216.209.33.106
In Reply to: RE: Not exactly unprecedented posted by Sommovigo on May 22, 2008 at 11:15:11
Well it at least seems that way to me. On the one hand you go ass over elbow to impugn Stereophile for reviewing real products because they didn't meet a particular published standard. I'm not even saying you were wrong for raising those points, mind you ...
"Ass over elbow"? "Impugn Stereophile" Really? I'll leave it to the general community here to decide if such are fair characterizations of the examination of how that particular review fit SF's "particular published standard". Frankly there didn't seem to be much interest at the time, perhaps I should have tried some "ass over elbow"ing or engaged in some "impurn"ing?; in advance allow me to thank you and Elliot Goldman for the fine example of fanning the flames should I decide to go that route.
...
However I would like to mention that I did not initiate the query about the review in question, nor did I pick up the ball and perpetuate the inquiry immediately after John Atkinson dropped it. As I recall that party was... you!
I did, it seems to me anyway, help guide the inquiry to its logical conclusion which as to the question of adherence to policy would appear to have been:
Simply this - that when it comes to State of the Art analog products, it seems that the magazine may have a different policy. The Simon Yorke is available only from the distributor, and is not sold with a 30 day MBG. The Rockport was available (no longer in production) factory direct, and was not sold with a 30 day MBG. Both of these products were reviewed, and both received Analog Product of the Year awards.
My point being simply that there may be some internal policy at Stereophile which permits them to review components meeting other requirements (regular production, at least).
Not my works, as I recall the author was... you!
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
Follow Ups: