In Reply to: Almost correct posted by Charles Hansen on March 1, 2007 at 07:14:56:
>> John Atkinson has clearly demonstrated in the past he will do what is
>> required to make Stereophile commercially successful.
>
> Your unfounded implication is that he will "whore" the magazine to do
> so. This is bullshit.The implication is yours not mine.
In opting to provide an attractive vehicle for the audiophile industry to promote its products when knowing something about sound, sound perception and audio equipment, just like you, John Atkinson has had to be somewhat careful about mapping from the brain to the mouth/pen. It is in this area that he has demonstrated a sustained ability to do what is required and it is in this area that questions of ethics arise that that those on the outside can see. Of course, he might be a complete rogue concerning internal matters but I would judge it unlikely given the length of his tenure and the lack of revelations from those he has been indispute with.
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... 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. The lack of moderation, tolerance and acceptance of how low technology luxury goods markets are going to work must surely have started to have a negative impact on most of his readers after reading the first few anti articles.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Almost correct - andy19191 10:18:02 03/01/07 (12)
- Big deefferance'... - mkuller 13:17:29 03/01/07 (11)
- Re: Big deefferance'... - andy19191 13:59:28 03/01/07 (10)
- Perhaps you ought to re-read your own last paragraph. - robert young 15:15:17 03/01/07 (5)
- Re: Perhaps you ought to re-read your own last paragraph. - andy19191 03:34:43 03/02/07 (1)
- You continue to obfuscate... - robert young 12:16:55 03/04/07 (0)
- Re: Perhaps you ought to re-read your own last paragraph. - bjh 17:46:26 03/01/07 (2)
- You mean Pat-D-Cake? -t - Bruce Kendall 19:06:11 03/01/07 (1)
- :) nt - bjh 19:09:58 03/01/07 (1)
- So which DID you prefer? - mkuller 15:13:31 03/01/07 (2)
- Re: So which DID you prefer? - andy19191 00:35:57 03/02/07 (1)
- Not much in a long, long time... - mkuller 10:07:11 03/02/07 (0)
- Re: Big deefferance'... - bjh 14:29:57 03/01/07 (0)