Home Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Re: Perhaps you ought to re-read your own last paragraph.

> 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?


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Kimber Kable  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
  • Re: Perhaps you ought to re-read your own last paragraph. - andy19191 03:34:43 03/02/07 (1)


You can not post to an archived thread.