle class suburbs in
> the Detroit area, I must as a rule, be making more than $18k a year.
Love that BorgLogic™!
Question: Is it just you, or are you really that stupid? ;-)
> But since you seem to be making an issue about personal income, mind
> revealing what your personal income was last year? ;-)
I also made more than $18K. My house is only 2600 sq ft, but
then I live in a desirable metropolitan area, and of course I
don't own a minivan.
George M. Middius
Ravinious Lupinus
Personally, what I'ld like to see is a publication that examines the
relationship between in-room measurements and subjective sound quality. Of
course, the measurement side should be done to a higehr standard than
commonly found in the current fluff magazines. And of course, the listening
should be done blind, so there is no bias due to brand/appearance/etc.
I know of SOME work that's been done to try to equate the two.. but never
seen a fully exhaustive study of a wide range of different types of
speakers.
Barry Rothman
but extreme luxury and performance automobiles is reliability. No one
wants to buy Chrysler minivan or a Nissan Maxima or a Ford LTD or a
Yugo or a VW Jetta or a Pontiac Bonnevile, etc., and find that the car
they depend upon to get to and from work, take the kids to school,
drive to church, drive to the doctor, drive to the grocery store, etc.
will have reliability problems that may compromise not only its value,
but its use when needed, particularly urgent use. People who buy a
Rolls, Ferrari, Lotus, Bentley, etc, realize that these are not
everyday cars meant to be used in a normal fashion.
Thus, when you walk into a dealership and the guy selling a particular
Chrysler model that is known to be full of defects and reliability
issues doesn't tell you about such test data, what is the difference.
What is the difference when some auto magazine gives the same model
its "Car of the Year" award, even though such problems have been shown
by Consumer Reports.
Like I said, your premise is flawed. Likely the result of those
sticks and stones in the playground.
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
>
> Barry, can you tell the difference between issues of reliability and issues
> of performance.
>
> I'd paraphrase and clarify your previous paragraph as follows:
>
> (1) Consumer Reports has over the years found many car models have
> less-than-average reliability.
> (2) Several car magazines have given some of those makes and models high
> marks for their performance.
> (3) Car dealers say nothing about the poor past relability of their cars
> when you go to the showroom to consider and/or buy those cars.
>
> How is there a conflict between (1) and (2)?
>
> Isn't (3) just the reason why "Caveat Emptor" is often said?
>
> > Should we begin to
> > lambast those auto manufacturers, dealers and publications for not
> > disclosing or discussing factual, objective data based on vehicle
> ownership reports?
>
> It would seem like this has been done in the press over and over again.
>
> > Hell, those same players often ballyhoo the fact
> > that JD Powers or someone gives their car a high ranking, so why
> > should they get away with the low rankings being swept under the
> > carpet.
>
Barry Rothman
> > > Barry Rothman <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > > news:37B06A6F...@bellsouth.net...
> > >
> > > > If you woke up tomorrow and found that simultaneously Stereophile and
> > > > TAS had closed their doors, what would your next move be?
> >
> Arny replied:
> > > Do what any competitive publisher would do. Try to figure out how to
> pick> > > the bones. However, as slow as some of these can be expected to slide,
> there> > > won't be much meat left when the animals die.
> >
> >Barry responded:
> > So here we have the truth about Arny. He does in fact view himself as
> > a competitive publisher to Stereophile.
>
> This surprises you?
>
It's a surprise to all people who are not afflicted with dementia.
> > I hope John Atkinson, the management at Petersen and all of their
> attorneys see this comment.
>
> I would hardly expect them to be surprised.
Who said surprised. The better term is "gleeful".
>
> > It casts Arny in a new light and gives great cause to deal with his
> > comments appropriately. Once such comments move from the ravings a
> > lunatic to those of someone attempting to compete in business, they
> > take on a whole different meaning and import.
>
> I compete with the specialty audio ragazines and web sites the old fashioned
> way: Find something that people want that they don't provide and provide it.
> In my case it's a simple thing: reliable, scientifically sound,
> reality-based truth.
You mean dementia based commentary, don't you?
>
> > Thanks for putting your foot in your mouth.
>
> I hardly put my foot in my mouth. I simply said something sbout how things
> are.
And in turn caused a celebration at Stereophile, Petersen and their
attorneys.
>
> Given all the demonstrable false claims and slanders that John Atkinson has
> posted on RAO about me, his humble competition, I would sincerily hope that
> his lawyers take him aside and fill him in on his potential liabilities.
I think they are filling him alright, but the liability arrow points
the other direction. As for being "humble", I believe it is awfully
hard for delusional people such as yourself to really be humble.
Barry Rothman
Arny suggested:
>
> > > Frankly, I think the real reason is that you are clueless about audio. It
> > > seems like all you know how to do about sound is spend money.
I responded:
> > Really? Have you ever heard my system?
>
> I believe that you have admitted that you heavily relied on others to guide
> your equipment choices. One difference between me and you is that you seem
> to rely heavily on others to guide your equpment choices, and about 20,000
> people a month rely on me to guide theirs.
>
Relied on others? Who? My dealer? Actually, he offers suggestions,
but all of my choices have been the result of one thing only - the use
of my ears. I have rejected many a product suggested to me.
As for those 20,000 people, that's quite a delusion. What you mean is
that some people who visit your web site have bought SOUND CARDS FOR
THEIR COMPUTER that you recommend. Isn't that correct.
> > I'll bet it blows the doors off of your's. Ya think those NHT's compare
> with my Mini Utopias and Vandy sub?
>
> I really don't know, Barry. But you are in the Miami area, and after living
> there for a year it would take more than an opportunity to listen to your
> stereo to get me there!
Miami areas? I guess so if you knock out Fort Lauderdale between us
and forget about West Palm to the north, and of course, Boca Raon is a
city as well.
> It's well known that an absolute technical ditz can have a great stereo if
> he's willing to take advice and spend money.
No. It takes good ears and ability to set it up right as well. And
since we all know that the room is one of the most important pieces
equipment in an audio system, and that it takes trial and error to get
a system, particularly a revealing one, to be set up just right.
Which means that one had better have good "ears" to achieve a great
set up.
>
> > By the way, when does the doctor feel the effect of the mushrooms will
> wear off?
>
> I think you just might be hallucinating a bit yourself.
Oh no. I am quite lucid, thank you. I actually don't even really
drink, if you can count one or two beers a month (and usually only
when it's real hot) as not drinking, and drugs are quite too passé.
> I think that anybody who equates their abiltiy to take advice and spend
> money with technical expertiese has got some ego problems.
I never made that claim. You did, right after you accused me of
working for Stereophile, of not really being Barry Rothman, and of
refusing to tell people what kind of equipent I owned.
>
> As I rule I don't eat many mushrooms, and the ones I eat are ordinary
> food-grade product guaranteed to have no psychoactive effects.
But are you sure? You know, you can't trust every label. (Isn't that
one of your claims about high end products?)
Barry Rothman
Gene Steinberg wrote:
>
> But you are making assumptions here. Do some comparisons yourself.
>
> >Yes, go ahead and list the terrible effect they have had on society at
> >large.
>
> You mean like spending a grand on cables that sound no different than the
> $3 brand?
>
This is a terrible effect on society? Someone who likely can well
afford it is spending $3,000 for cables for an audio system that
likely costs more than three times as much. Hell, I just plunked down
$2,000 for a couple of fans for my new house and I feel far more
abused!
> >>
> >They create no more than Car & Driver creates about a new car model.
>
> Car & Driver measures how well a car performs on the test track, then
> relates it to the subjective impressions of using that same vehicle. Are
> you saying their measurements are fake or don't correlate with the
> impressions?
>
But if you read their "Top Ten" rankings, or "Car of the Year", or
"Best Convertible" or "Best Roadster", you will see that they often
make selections and grant rankings that are not at all supported by
the measurements. They are more often the result of the subjective
opinions formed by driving the car. "Car A just felt tighter" "Car B
felt more solid" "Even though Car C is an outright winner on the
skidpad, it just comes off as being too gimicky" These are the kinds
of comments you find all the time. And how about their "long term"
road tests. These are not about measurements, but rather about
impressions of many drivers over a period of time, each driving the
car for a week, a long weekend, a ski trip, a family vacation, on a
long car trip, etc.
> >
> >So you say.
>
> As that a comment from you admitting you know Stereophile's test
> philosophy doesn't stand up?
No, I think their philosophy stands up quite well. Within many
individual issues you will find commentary from various writers that
are in opposition to each other, reviewers that don't necessarily
agree, and lots of fun, subjective commentary about many different
topics. Hell, I even own a piece of equipment that one of their
reviewers DIDN'T like. He prefered something else! He even said in
the review that the preamp was not his favorite choice. And I even
found fault with his review methodology and I told him so in an
exchange of email. (Yet you guys claim that they "like" everything.
Just shows that you actually don't read the magazine too well.)
You see, the point you miss is tht their philosophy is simply the
expression of subjectively formed opinions. That's it. Nothing more,
nothing less. Just good clean fun.
Gene Steinberg
<brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>This is a terrible effect on society? Someone who likely can well
>afford it is spending $3,000 for cables for an audio system that
>likely costs more than three times as much. Hell, I just plunked down
>$2,000 for a couple of fans for my new house and I feel far more
>abused!
That you buy $3,000 for cables that don't sound any different from the $3
brand? When you buy fans at $2,000, at least, one hopes, they will match a
specific decor-based requirement (that is they look different). We are not
talking about whether the motors inside are the same. With cable the
justification made for the higher priced spread is sound, and since it's
rare that that justification can stand up to simple controlled scrutiny,
what are you left with, a prettier cable for three grand?
>But if you read their "Top Ten" rankings, or "Car of the Year", or
>"Best Convertible" or "Best Roadster", you will see that they often
>make selections and grant rankings that are not at all supported by
>the measurements. They are more often the result of the subjective
>opinions formed by driving the car. "Car A just felt tighter" "Car B
>felt more solid" "Even though Car C is an outright winner on the
>skidpad, it just comes off as being too gimicky" These are the kinds
>of comments you find all the time. And how about their "long term"
>road tests. These are not about measurements, but rather about
>impressions of many drivers over a period of time, each driving the
>car for a week, a long weekend, a ski trip, a family vacation, on a
>long car trip, etc.
There's nothing wrong with writing about how you feel about a car in real
world use, since you are dealing with a complex relationship of ride to
handling to seating comfort to control positions, radio sensitivity and
sound and a whole lot more. There are things you can test objectively,
such as the ability to go around your skid pad at a certain level of
speed. But what you have to do to get there is an important factor in
handling, of which the numbers are only a part. Another example: Two cars
may have the same acceleration from zero to 60, but one is slow off the
line and doesn't seem to get moving till you get over 30 mph, so it feels
slower than the one with a more uniform power delivery. Get it now?
With audio, we are referring to claims of a simple audible difference that
disappear with the simplest controls applied.
>No, I think their philosophy stands up quite well. Within many
>individual issues you will find commentary from various writers that
>are in opposition to each other, reviewers that don't necessarily
>agree, and lots of fun, subjective commentary about many different
>topics. Hell, I even own a piece of equipment that one of their
>reviewers DIDN'T like. He prefered something else! He even said in
>the review that the preamp was not his favorite choice. And I even
>found fault with his review methodology and I told him so in an
>exchange of email. (Yet you guys claim that they "like" everything.
>Just shows that you actually don't read the magazine too well.)
>
Not when you report on audible differences that cannot sustain the
simplest controlled listening test.
Barry Rothman
Gene Steinberg wrote:
>
> In article <37B604B4...@bellsouth.net>, Barry Rothman
> <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >This is a terrible effect on society? Someone who likely can well
> >afford it is spending $3,000 for cables for an audio system that
> >likely costs more than three times as much. Hell, I just plunked down
> >$2,000 for a couple of fans for my new house and I feel far more
> >abused!
>
> That you buy $3,000 for cables that don't sound any different from the $3
> brand? When you buy fans at $2,000, at least, one hopes, they will match a
> specific decor-based requirement (that is they look different). We are not
> talking about whether the motors inside are the same.
But in fact we are talking about one and the same thing. Even if we
assume that all cables and amp and CD players sound alike (an
assumption made only for the purpose of this debaste), then one could
say that the price difference is in design elements - fancy
faceplates, giant oversized insulation, gold plated connectors, gold
stranded wire, exotic stranded wire, exotic materials, etc. That
fancier fan from Casablanca might cost $800, but inside the parts are
the same as the $200 fan. The rest is all fancy housings, exotic
looking blades, a built in remote system (which is no different from
the $35 one available from AllFan - a sister company of Casablanca)
and more detailed design that really costs little more to implement.
Now if you add in the fact that some cables might in fact sound
better, then you have something. Whether it is worth that much more
cost is only a question for the buyer to consider.
> With cable the
> justification made for the higher priced spread is sound, and since it's
> rare that that justification can stand up to simple controlled scrutiny,
> what are you left with, a prettier cable for three grand?
>
But the original point was whether this price difference is a threat
to society or something. And, as I said, the person who buys $3,000
cables is likely the same person who spent far more than that on their
system and can likely afford it easily. Who are you or I to judge
whether the "system" should help stop such people from buying what
they prefer.
> >But if you read their "Top Ten" rankings, or "Car of the Year", or
> >"Best Convertible" or "Best Roadster", you will see that they often
> >make selections and grant rankings that are not at all supported by
> >the measurements. They are more often the result of the subjective
> >opinions formed by driving the car. "Car A just felt tighter" "Car B
> >felt more solid" "Even though Car C is an outright winner on the
> >skidpad, it just comes off as being too gimicky" These are the kinds
> >of comments you find all the time. And how about their "long term"
> >road tests. These are not about measurements, but rather about
> >impressions of many drivers over a period of time, each driving the
> >car for a week, a long weekend, a ski trip, a family vacation, on a
> >long car trip, etc.
>
> There's nothing wrong with writing about how you feel about a car in real
> world use, since you are dealing with a complex relationship of ride to
> handling to seating comfort to control positions, radio sensitivity and
> sound and a whole lot more. There are things you can test objectively,
> such as the ability to go around your skid pad at a certain level of
> speed. But what you have to do to get there is an important factor in
> handling, of which the numbers are only a part. Another example: Two cars
> may have the same acceleration from zero to 60, but one is slow off the
> line and doesn't seem to get moving till you get over 30 mph, so it feels
> slower than the one with a more uniform power delivery. Get it now?
No, you don't get it. The point you made, and which I have refuted,
is that these auto publications base their rating on the objective
test data. This is definitely not so. They often end up with ratings
based more on the subjective opinion formed using the vehicle that do
not fully correlate to the test data. You keep avoiding that issue.
If you don't believe me, just pick up a copy of Car & Driver or Motor
Trend and read one of those "Top Ten" or "Best Mid Priced Sedan" or
"Best Import" , etc., articles. The conclusions of those reviews end
up no different from what Stereophile prints - that being highly
subjective opinions.
>
> With audio, we are referring to claims of a simple audible difference that
> disappear with the simplest controls applied.
And in those cars we come down to subjectively measureed differences
that don't correlate to the objective test data. And a person who runs
out and buys a particular car without test driving it just because Car
& Driver picked it is in the same class as the person who might buy an
amp, cable, CD player or other piece of equipment without auditioning
it.
>
> >No, I think their philosophy stands up quite well. Within many
> >individual issues you will find commentary from various writers that
> >are in opposition to each other, reviewers that don't necessarily
> >agree, and lots of fun, subjective commentary about many different
> >topics. Hell, I even own a piece of equipment that one of their
> >reviewers DIDN'T like. He prefered something else! He even said in
> >the review that the preamp was not his favorite choice. And I even
> >found fault with his review methodology and I told him so in an
> >exchange of email. (Yet you guys claim that they "like" everything.
> >Just shows that you actually don't read the magazine too well.)
> >
>
> Not when you report on audible differences that cannot sustain the
> simplest controlled listening test.
You continue to want objective, controlled listening tests and
Stereophile continues to say that is not their bag. They say, in
effect, turn the dial, tune to another station, watch another show,
don't see our movie, etc.
And this sums up this debate: Your problem is that you still don't
understand the concept of preference. You prefer another magazine
type but can't understand why you can't enforce your preference upon
Stereophile and its readers.
Nhsns
about audio. Please.
Norm
>> I hope John Atkinson, the management at Petersen and all of their
>attorneys see this comment.
>
>I would hardly expect them to be surprised.
>
>> It casts Arny in a new light and gives great cause to deal with his
>> comments appropriately. Once such comments move from the ravings a
>> lunatic to those of someone attempting to compete in business, they
>> take on a whole different meaning and import.
>
>I compete with the specialty audio ragazines and web sites the old fashioned
>way: Find something that people want that they don't provide and provide it.
>In my case it's a simple thing: reliable, scientifically sound,
>reality-based truth.
>
>
>> Thanks for putting your foot in your mouth.
>
>I hardly put my foot in my mouth. I simply said something sbout how things
>are.
>
>Given all the demonstrable false claims and slanders that John Atkinson has
>posted on RAO about me, his humble competition, I would sincerily hope that
>his lawyers take him aside and fill him in on his potential liabilities.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Norm Strong (nh...@aol.com) or (no...@scn.org)
2528 31st South, Seattle WA 98l44
Barry Rothman
Nhsns wrote:
>
> C'mon you guys. It isn't fair to rattle the "lawsuit" cage. Let's keep this
> about audio. Please.
It isn't? Why?
Then again, you are right. It isn't fair - at least to Arny. He
simply can't stop from making the kind of statements that will land
him in hot water. After all, he is now forever to be known as
Stereophile's "humble competition" - a term that might have some
validity if the review of computer sound cards was the equivalent of
reviewing fine audio equipment.
Stereophi...@compuserve.com
Succinctly put Barry. I don;' see why any more needs to be said on this
subject. There are magazines, such as The Audio Critic and Stereo Review's
Sound & Vision, that at least part of the time conform to Gene's wishes. Why,
then, can't he be content just to read those magazines and let Stereophile
and its readers go their own way. -- John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Gene Steinberg
<brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>But in fact we are talking about one and the same thing. Even if we
>assume that all cables and amp and CD players sound alike (an
>assumption made only for the purpose of this debaste), then one could
>say that the price difference is in design elements - fancy
>faceplates, giant oversized insulation, gold plated connectors, gold
>stranded wire, exotic stranded wire, exotic materials, etc. That
>fancier fan from Casablanca might cost $800, but inside the parts are
>the same as the $200 fan. The rest is all fancy housings, exotic
>looking blades, a built in remote system (which is no different from
>the $35 one available from AllFan - a sister company of Casablanca)
>and more detailed design that really costs little more to implement.
And do the manufacturers of the fans say it cools better than the cheaper
brand, even though they have the same sized blades and motor?
>
>Now if you add in the fact that some cables might in fact sound
>better, then you have something. Whether it is worth that much more
>cost is only a question for the buyer to consider.
I don't accept this as a fact. It may be that a few cables sound
different, but better is a stretch.
>But the original point was whether this price difference is a threat
>to society or something. And, as I said, the person who buys $3,000
>cables is likely the same person who spent far more than that on their
>system and can likely afford it easily. Who are you or I to judge
>whether the "system" should help stop such people from buying what
>they prefer.
Not my original point. One you made up as a strawman.
>
>No, you don't get it. The point you made, and which I have refuted,
>is that these auto publications base their rating on the objective
>test data. This is definitely not so. They often end up with ratings
>based more on the subjective opinion formed using the vehicle that do
>not fully correlate to the test data. You keep avoiding that issue.
>If you don't believe me, just pick up a copy of Car & Driver or Motor
>Trend and read one of those "Top Ten" or "Best Mid Priced Sedan" or
>"Best Import" , etc., articles. The conclusions of those reviews end
>up no different from what Stereophile prints - that being highly
>subjective opinions.
I didn't make that point either. Another strawman. I said they do
correlate between measurements and subjective reaction. You still don't
seem to get it.
>>
>> >No, I think their philosophy stands up quite well. Within many
>> >individual issues you will find commentary from various writers that
>> >are in opposition to each other, reviewers that don't necessarily
>> >agree, and lots of fun, subjective commentary about many different
>> >topics. Hell, I even own a piece of equipment that one of their
>> >reviewers DIDN'T like. He prefered something else! He even said in
>> >the review that the preamp was not his favorite choice. And I even
>> >found fault with his review methodology and I told him so in an
>> >exchange of email. (Yet you guys claim that they "like" everything.
>> >Just shows that you actually don't read the magazine too well.)
>> >
It doesn't stand up because the main premise remains invalid.
>
>And this sums up this debate: Your problem is that you still don't
>understand the concept of preference. You prefer another magazine
>type but can't understand why you can't enforce your preference upon
>Stereophile and its readers.
We are not talking of preference but of fact versus fiction.