|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.88.135.146
In Reply to: Re: Big deefferance'... posted by andy19191 on March 1, 2007 at 13:59:28:
Your opinion of Stereophile is tainted by your own erroneous description of what their goal as a viabhle commercial entity is.
"The contrast with the Audio Critic which I briefly browsed for the first time last night is striking. Peter Aczel can relax and map pretty much from the brain to the pen, write straightforward technical articles and reviews without the need for audiophile "creativity", call on people in the audio mainstream who could not have their name associated with the anti/pseudo science of Stereophile for articles and information, etc..."So 'In contrast...," Stereophile's writers are unable to "relax and map pretty much from the brain to the pen," meaning that they have another agenda that does not allow them to tell the truth. That agenda seems to be making manufacturers happy. This opinion of yours has been addressed numerous times by JA, certainly to my satisfaction.
"...the anti/pseudo science of Stereophile for articles and information, etc..." Boy, that's a deusie! You are clearly stating that you Stereophile is anti science, or at the least, pseudo-scientific. If your feelings weren't clear before, they certainly are now.
"Yet the lack of what one might call professionalism in considering what his readers are probably going to to want to read rather than what he wants to write about is striking compared with Stereophile."Oh, this may ostensibly be a condemnation of Mr. Aczel, your implication (again not difficult to discern) is that Stereophile writes only what it's readers want to read, not what it's writers want to say.
Did I read you incorrectly?
Follow Ups:
> Your opinion of Stereophile is tainted by your own erroneous
> description of what their goal as a viabhle commercial entity is.Bit baffled by this. What is Stereophile's goal beyond being a viable commercial entity?
> So 'In contrast...," Stereophile's writers are unable to "relax and
> map pretty much from the brain to the pen," meaning that they have
> another agenda that does not allow them to tell the truth.I was contrasting the tasks of the two editors. John Atkinson has a relatively difficult task to achieve which, as far as I can judge, he does well. Peter Aczel has/had a relatively straightforward task which was good in some respects but remarkably poor in others. A difference in professionalism is probably a good way to summarise it.
I intended no comment on the writers. In the very little I have seen of the Audio Critic some of the writers are clearly technically knowledgeable about the hardware they are reviewing, some are audio (not audiophile) professionals and the reviews would appear to be fairly conventional reviews of technical equipment. The writers in Stereophile on the other hand are generally not technically knowledgeable about the technical equipment they are reviewing and, I suspect, probably believe it to have little relevance. What they produce is intended for the consumption of audiophiles rather than people with some technical knowledge and an interest in the technical peformance of the hardware. To point out that much of what they produce is technical nonsense and in the commercial interests of the current audiophile industry is fair. The motivation will obviously vary from writer-to-writer and, although it is interesting to speculate about the rogue/nutter ratio, it is rarely possible to judge with a high degree of confidence from the outside. What is probably not fair is a black-and-white zero tolerance when one is not part of the intended audience.
> You are clearly stating that you Stereophile is anti science, or at the least,
> pseudo-scientific.Indee but why should this be a problem to you as a subjectivist?
> If your feelings weren't clear before, they certainly are now.
Feelings about what?
> Your implication (again not difficult to discern) is that Stereophile writes only what
> it's readers want to read, not what it's writers want to say.I was contrasting the magazines/editorship. If the editor of a commercial publication did not consider what the target audience wanted to read this would be strange. Are you claiming that the editor of Stereophile does not do this? Or, having introduced the word only, are you going to claim he does not only do this?
You seem intent on not explaining yourself. But the effort to get you to try bores me, so I'll only comment on one "point" you've made:"> You are clearly stating that you Stereophile is anti science, or at the least,
> pseudo-scientific.Indee but why should this be a problem to you as a subjectivist?"
Well, to borrow some of your technique, I'll ask you a question: what makes you so sure I'm a "subjectivist??" That I don't find JA's approach to equipment reviewing to be "pseudo-science" has nothing to do with being a subjectivist or an objectivist. And it should be a "problem to" me because I find your comments to be untrue. You have based your opinions on a complete lack of knowledge (kind of unscientific of you, isn't it?).
Something about him seems familiar... Oh yeah!... kinda like Pat D with a brain and with a sprinkling of DB/SM personality dust.:)
.
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: