|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.115.217.131
On page 58 of the March, 2015 issue of Stereophile is a Vandersteen ad for their newer speaker, the Model 7 Mk II.
There you are quoted, "... the hairs on the back of my neck stood up, so powerfully physical was the presence of the singer in the room.... musically perfect across the board!"
I'm curious whether this was an accurate quote of your words and your thoughts?
Follow Ups:
Boy the microscopes come out when someone says anything, positive or negative, and on any piece of gear. What did he really mean? Subliminal messages. Did a possible glance of Dr. Kal's eye upon an ad change his being totally objective. Really? I this how far we have fallen....a conspiracy around every corner and turned page.
If I have learned anything over the years it is that I take totally on face value what I read in Stereophile or in The Absolute Sound. If I thought they were charlatans I would stop reading and would have done it long ago.
There are truly more important things to be worried about in America in 2015. They are easy to find.
Jim Tavegia
No argument there as our nation is without doubt entering into a period of lawlessness.
But one would be an absolute fool to think that "high-end" audio is somehow excluded from this culture.
And to some degree, that's all I'm really trying to point out. That it's not just performance-oriented industries in other galaxies that are being affected.
BTW, since when should one check their brain off at the door when reading a publication? Hasn't that gone on long enough?
Words mean something and always have. Whether it's about tidily-winks or international policy, people have won and lost fortunes and billions have died throughout the course of history for the words that come from some people's tongues.
I implied no such conspiratorial or subliminal message coming from Atkinson's endorsement. Rather I see recklessness and/or lack of understanding for a subject matter in which he should be an expert.
Some of us expect such nonsensical endorsements from the average audio enthusiast who might not be able to punch their way out of a musical bag if their lives depended on it.
But coming from somebody of Atkinson's supposed caliber should be unacceptable by anybody who does not take "high-end" audio in the same light as a Simpson's cartoon.
In my opinion, Atkinson's endorsement of the Vandersteen speakers exposed his real caliber to the entire industry.
Lucky for Atkinson, since the industry is still very much in its infancy stages from a performance perspective, nobody seemed to notice or care enough to put 2 and 2 together.
Im a bit lost in the fog , help me here , at issue is JA ENDORSEMENT OF ONE VANDERSTEEN SPEAKERS SYSTEM and your problem with this is ...?
IMO, Mr. Atikinson's endorsement of the Vandersteen's being "musically perfect across the board" is not much different than:
1. A renowned movie critic exclaiming that the movie "Napoleon Dynamite" is the equivalent of "Gone With the Wind"
or
2. A renowned car reviewer exclaiming that the new BMW 335i is the equivalent of a Formula 1 race car.
In any of these cases, the reviewer would or should lose all credibility.
lets review;
You asked a silly pointed question; your position hanging precariously on one tiny !!!INCOMPLETE!!!! quote.
JA, (probably aware of your shell-game tactic) doesn't take the smelly bait ... so you decide to "speculate"; twisted meanings & out of context wording, ALL simply to fuel your OBVIOUS agenda.
Called out, you continue to fabricate ... using silly pseudo car & movie quotes which you somehow "think" relates to JA's "credibility".
Ironically, now it's your own pretentious credibility that's in question. Good luck with that in the future, John!
Especially since you already have very little credibility.
But for Atkinson to make such a ludicrous endorsement, ... well, he pretty much demonstrated that in the end, he has no more credibility about things audio than you.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe he avoided answering my questions because he realized he f'ed up BIG TIME?
IMO, there is no recovery from that endorsement. Only damage control. Which was to not respond.
BTW, have you checked the levels of fluoride in your drinking water lately? I suspect they'd register pretty high in your region.
... again, truly meaningless coming from you!You continuously FABRICATE nonsense: case in point ... I've never "endorsed" JA within this thread.
> > there is no recovery from that endorsement. < <
No recovery is, ironically, all you've got right.
Edits: 05/24/15
As usual, your subject matter comprehension and logic suffer greatly. More symptoms of highly fluoridated drinking water.
BTW, that's ouch, not outch. Tell your city manager to ease up on fluoridating your brain.
It`s nice to see some young folks here, of the "you think you`re hot but you`re snot" persuasion.
Daniel
speaking of comprehension skills; in your equipment list ...
> > Other Source(s):3 Foundation Research LC-10's. < <
BTW ... Power line conditioners are NOT regarded as source components. My advice, as difficult as this may be for you to comprehend, (so I'll try keeping it "simple") ... PLC are more appropriately listed under the title: "Other (Power Conditioner, Racks etc.)"
Your welcome.
Tbone, if one knew what they were doing.(not saying you do or don't), then one should also know that the sonic improvements of either / or both proper AC mgmt (especially proper line conditioning) and proper vibration mgmt can provide the greatest sonic improvements ever encountered.Simply because electricity and vibrations are 2 basic energies required for our playback systems to function in the first place. Yet, when these same 2 energies are left under controlled or undermanaged, the distortions they induce will severe cripple our sensitive instruments' precision and accuracy that they are only able to function at a level far below their full potential. A universal performance-limiting governor if you will.
Not to go down this rabbit hole, but I always use the term "proper" or "superior to imply there are improper or inferior line conditioners, racks, etc. In fact, in either case, looking for a superior line conditioner or rack is very much like looking for needle in a haystack.
But once one hear's the dramatic sonic improvements of a superior electricity and vibration mgmt, I'd venture they would much rather put everything else in the accessories category.
In fact, I call these two categories the foundation of any system simply because they impact all or most all components and determine the ultimate performance of any system. When executed properly with superior products and methodologies, the system soars far beyond what one thought possible. When improper or inferior products and methods are chosen, a huge performance governor is induced severely crippling the sensitive components so that much of the music processed remains inaudible below a much raised noise floor.
As with any supposedly performance-oriented industry, it's the foundation that ultimately determines the performance.
However, since so many of the products in these 2 categories either do little, do nothing, or worse induce their own sonic harm, even the so-called experts keep them in the "accessories" category.
Edits: 05/25/15
JA may just skewer Vandersteen , fair and balance just for you Stehno ...
:)
Edits: 05/25/15 05/25/15
IMO, Mr. Atikinson's quote in the Vandersteen ad,"... the hairs on the back of my neck stood up, so powerfully physical was the presence of the singer in the room.... musically perfect across the board!"
is perhaps the most overly hyped comment I've yet seen from somebody of John's supposed caliber.
With regard to John Atkinson's comments, it's important to note that Robert Harley, editor-in-chief at The Absolute Sound said in the Mar/Apr, 2009 issue, "I believe that the primary reason reproduced music doesn't sound like live music is some kind of catastrophic loss that occurs at the microphone diaphragm."
Jonathan Valin, senior editor at TAS said about one year earlier, "We are lucky if even our very best playback systems can capture even 15% of the magic of the live performance."
And again, quoting John Atkinson from the Sep, 2009 Stereophile issue, "I'm starting to feel that it is something that is never captured by recordings at all that ultimately defines the difference between live and recorded sound."
All 3 get it as do some others. Or so I thought. And to the best of my knowledge none have retracted their statements uniquely describing the very real gulf that separates live music from reproduced music. And even though Harley's speculated cause is inaccurate, the key thing to remember is what I consider Harley's very accurate use of the word "catastrophic".
Yet, here is Mr. Atkinson claiming among other things musical perfection and across the board to boot.
I have nothing personal against John so I have no intention of going to town on his comments. Nor do I intend to go down the conspiratorial path, and though such possibilities always exist, there simply is no reason to, even if such an endorsement was exchanged for profit.
That said, John's quoted comment is perhaps the best concise example of what I and some others have already surmised for some time. That, contrary to popular belief and the wishful thinking of many, from a performance perspective the "high-end" audio industry remains very much in its infancy.
And until somehow the industry as a collective whole comes to this realization, stratospheric prices, bling bling, higher resolution formats, more channels, and measurements will continue to substitute as the holy grail instead of real playback performance in this supposed "high-performance" industry.
I can think of no other reasonable explanation for John's quoted comments. Unless perhaps he was eating his favorite ice cream at the same time he was listening to the Vandersteen speakers.
.
Edits: 04/30/15
After spending enough time in and around recording studios I have to say the major issues happen after the master are past on, the sound captured in the studio on the demo's never really seem to make it to final release.Microphone issue..?
Mastering issue..?
re-generation issues ..?We used to make transfers straight to acetate discs directly from tape masters, they sound pretty close to the tape, yet released LP's and cd's not, master tape copies are now making a so called "come back" for those never exposed..
Regards
Edits: 05/23/15 05/23/15
and comparing stereo to a live music event is nearly as meaningless ...
Geez ... if the level of my system capped my enjoyment to only 15% compared to a live performance - I'd have left this hobby a longggg time ago.
And besides, this hobby isn't so much about replicating a "live" environment, it's MUCH more about recreating an archived RECORDED event (rarely "live").
It's no wonder JA didn't respond.
Tbone, you've never really given audio much thought, have you?
Last time I checked, every piece of music ever recorded was live.
So in your opinion, Valin and Harley don't know what they're talking about but you do? That's ok. It's good to know where you stand as most people don't have the courage to do so.
Regardless, Atkinson already responded and he responded again with his silence. Can you blame him?
> > Tbone, you've never really given audio much thought, have you? < <
Well, let's hope you didn't hurt yourself "speculating" ... yet another meaningless response.
Tbone, stop being a goof. Meaning that until now you have been.
Did you notice that I used the phrase, "... you've never really given much thought to audio, ..."?
I was taking the chance that you understood the difference between audio and music.
My bad.
> > > > I was taking the chance that you understood the difference between audio and music. < <
Why take that chance, just speculate ...
As to this:""I believe that the primary reason reproduced music doesn't sound like live music is some kind of catastrophic loss that occurs at the microphone diaphragm.""
There used to be a music series on IFC when it was a good channel called Live at Abbey Road I think. One week there were a few bands playing at Abbey Road, same board. First Massive Attack who I really like plays and the singer is using what looks like a Shure SM-58. Then Trisha Yearwood comes on using what looks like the $100K microphone from Manley. What a huge difference!
So as long as we have mostly shit recordings I can't see buying Odin - 2 unless I had a net worth north of 25 million minimum.
E
T
Excellent, and well thought out post.
Seems to me there are only positive and negative reviews. Had the aforementioned reviews been positive reviews, then would you complain Stereophile handed out positive reviews in order to curry advertising? Have you complained in the past (I'm too busy to research) that Stereophile hands out positive reviews (because everything is a positive review - except in this thread) to generate advertising dollars?
It seems we are left with people who complain about both positive and negative reviews. Some people just like to complaint. My guess is that most of the people who complain about Stereophile don't know whether they are pitching or catching.
...is critical, mentioning negative aspects of performance, even when the overall review is positive.
I don't think this thread is about whether the final verdict of a review is positive or negative per se, but rather about the magazine's motivation for a positive or negative review. I certainly agree you can take virtually any Stereophile review, place the positive and negative comments on each side of Lady Justice, and her scales will, typically, balance toward a positive review. But I think the OP was looking at reviews in which he believe the scales tipped towards the overall negative review, and concluded that the reason for the negative reviews was because the manufacturer did not advertise in Stereophile. My only point was that if the review was positive, he would just as likely conclude that Stereophile publishes the positive review because it wants to attract another advertiser. They can't win.
It seems that your being too busy to do any research on the matter has led you to the wrong thread.
Why not try your posts in this thread instead where they may make more sense?
As a reviewer, I have no idea of who advertises or not. Sure, I could scan each issue and look but, frankly, I don't read ads (as much as possible) in any of the publications I read in any field. Occasionally, I am distracted by one of outstanding beauty or ugliness but that is rare.
I suspect that most reviewers are similarly uninterested.
Kal, no disrespect intended but when you say you don't look at ads in the magazines, it strains credibility. You may think you're not looking but it does registers in your brain on a subliminal level. And there's nothing wrong with that. Reviewers are people, too. Looking won't corrupt you. You (and others) have professional standards that you won't allow to be violated.
I read all the reviews and look at all the adds, but the selection very rarely includes SET amplifiers or speakers to match.
I have decided this is a blessing to owners of SET systems, as one does not have to wade through the noise.
Of course SET is not dead, far from it. But the Sound Practices model is not financially feasible in the world of gear magazines.
Observe, before you think. Think before you open your yap. Act on the basis of experience.
Memory really requires salience and, for me, ads have little/none. I read the NY Times every day and I have been on their reader's panel for more than a decade. Every week or two, they send a questionnaire about the previous day's edition and, typically, ask detailed questions about an advertisement. Even though I have read the particular section and, often, read an article on that same page, I cannot recall seeing the advertisement except in, perhaps, 1 out of 20 cases.
No doubt there is always some subliminal effect but if it never rises to the level of consciousness, how can one know that there was or was not an ad?
If you are a on a reader's panel for which you're regularly asked to look out for ads, it would seem you're more conscience of them than average readers.
Conversely, it seems you're leaning towards the 'live under a rock' ("...how can one know that there was or was not an ad?") defense. As far as your recollection of materials put before you in general, who knows unless your responses are rated?
1. I am not asked to look out for ads and, if I had been, I would not participate. There are occasional polls about editorial content.
2. My experience with reading the NYTimes and with the panel is my point.
"I am not asked to look out for ads and, if I had been, I would not participate. There are occasional polls about editorial content."
I was responding to, "Every week or two, they send a questionnaire about the previous day's edition and, typically, ask detailed questions about an advertisement."
Do you think your attitude/awareness of ads is typical of the average Stereophile reader??
And if so, why would a manufacturer/dealer/distributor spend money to appear in the magazine you write for? What is their ROI?
Well, for Fremer, Dudley, and Atkinon's sake, I hope not. As freelance contributor who I am guessing does not need the income, I guess what do you care.
Although, someone please correct me if I am wrong, but there still is no metric for measuring efficacy of print ads.
> On page 58 of the March, 2015 issue of Stereophile is a Vandersteen ad for
> their newer speaker, the Model 7 Mk II...I'm curious whether this was an
> accurate quote of your words and your thoughts?
As Beetlemania pointed out, this was in my report from the 2015 CES. I
will be reviewing the Vandersteen 7 Mk.II and its matching amplifier in
the late fall, God willin' and the creek don't rise.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
John, what is your definition of "musically perfect"? Can you elaborate on that? Or should the reader just take that on its face?
By "musically perfect", are you not implying that the room, the associated gear, the recordings, the studio engineering, etc. would all have to be musically perfect as well?
Are you also implying that all distortions and shortcomings that supposedly plague every last playback system were absent in this system? Can you explain how this might be possible?
Are you implying that the sound you heard was indistinguishable from the live performance?
If what you heard was indeed musically perfect wouldn't it have been more appropriate to state that you were in the recording hall rather than the singer being in your room?
Also, if what you heard was musically perfect, then do we really need a new higher rez format like MQA?
If musical perfection was achieved in that room, then is there any point in others continuing their R&D efforts?
Is there such a thing as more musically perfect than what you heard in the Vandersteen room?
How does this musical perfection that you heard compare or contrast with your statement in the September, 2009 issue, page 3 where you speculated "I'm starting to feel that it is something that is never captured by recordings at all that ultimately defines the difference between live and recorded sound."
Have you ever recanted or rescinded that statement?
Supposing in a moment of erotic passion your lover were to whisper "It was perfect!", I'm curious as to whether you would commence a similar inquiry. I think you're trying to wring too much out of the word, at least how it's used in common parlance.
Have a perfect day!
Daniel
> Have you ever recanted or rescinded that statement?
Have you ever considered that you might be asking too many questions
to be considered reasonable?
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
If my questions seem overwhelming in number, please feel free to just answer one or 2.
Many view the quotes we see in advertisements as endorsements. Can you give some insight on how they are acquired (legally)?
> Can you give some insight on how they are acquired (legally)?
Legally, under the US copyright law, a quotation of a few words from a
copyrighted published article is very likely to be found to be legitimate
fair use. However, I do request people wanting to quote from Stereophile
and its associated website to formally request permission and to include
a standard attribution.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
It sounds like a widely understood standardization I should already know but what is, "a standard attribution"?
> what is, "a standard attribution"?
Writer's name, name of publication, and issue date.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
i hope the ad provided context and that this was not a review quote.
roger wang
Look here
I would be interested in reading about that entire system, including, the DBS cables/cords!
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: