|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
111.14.40.151
Why was Audioquest given a venue to write a "letter to the community" on Stereophile's website? The issue being addressed has nothing to with the magazine as far as I can tell.
Why did not they not use their own website or forums? This seems to me to be highly unusual.
Follow Ups:
As has been pointed out, the REAL issue is whether AQ had anything to do with the fraudulent advertising. But as a lawyer, I have to ask, "where are the damages". In the world of civil liability, a tort without proximately caused damages does not give rise to a cause of action absent statutory damages. My point; can anyone oomplain that they bought an expensive AQ hdmi cable due to this video?
The most predictable and yawn-inducing aspect of the open letter is the debate about cables. Not just hdmi, but ethernet, analog interconnect, speaker, power, usb, you name it. And, yawn, yawn, and more yawn, those that are engineers or physicists or the like are the loudest pontificators. I am reminded of the famous quote by Upton Sinclair; ""It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Is 'lawyerable' a legal term? :-)
And I am just guessing here, but I bet that the LAST thing AQ really wants to know, and have disclosed to the public through the court system, is the depth with which its own employees were involved in the production of the YouTube Video in question, including said 'Sales Manager', David Ellington.
Just a guess, because: "The only thing I know about the law is that lawyers charge by the hour, or portions thereof."
Is this the video
It looks, smells and sounds like a fraud similar in principle to VWs emissions cheat although not in dollar value obviously.
It also seems that Stereophile is only too happy to supply a fraudster with a public platform for his attempt to spin the story.
It is also sad that it took a year and a determined individual in the shape of Mark Waldrep to do the job of any half decent HiFi magazine.
To be perfectly fair, Stereophile and most other hifi mags would not have the occasion to review HDMI cables. It is not a common connection for high end audio, although I do see that may change.Also to be fair, the VW emissions scandal was despicable and simply was another example of corporate scum only being sorry for getting caught, and the results of their deceit has very serious health ramifications, where, HDMI cables...not so much.
Mark Waldrep is brilliant, no doubt, but I admit he can be confrontational and highly opinionated.
Edits: 01/31/16 01/31/16
"but I admit he can be confrontational and highly opinionated."
Gee, so unlike you ...
Shouldn't your moniker be The Dull instead?
I am sure it should, you seem to know best ...
The VW scandal was a bit different from that , very much so , agree on the corporate Scum part thou , established in 1871 ....
Edits: 01/31/16
After speaking with attorneys and PR consultants I have decided to spin this as follows:
A public mea culpa
Go out of my way to praise and thank the messenger
Pledge to track down all parties responsible, but they don't work for AQ limiting our options
Hedge by saying I may never get access to raw data, thus making previous statements moot
Oh by the way.....I knew about this issue a year ago, but chose to do nothing at that time
As for SP's involvement, I will say it has raised more than a few eyebrows, especially when other more ethically questionable publications passed on the opportunity. But, from the SP post and embedded links, one can read both sides of the story after a few clicks.
First an exodus of contributing writers, then the Glenn Frey back handed obit, now this. One may wonder what is going on.
Best, Ross
I guess you nailed it.
Streophile's involvement should raise eyebrows. For, to repeat, no other publication, even less trusted ones, chose to run it.
If I was the Publisher or owner of Stereophile I would ask the current editor to start grooming his successor, on the double. Based on several dubious judgement calls, and the fact he has, IMO, run his course, a new fresh direction is needed.
What is it about being able to post to an Internet forum that makes people think they are empowered to make serious recommendations about whether somebody should be fired from their job? A useful reminder that while the Internet has provided unprecedented access to means of mass communication, the standards of admission have never been so low. Phooey!
And yeah, I got exactly the same impression, despite what Garvey might say.
John/Stereophile gave Audioquest a platform to address a controversy; one he likely would not have given a minor league cable manufacturer accused of the same offense.
The fact that, in retrospect, the fallout from Low's weak excuse-piece might have done more damage than the original disclosure of possible fraud in the marketing of cables (fancy THAT!) has little to do with whether he should have been given the platform in the first place.
I have my own opinions on that, but it's NOT MY MAGAZINE and I have never subscribed so WTF do I care?
That said, I think I do understand where Stereophile sits in all of this.
Think about it.
IF there is rampart FRAUD in the marketing of cables by a (the?) MAJOR player in the business, what does THAT say about the industry in general? Is there REALLY any differences in the SQ with ANY of this stuff we spend money on?
Maybe there's a reason that blinded A:B testing can't even be MENTIONED on some of the 'boards' here!
Scary!
Enough to treat us to a boatload of ALL CAPS comments :-)
Scary indeed.
involves not JA's handing the keys to the kingdom to Audioquest's owner, as some here have whined about.
Again, it ain't my magazine and JA is free to do as he pleases with no advice or moralizing from this non-subscriber.
So no, that wasn't and isn't what my posts to the thread address.
But you seemed to miss that point, ALL CAP or NO!
I DO feel that Audioquest would have been better served had JA refused their request for a platform. That view is based on the fact that JA now feels compelled to publish links to Mark Waldrep's original post as well as his followup to Low's weakly justified defense.
That certainly is NOT a good thing for Audioquest.
> I DO feel that Audioquest would have been better served had JA refused
> their request for a platform.
For the record, AudioQuest did not request me to reprint Bill Low's open
letter. I was on the original distribution list and decided that it was
something Stereophile's readers would be interested in reading.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
After of course that you asked his permission to do so!
Can you think of any other reason he might have sent the editor of a magazine an 'open letter'?
Serious question. Were you even aware of the fuss over the video before you read his letter?
Was ANYONE?
Call me uninformed, by I'd never heard of Mark Waldrep or Real HD-Audio before reading this thread.
Tempest in a teapot until it makes the pages of Steriophile (on line)?
Audioquest better off had you chosen NOT to publish their 'open letter'?
Ironic, especially in view of all of the criticism that's been heaped on you for giving them the 'platform'.
Who could forget meeting Dr. AIX?
WHO?
Not me!
Wind out of Garvey's sail ... :)
Huh? If you ask me JA is just digging the hole deeper.
Do you need smelling salts?
It was clear that JA did not "ask for permission" to publish this early one and that I saw his post indicating it was sent out "just about every" other editor.
Which makes it look WORSE for him since he is the ONLY ONE to publish it.
and I am smelling salts .... :)
Edits: 02/02/16
I would have suggested "Get a life," but someone beat me to it.
Sez Dave Pogue while wasting keystrokes conversing with someone named 'Ivan303' on Audio Asylum. ;-)
Your post is a useful reminder that reading comprehension is a lost skill.I never suggested anybody be fired. I suggested retirement, and an orderly handling over of the keys to the kingdom. Mr. Atkinson should be recognized for his years of good service, and given a very, very generous send off package.
Edits: 01/31/16
Not true you nitwit. You are seeking the refuge of narrow interpretation, as defamers often do when called to account. What you wrote is, "If I was the Publisher or owner of Stereophile I would ask the current editor to start grooming his successor, on the double." Everybody knows you are talking about a well established editor who is still in mid-career and has not expressed the slightest intention of slowing down, let alone stopping. Suggesting that the persons to whom he is accountable should tell him to "start grooming his successor, on the double" means only one thing to any intelligent reader. Are you not prepared to own that?
Well I certainly think that JA made a serious mistake in publishing Low's letter, but I will let the market decide his fate. I dont think that JA operates in a very competitive environment where significant dollars are at stake or standards are particularly high. His readership seems particularly tolerant. I think this tolerance says nothing positive or negative about his quality as an editor.
I really object to your assertion that JA can be trusted to make a objective decision about his fate at this magazine. I am not going to get into everything that I think makes him a lousy editor, but I will say that he seems the type that will think himself capable years after he has stopped eating solid food. I think his exit would make for a better magazine and have thought this for years.
I voted against his continued tenure by not renewing my subscription.
"JA made a serious mistake in publishing Low's letter, but I will let the market decide his fate. I don't think that JA operates in a very competitive environment where significant dollars are at stake or standards are particularly high. His readership seems particularly tolerant. I think this tolerance says nothing positive or negative about his quality as an editor."
Despite the tangents, side conversations, smoke and mirrors, and distractions, I think you managed to get to the heart of the matter of this thread with the above.
Well done.
No need to protect the readership gents, I'm sure most can read, comprehend and then protect themselves, maybe those offended are in need of some kind of PG rated issue, seems everything printed in SP penetrates their intellectual shields.
Only children call people names on internet forums.
Mid career? Yeh,sure, people pushing 70s are clearly mid career.
The shoe fits you nitwit!
I get your point. I just thought he was way offside.
is a sure way of 'winning' when one is having a disagreement on the internet."A useful reminder that while the Internet has provided unprecedented access to means of mass communication, the standards of admission have never been so low."
Couldn't agree more!
Edits: 02/01/16 02/01/16
dear lord, a lawyer that explains it. I was being kind when I called you a child.
...state of (audio) journalism today.
I've noticed a number of writers retiring from newspapers, too, and magazines going out of business.
As to Baird's opinion piece on the Eagles after Frey's death, he seems to be a musical elitist - after all he writes the "Album of the Month".
And what is journalism without controversy?
nt
Nt
Considering the unfolding of events, the undercurrents at play and the ramifications in the long-term :
1/25/2016 - Mark Waldrep is admittedly ecstatic about his original report of the AQ YouTube video :
"I've been writing this blog for almost three years and have never had the kind of instant response as my piece revealing the fraud behind AudioQuest and their HDMI cables as represented in the YouTube video."
1/28/2016 - Stereophile posts AQ's William Low's Open Letter. Upon reading the Letter, I believe that AQ's response is so weak that it could be interpreted as damning a certain part of AQ's business practices. Also, by referencing the credibility of the audio industry in general, AQ attempts to draw into its predicament "the honorability of the industry in general." Mr Low says, "I'm sorry for all of us who care about our separate and collective credibility," as if the rest of the industry were under scrutiny as well.
Hence, Mark Waldrep would be Senator Jefferson Smith in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939); Mr Low would be Claude Rains' Senator Joseph Paine; and John Atkinson would be Harry Carey's President of the Senate, bringing down the Senate gavel on closure.
And to think I would never have known of all of this, but for the Stereophile post. The issue could have disappeared along with the YouTube video, had it not been rescued by the post.
Caveat : Please believe that my post is made entirely in jest. The characters and events portrayed in my post are fictitious. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, or to actual events is purely coincidental.
"And to think I would never have known of all of this, but for the Stereophile post."
Close, but not really. We would never have known this stuff if not for WALPDREP's post. And Low's response, if it appeared on their web page or FB page would have been linked back on Waldrep's site.
To give Stereophile credit is a joke.
to keep up with all the brouhaha...
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
I mean posting Low's admittedly weak (I resisted the pun) letter could be seen as something less than generous.
After all wasn't it AQ that stole Stephen Mejias away robbing JA of a exit?
that Audioquest's Sales Manager, David Ellington was somehow involved in the video?
Odd, that.
Also unclear as to why Audioquest has such little leverage over a major distributor who seems to have also been involved in the production of the video?
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
On a forum like this where a lot of people with little real knowledge have been taken in by a lot of false and misleading advertising and magazine reviews, Waldrep's contention would be hotly debated and could even lead to a flame war. Some people might even get ejected for using the words Waldrep used. However, in the world of professionals in this business and those who have real knowledge about how this equipment actually works, Waldrep's claims are beyond dispute. This is why Low didn't deny what Waldrep said, the fallacy in the video was just too obvious. The best Low can do is to try to distance himself from that video. But because he waited an entire year after he was aware of it and only acted in response to Waldrep who is a highly respected recording engineer busting him, he's going to have some tough sledding ahead. His credibility is on the line along with a lot of his competitors. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Good point.
The fraud was obvious to anyone in the business or who has real electrical engineering smarts. Low's open letter was a mea culpa. He's trying to distance himself from the video but he can't. He knew by his own admission for a year. He could simply have told the offender immediately to remove it right away or he'd lose the franchise to sell the product. Evidently Low thought it would simply skate by, no one would look at it let alone expose it from a position of being heard. The coverup is usually even worse than the offense.
Who cares about some damn emails .... :)
Would you care if they were top secret emails? :-)
Secret recipes are always accepted , let me wipe my screen .... :)
This message has been moved to a more appropriate venue .
which I think is pretty appalling. Audioquest knew that the video was up; the head honcho felt the content of the video was seemingly impossible, and did next to nothing until the doctoring was clearly demonstrated.
They then act like offended parties. Sorry, you don't get to do that.
There is a line in the letter about the integrity of the industry and how we should still regard the industry on the whole as not corrupt (Please Note that I am in NO WAY saying that Stereophile is corrupt in any way). I think the industry now has to demonstrate their integrity; and this particularly true of the cable accessory part of the industry.
I do think that the reviewing magazines such as Stereophile need to regard this segment of the industry with the suspicion that they have earned
Yeah, that cracked me up. Audioquest was the "victim"? Funny how they didn't feel "victimized" until Waldrep's rap came out.
I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for the cable industry to prove their integrity, nor would I expect anything remotely like an expose of bs claims made by cable manufacturers in S'phile or other hifi publications.
Cable manufacturers make BS claims ..? Well then They must be out of business or someone is eating it up ...Really ..
The OP is not offended by BS claims , he's offended by the helping hand, one he feels was unnecessary enuff to call John out on it, AQ is a member , long standing , i see nothing wrong in John presenting a platform for AQ , I see no quid pro quo, silly to believe longstanding members wont have relationships, lighten up gents , nothing here to see ..
Edits: 01/30/16
LOL. Obviously somebody's "eating it up". If you're hungry, bon appetit.
Anyway, my reply was to part of John N's post - not the OP, and I said zilch about S'phile putting Low's "damage control" on their site. I have no objection, especially since I find it amusing.
I don't disagree. The story is a bit convoluted, but it does not put AQ in a good light.
I still think that Stereophile allowing the CEO a venue to do damage control is more appalling.
Stephen Mejias still works for Audioquest? He is a very good writer.
Bill
I assume so.
It would seem that Stereophile published this piece because it was thought that it would be of interest to its readers. I don't see it as irregular or inappropriate. Perhaps the difference for me is that after all these years of reading Stereophile I've developed a degree of trust for the magazine and most especially, its current editor.
It wouldn't even occur to me that the piece was published because Stereophile and Audioquest have a business relationship. I feel that Stereophile has a certain degree of integrity which I'd not ascribe to some of the other print and digital audio magazines.
You must be easy to please. No worries. Why would Stereophile care about Audioquest's PR problem? All they did was provide a venue, free of charge, for the CEO of AQ to do damage control. Nothing to do with a review..No other publication thought it was "of interest".
I am starting to see more an more odd choices here.
Im sure JA would have done the same for you , are you a club member ..?
I would not join any club that would have me as a member..:)
The comments section is certainly interesting...with even some removed "flame" comments by John Atkinson to protect Bill "Damage Control" Low's feelings!
I doubt that Stereophile is concerned about Audioquest's PR problem, assuming one can be said to actually exist. I very much doubt that was the motivation for publishing the piece. I try not to see bad guys where none exist. If that's "easy to please" so be it.
How can you not see the problem?
It seems that you think everything is a problem.
Do you have anything to add to the discussion or not? Agree or disagree but just say something that would indicate thought.
NT
> Why was Audioquest given a venue to write a "letter to the community" on
> Stereophile's website?
AudioQuest sent this open letter to pretty much every audio editor and
writer yesterday evening and also posted it to Facebook. I thought it
sufficiently newsworthy to be worth reprinting on the Stereophile website,
so I asked Mr. Low for permission to do so.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
you get from audiophiles from every possible direction. I don't know how you stomach it. Now you are getting it for reporting an on going debate/scandal in the audiophile world that is clearly well worth reporting. Unbelievable.
I for one thank you for reporting on this ongoing "event" and acting like a true journalist by merely reporting relevant facts and letting the chips fall where they may.
> I thought it sufficiently newsworthy to be worth reprinting on the
> Stereophile website...
This assumption of mine has been questioned, so I thought it worth pointing
out that Stereophile's publication of Bill Low's open letter has generated
intense interest from readers - not just on our website but also on
Stereophile's Facebook page, where it generated an insightful discussion of
how a digital cable can affect the resultant sound quality of the decoded
data. Mark Waldrep has now also responded to the Stereophile reprint on
his own blog.
The term "newsworthy" applies, I feel.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
It adds a lot of context to the video issue for those of us that aren't up to speed on this controversy.
-Rod
You're welcome, Rod.
I would have liked to include Mark Waldrep's spectra of the doctored audio
on the Stereophile website, but that would have infringed his copyright.
Instead, I included a link to Mark's original analysis in the Stereophile
reprint of the AudioQuest letter.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Sadly, you don't seem to think your judgement is question, and that your are setting a bad precedent.This was between AQ and Waldrep. Why did you get involved? "Newsworthy"?
NO other website decided to publish the "open letter". Ask your self why. Because they knew it was none of their business.Were you after cheap web traffic?
Are you going to now publish all damage control responses from all other high end audio manufacturers who find them selves in a PR pickle? I would like an answer to that.
Edits: 01/31/16 01/31/16
Mr. Garvey, where did you get your training in journalism or practical experience in publishing?
Thank you for your advice on how I should do my job.I believe you have thoroughly beaten this horse to death.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 01/31/16
Excuse me, but I'm getting totally confused with the issue here. News is news, whether it's good or bad. If anything, publishing the 'Open Letter' exposes the video to scrutiny more than it gives AQ cover. Perhaps other outlets ignored publication because they wanted to give AQ cover or just didn't want to get into the fray. You'd have to ask them about it.
It seems to me that this discussion should be about AQ, not JA.
-Rod
I respectfully beg to differ. JA decided to publish a response from a private company that has all other avenues available to it. An open letter from a CEO is NOT news. The story BEHIND it is news. This is clear as day. No, the editor's judgement is clearly in question.
The S'phile site has a link to Waldrep's original piece, shows us Low's "damage control" reaction, and JA just provided a link to Waldrep's response to Low. What's left?
I don't see S'phile doing anything to protect an advertiser by taking their side in this episode, nor is the mag hiding anything.
JA also posted a link to Mark Waldrep's response. If the story is news, then the response is news. Why does judgement come into this? What are the motives? To hurt AQ or help defend them?
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
-Rod
Fair enough. But I look at it as a bad precedent.
The PROPER way, and I think deep down, Atkinson knows this, was to provide a link to AQ's response from either their web page or their facebook page. This is how every other "news" organization does it.
I think my question as to whether other letters from other high end companies who find them selves in PR trouble will be given the venue is 100% legit.
> The PROPER way, and I think deep down, Atkinson knows this...
Please do not project your own opinions and motivations on to me.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
You seem to operate in a bubble professionally. That is your prerogative.
> You seem to operate in a bubble professionally. That is your prerogative.
Indeed it is. The definitive job description for a magazine editor was
written by Henry Luce, founder of Time and Life magazines: "All great
editors are men able to see how stories, episodes, and personalities flow
and merge one into the other to reproduce the pattern of a world that only
their own inner eye perceives."
> If I was the Publisher or owner of Stereophile I would ask the current
> editor to start grooming his successor, on the double.
Unfortunately for your argument, you are not the "Publisher or owner of
Stereophile." :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Is Mr Garvey in the cable business ... ?
I read Mark Waldrep's article several times, considered it carefully, and came to the same conclusion he did. I did not get to see the video, a second YouTube site referenced in his article that had the same video was taken down too before I had a chance to view it.
Mark Waldrep is a well respected audio engineer also known as Dr. AIX. He is a producer and proponent of what some call High Resolution Audio and a knowledgeable critic of his competitor's products. He has the equipment and knowledge to come to valid conclusions.
"Backing up about a year, to when the video was created—I saw and heard the video." Bill Low
It's my opinion that there are a lot of misstatements, misleading statements, statements taken out of context, statements that focus on only one aspect of a product, exaggerations, and a lot of plain outright lies told to advertise products in this industry. But this industry is not on the FTC radar screen, it is just too small and unimportant compared to much larger problems in the overall economy. I have very little trust in the credibility of those who manufacture for this industry, those who advertise and review their products, and especially those who put themselves as physicists on a pedestal above engineers. It makes me glad this is my hobby, not my profession.
They may have sent this to "pretty much every other" editor but so far only YOU have chosen to publish it. I think this was a horrendous error of judgement. Why would you give a company perfectly capable of reaching out to "the community" your valuable bandwidth for free? It is not up at Absolute Sound, Soundtage, Tone Audio etc.
That is what their web site and facebook page are for.
This is a horrible precedent. Just about as bad as when Absolute Sound actually let Audioquest provide editorial content for the magazine.
I saw it on Facebook. I guess it shouldn't have been posted there either. After all it could be improper.
When they discover the center of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it. ~ Bernard Bailey
Yeh, sure it is Bubba.
Even when no impropriety is involved. In this instance, having a former Stereophile writer, Stephen Mejias, go to work for Audioquest in a promotional role may give this appearance.
Edits: 01/29/16
I hope that before JA takes his toys and goes home he will answer this post!
While readers have every right to have to post concerns/questions about stereophile, I don't think it is a good idea to mock the editor or be insulting. You will get back what you give, and rightfully so.
This editor deserves exactly what I and others choose to give him. You can choose to take the high road and perhaps as an industry person it is wise for you do so, but what you take as an insult is simply my way of calling him out on his earlier complaint about being singled out. It was intended to be a humorous jab at worst.
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: