 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.219.47.196
In Reply to: Bye, bye TAS... posted by mkuller on March 4, 2007 at 21:10:47:
Chris Martens, one of the TAS editors, just informed me of this thread. In case it is helpful, I thought I should share our approach to this problem.My understanding is that Jonathan Valin moved some time ago to a new home. During the move, he had help from friends, and he let one of them borrow some cables that were in a box of extra cables that he had. This was as a thank you for help with the move. Unfortunately, some of the cables in the box were on loan from manufacturers, including Nordost. Clearly, such a loan should never have been made under those circumstances.
To add insult to injury, the friend decided to sell the cables. Nordost wisely tracks such sales, and traced the cables being sold to a TAS loan. At this point, Nordost contacted TAS, and we reimbursed Nordost for the cables.
As I understand it, the central element of this is an unfortunate, ill-advised but not malicious mistake. We have discussed the matter at length with those affected, republished our policies on equipment loans, established new methods for tracking equipment, and inflicted appropriate financial consequences. In our small company, we each make mistakes, and to me it seemed inappropriate to take more severe action than we have. Maybe we’re too human, but on most days its looks like the world could use an extra dose of humanity.
Audio is a special hobby and a business full of interesting and admirable people, many of whom are our friends. I would like to extend our apologies to any readers or industry members who have been affected by this.
Thomas B. Martin
CEO
Absolute Multimedia, Inc.
Follow Ups:
There is the story about an employee of Walmart that stole from his employee. To demonstrate how remorseful the employee was of his actions, he volunteered to return shopping carts from the parking lot for two months during his normal lunch hour.
What could JV do for penance to show true reform?
- Pay retail instead of Industry accomodation prices for any product he reviews and wishes to keep
- Put up collateral for all future review products...just in case of his friends pinches something from his house on loan from manufacturers
- Have him play gopher and help return "oustanding" loaners from any TAS reviewer
What would you say Thomas? It would definitely help things move forward from the "he said..she said" explanation(s).
PeAK
Force em to listen to class d amps all the time,that will teach him a lesson,just kidding .
I had a chance to listen to one of the early Class D unit put out by Panasonic (recommended by Newform Research for their Ribbon based speakers) and found the amp to almost always sound in control and seemingly never pushed...the thing is that there is an aspect to "high-wire acts" that seems "more appealing" when things are on the verge of being out of control .PeAK
Was it JV? or his "friend"? If not, why?
...funny that after posting 'Bye, Bye TAS' above, I was contacted by a number of manufacturers with more information and even greater concerns.So either Martin is not telling the whole story or what I heard from a couple of sources is incorrect.
If it is in fact correct, it would appear Martin is still covering for Valin and may be part of the problem, rather than the solution.
Here's what I was told: Apparently Valin's move was years ago. When a pair of Nordost interconnect cables showed up on AudioGon which were traced to Valin by serial numbers, Nordost requested all of his loaner cables back. He returned them but was at least $20,000 short in the loaners he returned. No one has mentioned where all those cables ended up.
So the magazine reimbursed Nordost and Valin is paying back the magazine.
Until Martin takes some action, this story is not likely not go away.
That's a rather odd subject title given that you also say, "So either Martin is not telling the whole story or what I heard from a couple of sources is incorrect."In summary, you're repeating information from unnamed sources and admit that you're unsure as to the veracity of the information!... that's the only part of this story that seems unquestionably "real"!
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
...that I've that or a similar story from enough sources that it appears true to me.But rather than call Martin a liar, I'd rather give him a chance to respond.
So glad, as a subscriber to your mag, that "many" audio business people are your "friends". That's great, that's cozy. And it leaves the reader, to whom you must owe SOME responsibility, howeverso small,out in the cold.
but how are the readers being left out in the cold? Do we play any role in the managerial aspects of TAS? We subscribe or otherwise purchase the magazine with the expectation that we will get a good product for our money. In that regard, they live up to my expectations.An explanation has been offered and an apology made. One can argue about the timeliness or the credibility, and obviously some arguments are taking place on both fronts.
In any case, it would appear that those who must address this issue and bring it to a resolution either have or are doing so.
So what role do you think the readers should play?
Readers should play NO ROLE (geez) that wasn't the point. The point is that the publishers answer to this issue concludes with what a nice industry it is and how the mags are friends with the mfgs. And it's in THAT circle that the reader is left out. Who gives a damn--(what reader interested in getting the best equipment for the money--readers not interested in that can stop here)-- about friendships between reviewers and the people that make the stuff they review? You say you aren't trying to be an antagonist. I say that's exactly what it looks like to me. If you are a reader who is part of the CLUB, which some are here, which you may be, I don't know. Or if you are a reader who has lots of money to spend, then hey, it doesn't apply. But I would much prefer a mag where the writers were not chums with the makers, where the writers took the readers' needs into account. Or where the writers were not at the mercy of the mfgs for expensive equipment to review. Honesty factors into this somewhere. That there should be something equivalent to fiduciary responsibility of mags to paying readers is what I want. I don't see that in so many of the discussions here. It makes me sick.
at least for the consumer. we will find out quickly who really loves the hobby 'as a consumer or hobbyist does', or who is using an accomodating situation to fuel an appetite for luxury items. the shake-out will indeed happen naturally, if 'real' rules are in place. one 'code' fits all. it will be a revelation how many mega priced components will suddenly 'not' be touted as the greatest. the hobby and the industry will both be better for it. friends will remain friends, but as in the world outside of audio circles, those whose friendships are based on monkey business, will fade. no individual writer should disclose anything provided magazines state that their contributers are not allowed to receive accomodation from manufacterers period. otherwise its a shell game.
Accomodation and loans are completely OK in the audio business.
The reasons are several:
First, manufacturers have to make something to sell at about 50% of the selling price or less. This must include: actual manufacturing costs, overhead, profit (if any) and advertising costs, as well as anything else that I might have overlooked.
IF a reviewer pays, let's say 50% of the retail cost of the unit, it hurts no one, because the only person who has been left out is the retail dealer, and perhaps a marketing firm who might get a percentage of each sale. The retail dealer still stands to gain by the additional exposure that this unit will be given by the audio reviewer, but that should be enough, because the retailer has not had to stock or demonstrate the item to the perspective buyer (the reviewer in this case)
The best audio equipment is costly, and will always remain costly, because of the cost of designing and building an exceptional audio product, and the way the unit has to be packaged in order to sell to discriminating audiopiles. They just won't take a tin box, drilled out in some garage, even if it does sound great, and this at least, doubles the cost of the unit.
In any case, accomodation is a tried and true way of dealing within the audio community, and it works.
What hurts is the demand for gifts or refusal to return (loaned) audio items submitted for review. That takes directly from the manufacturer, and often obligates the reviewer too. Also, small manufacturers can't keep up, if larger manufacturers can use gifts to promote their product and it will ultimately raise the cost of production, whereas accomodation does not do this, and large and small manufacturers can do this without loss to their income.
the problem with accomodation is...not everyone states that the accomodation price is 50% off list...or if there was a loan to pay that....if a writer for the detroit free press (who does consumer car reviews) flys to alabama to test drive and write about a new bmw, he or she doesn't do it on the car company's nickle. if the newspaper doesn't send them, they don't go......if there is no accomodation, speaker company A(a big company) and speaker company B(a smaller company),know the rules, and most will live by them. its not foolproof, and there will always be cheaters, but a code is a good thing for the industry and the hobby.
at least for the consumer. we will find out quickly who really loves the hobby 'as a consumer or hobbyist does', or who is using an accomodating situation to fuel an appitite for luxury items. the shake-out will indeed happen naturally, if 'real' rules are in place. one 'code' fits all. it will be a revelation how many mega priced components will suddenly 'not' be touted as the greatest. the hobby and the industry will both be better for it. friends will remain friends, but as in the world outside of audio circles, those whose friendships are based on monkey business, will fade. no individual writer should disclose anything provided magazines state that their contributers are not allowed to receive accomodation from manufacterers period. otherwise its a shell game.
First of all, the magazines make every effort to answer the needs of their readers, otherwise they'd cease to exist. Next, the high-end audio community is small enough that you can't help but get to know a number of manufacturers, reviewers or dealers if you spend any time at all in the industry. Sometimes friendships result. Nothing cynical or conspiracy-related about it.
There is no "club" that I know of, but then again, maybe I am not cool enough to know about the club if there is one. If by "club" you mean "free gear for everyone holding membership, and nothing but good reviews for all", you are truly missing the boat. The closest thing I have ever seen to a club is when a bunch of audiophiles, dealers, manufacturers and members of the audio press got together for beer and pizza for a couple of hours. After the beer and pizza were gone, the club disbanded.You see some pretty open and honest exchanges between members of the audio press and manufacturers on this board. One well-known manufacturer has been highly vocal lately. That alone should convince you that there is no vast conspiracy. Despite that, some people persist in the belief that there is. I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps if you had an opportunity to get to know some of these people a little bit you'd have a different opinion.
If you find it all sickening, why do you come over the CC and engage in conversation? Zantac yummies are pretty expensive.
Im just an old fashioned hobbiest who doesn't have any illusions about "getting to know" industry people. The web is great at fostering such illusions. I come here for the hobby. I am still sickened by a lot of the crap I read, the tap-dancing, etc (not necessarily in your particular post). If you actually think that the tas publishers initial post regarding this matter is believable, adequate, and makes sense....I have trouble understanding your assessment. I guess D means you're a dealer and so are in a MUCH different ballpark that me.
essentially irrelevant. JV has apparently satisfied those who must be satisfied. There are some side effects of this situation that will no doubt linger.The only way my "ballpark" differs from your is that I have to deal with customers. I have to qualify products that I think are good performers and a good fit for my customer base. It's not that much different than someone auditioning and selecting products for themselves, there is just more of it.
You might wonder what kind of reviews I rely on to help me in this regard, and the answer is none. I read the mags and e-zines for the same reason many others do, interest as a hobbyist and entertainment.
With respect to different ballpark. What I had in mind was, in response to your suggestion that if I got to know industry people it might help my outlook, that you, as a dealer, would have contact with these people as a matter of course. JV has perhaps satisfied those who must be satisfied at the mag, sure. And the fallout from the flap may be nothing at all for the AS. If I don't renew my subscription it won't be for this reason, but rather if I get weary enough of the same old same old positive reviews of everything. And I think being a dealer might be fun (Im sure it's often difficult), but one thing that you have to look at as a dealer is making a profit (which you should) and that's something I don't have to worry about. U can go strictly for 'bang for the buck' if I want, and if that turns out to be someone like Audio Alchemy in days of old who had great products but (from what I read in those mags) didn't have a good profit structure, so be it. And if I don't mind buying used on Audiogon, there's another difference in perspective. And if I can buy online at a discount from legitimate dealers (Audio Advisor, for example), I'll do it. However, if my ship ever comes in (and in Arizona that's unlikey), and I want to buy a pair of Quad electrostatics or bottom of the line Sound Labs or whatever strikes my fancy that way, I will seek out a brick and mortar dealer and if I can find one within some radius, will travel there to listen and get whatever advantages dealers (still) offer. Given your posts on this thread, if you had what I wanted and were close enough, I'd look you up. (But I would try to avoid discussing hifi mags and their ethics with you!). Thanks for the interesting responses.
I appreciate your comments.
(nt)
Say it with sarcasm if you will, but if consumer reports type policies were followed by an audio only mag (like stereophile) the audio world would be a better place. Buy the equipment anonymously, or at least BUY the equipment. Review it without sending preprints to mfgs. Directly compare units and make actual recommendations where not everything was recommended. Call crap crap when you see it. Don't allow reviewers to buy equipment they review at this special accomodation price. What would be so wrong with that?????????? IF you are a reader and NOT a publisher. IF you do not have as your primary interest making money for the mag (and from what it seems) the industry????? The audio products consumer reports reviews are of no interest to hobbiests. But their policies should be. You tell me what's wrong with that kind of neutrality. You tell me what's wrong with that kind of 'no ax to grind'. You tell me what's wrong with trying to avoid conflicts of interest instead of brushing aside every single one of these.
...maybe you should start an audio magazine like you describe. The question is - would anyone want to read it.If there is a big market for a publication like that, someone would have already done it.
First of all, no reviewer wants to spend their time reviewiing bad sounding equipment.
I don't really think audiophiles want to read reviews of bad sounding equipment anyway, as much as they protest.
Every review is critical of the equipment, some more than others, since nothing is perfect.
Audio reviews are merely entertaining guides to help you chose equipment to audition. Unless you have exactly the same listening biases and priorities I do, my review won't help you purchase equipment you'll like.
Most audio equipment reviewers do it part-time as a hobby and get paid a couple of hundred dollars for investing many hours over a few months to do a thorough review.
Without the ability to purchase at accomodation prices - like everyone else in the industry - few would be willing to do it.
The vast majority of reviewers I know go out of their way to be thorough, impartial and protect their reputations.
The problems occur when people act unethically. That can happen no matter what kind of structure or safeguards you put in place.
I would like to read an honest magazine with no strings attached that I could trust. This is not youthful idealism...Im way to old for that. When every review is positive and half of them are raves, not only does it get aggravating and boring (at the same time) it means that the mags and the reviews ARE OF LITTLE HELP in doing what presumably they are supposed to do, namely help audiophiles make good choices in equipment. That reviewers do it part time is NOT a good thing. I see that you are a reviewer (somewhere) and so your point of view will naturally be different. Somewhere in a fairly recent PFO Clark Johnsen has a very biting but good description of the reviewing process. Im not saying he would say it applies here. All I am saying is I read it and it made sense to me. It would not, I think, be anything you would like to hear. You say audiophiles dont want to read about bad equipment. Maybe not. But some of them (me, if nobody else) would like to read reviews that were straightforward, that didn't hedge every damn word, that didn't 'justify' in some sense the price of every piece of equipment. That didn't pander to the mfg. I see this kind of thing pretty much only in the measurements section of the Stereophile reviews where JA tells it like it is even though he grouses and puzzles as to why his measurements dont (sometimes, often ) correlate with what his reviewer says. You can dismiss measurements as meaningless, but some of the measurements Ive seen of very expensive (non-tube, just to keep that monkey at bay) are disgusting. If I were a mfg of some of that stuff, I would be embarrassed, I would not want to see it in print. And yet, there it is. That's refreshing. Most of the rest is not.
...that impact the magazine's crediblity.The first is that it may have happened exactly the way Martin describes, but don't you have to hold senior writer/editors to a little higher standard? Shouldn't Valn have known better? Is that story plausible or does it smack of 'the dog ate my homework'?
And the second is that way the magazine handled it. If it were a few hundred dollars worth of cables, nobody would have thought much about it. But $20,000 worth of cables, or anything for that matter, is a pretty big deal. Manufacturers all talk and Dudley even mentioned it in his March Stereophile column.
TAS' silence speaks volumes.
I realize that Mr. Valin is a fiction writer of some note (see link below), but it would seem that he is forgetting one of the primary rules of fiction.Specifically, the writer breaks *one* rule of the real world and asks the reader to suspend his disbelief. Then the rest of the story naturally follows from that.
For example, if the reader is asked to believe that the bite from a radioactive spider will give the victim the proportionate strength and agility of a spider, then the entire collection of Spider-Man comic books becomes an enjoyable fantasy.
But when the writer continues to break rule after rule after rule, then it becomes difficult to enjoy the story. See for example:
http://www.mediacollege.com/glossary/s/suspension-of-disbelief.html
...at least he got published, I guess.Have you ever read any of the Harry Stoner mysteries?
Although looking at a picture of Valin makes one wonder about the name.
I found one of them, 'The Music Lovers', in hardback on a $5 book table about 10 years ago and read it.
I didn't go looking for another one - and I read a lot of mysteries.
Aren't you pushing things a little? Jonathan Valin do something personal to you?
< < Jonathan Valin do something personal to you? > >John, let me ask you a question. How would you feel if a loaner Blowtorch review unit showed up for sale on Audiogon?
Would it ease the pain if you were given some cockamamie story about moving, and a box full of equipment with your preamp as a "reward" for a friend, and the "friend" that is such a nice guy that he decides to sell the Blowtorch on Audiogon?
(And though it might or might not ease the pain of the situation, I am curious whether the "friend" was such a good "friend" that he split the proceeds with Valin, or just decided to pocket the money all for himself. I guess that may have depended on how the "friend" valued his time. Some people might think that $10,000 or $20,000 would be fair compensation for helping someone move, I don't know.)
But to answer your question, no, Valin never did anything personally to me. And I don't know the guys at Nordost and only briefly met them once at a dinner party ten years ago. But to me some things are right and some things just aren't right. I'm just one of those guys that sticks up for the things that I believe are right.
(And, by the way, if it *had* been you that got shafted, I would be making an even bigger stink about all this, because I do consider you my friend.)
policy that would effectively eliminate the possibility of such events from happening... however you sure as hell seem interested in seeing a little blood flow!By the way do you think that Nordost's pain was eased by being compensated for the cables? That they were is almost comical given we have it from multiple Stereophile writers that the cables manufacturers are generally reluctant to have their stuff back... and given Art Dudley's continuous 4-5 year (at least) use of Nordost loaner cables it would seem they (Nordost) are representative.
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
Charles, we are still good friends. I just take this cable thing with a grain of salt, because it happens all the time in some way. For example, a few years ago, a former 'Stereophile' reviewer refused to return the line cords or cables that my former business partner, Bob Crump sent in for review. Bob tried over and over, and was quite ticked off by the situation. I talked to that very guy at the 'Stereophile' party at CES. Should I have jumped all over him about it, or just let it go, as I have seen other examples like this over the years?
What really gets me is when the editors get really in denial about this sort of thing, although it might not be considered ethical by the magazine itself.
For the record, no magazine has ever personally taken one of my preamps or power amps for free, but I can't vouch for my employers over the decades. I just can't afford to anything away for free, and Bob Crump was in that position also, with his cables.
"because it happens all the time in some way"So does this mean you are simply resigned to let it happen? I have to say I am with Charles on this one. The story simply doesn't wash and smells really fishy. Those cables had a street value about what one of your top preamps goes for so it is a valid argument.
Even if it was much less it is more than ridiculous.
I am glad that you came forth this explanation. The only real difference here then, is that 'Stereophile' put extra cables that they did not want to move to NY in the dumpster. ;-) At least that was what I was told. These things happen, and have happened over the decades, to virtually every major audio magazine, to the best of my knowledge. Best that I leave it at that.
> The only real difference here then, is that 'Stereophile' put extra
> cables that they did not want to move to NY in the dumpster. ;-) At
> least that was what I was told.
John, you haven't been told correctly. I mentioned what happened to
the unreturned cables when our office relocated to NY in the message
at www.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/messages/29629.html .
The cables were disposed of with the knowledge and permission of the
manufacturers concerned, which is a different situation, surely.
Regarding the Bob Crump-loaned cables that a former Stereophile
reviewer had in his possession, which you instance in another
posting, I offered the last time you mentioned this that I would help
get them them returned, but you waved me off. If it is still an
open issue for you, then we should get it resolved.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"Regarding the Bob Crump-loaned cables that a former Stereophile
reviewer had in his possession, which you instance in another
posting, I offered the last time you mentioned this that I would help
get them them returned, but you waved me off. If it is still an
open issue for you, then we should get it resolved."If the reviewer took possession of those cables while representing Stereophile then clearly Stereophile would be on the hook for them. If that's the case then why not simply compensate Bob Crump's estate?; surely that would be easier than trying to wrestle possession away from a former reviewer and would avoid complications such as concerns about the present condition of the cables, etc.
Mind you if this affair has nothing to do with Stereophile then you, of course, deserve credit for your magnanimous offer of assistance
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
> If the reviewer took possession of those cables while representing
> Stereophile then clearly Stereophile would be on the hook for them.
I agree. But while John Curl is reasonably sure the reviewer concerned
was Jonathan Scull -- if I remember correctly -- it is not clear when
Bob Crump loaned him the cables (if he did indeed so), and if he was
working for Stereophile or not at that time.
Please note a) that Bob Crump never contacted _me_ about having these
cables returned or to complain about the matter when he was alive, and
b) that John Curl declined to give me any more information when I
asked him about this matter the last time he mentioned it on the
Asylum, and c) that John told me I should let the matter drop. Which
is why I am surprised it is still, apparently, a live issue for him.
> If that's the case then why not simply compensate Bob Crump's
> estate?; surely that would be easier than trying to wrestle
> possession away from a former reviewer and would avoid complications
> such as concerns about the present condition of the cables, etc.
_If_ it was a Stereophile reviewer, and _if_ that reviewer still has
the Crump cables, and _if_ they had been requested back, and _if_, in
that case, the reviewer had refused to return them, then yes, either
the cables can be returned (though I am not sure to whom) or they
should be paid for, although I don't even know what the value of the
cables is. If the reviewer had sold the cables, then yes, we will, of
course, pay for them.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
> I don't even know what the value of the cables is.
Please note that this is not a trivial point. When items are loaned to
the magazine, an invoice is usually sent, which we keep on file. When
the item is returned, the manufacturer issues an advice note to cancel
the invoice.
Not all manufacturers do this and if the loan equipment is sent
straight to the reviewers, they are not rigorous at forwarding the
invoices to me. Whatever the reason, I have no invoice on file from
Bob Crump concerning cables that were sent for review. I looked the
last time John Curl mentioned this matter on the Asylum. This doesn't
mean that Crump didn't send a Stereophile reviewer cables, only that
if he did, I have no record of it.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Hi John,
Bob Crump's estate was settled long ago, so the matters are closed. From an ethical standpoint J-10 should have returned them upon request. What he may have thought was an insignificant amount of money, or perhaps simply didn't think about, would have been significant to Bob. It would be significant to John as well, so maybe J-10 should send the money to John! After all, I was in AP 1302 when J-10 asked Bob what kind of tubes the Blowtorch used! :-) Priceless.
Best regards,
> Bob Crump's estate was settled long ago, so the matters are closed.
Thanks for letting me know.
> From an ethical standpoint J-10 should have returned them upon
> request.
I agree. Whether it was Jonathan or not. John Curl first raised this
matter on the Asylum at the end of June last year without naming the
reviewer concerned. I asked him for details but he didn't want to
discuss it in public or via email (see the thread starting with
message 23714). Ultimately, I called John the week starting July 14
and he told me, according to my notes, that the matter was closed as
far as he was concerned without giving me any more information.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
JA, I am sorry that this has come up again. I don't want restitution of Bob's cables, but in principle it is much the same situation that JV is accused of, and apparently the cable company has been compensated in that instance, by TAS.
I might note that I did not publically bring out the reviewer's name (JS) on this website, but told you privately, because I did not want to embarrass your magazine or the former reviewer specifically, but I still wanted to make the point that being very high-minded means that one's situation must be pristine in order to accuse others of malfeasance.
I don't think that dragging stuff up like this out helps anyone.
That I recall...I had a pair of Bob's power cords, one of them called the "Goldstein" amusingly enough, when I started out at TAS in '91. 18 months later, I joined Stereophile.
It's a while ago, but I recall a back'n'forth with Bob about his power cords. As I remember it, I was trying to convince him that there was no reason to "pull" the cords because I'd left one magazine for another, and that I'd be very happy to write about them in Stereophile. Good guy, good products, etc., but knowing what I know now, I wouldn't have pushed the matter then.
"Okay, they're yours," he said, and I remember that very specfically I thought, "that's odd, I guess he means it's okay to keep them and write about them in SP." Perhaps I was a bit naive at the time, not having reviewed for too long, about the longer-term implications of what I had suggested.
Until Bob's untimely death in '05, as far as I could make out, we were buds, enjoyed lots of laughs together. If he was harboring bad feelings, he never let on. This included post-Stereophile times. And Mr. Curl never said anything to me, before or after, and I've seen him many times.
It's many years on from this incident, I've learned a lot about how the industry works from both sides now through my years at Stereophile, Monster, and now with my own marketing/brand building operation Scull Communications, where ironically, I spend a lot of time making sure stuff like this doesn't happen to my clients!
If the cords' cost is to be reimbursed, it's on me. I can't locate them now.
Regards,
Jonathan
> I am sorry that this has come up again. I don't want restitution of
> Bob's cables, but in principle it is much the same situation that JV
> is accused of, and apparently the cable company has been compensated
> in that instance, by TAS.
I get your point, John. _My_ point is that when I did phone you to
offer to resolve this matter, you told me that it was a closed
issue for you. You told me that though you remember that it was
Jonathan Scull who was the reviewer involved, you didn't know what
cables had been sent him, you didn't know when they had been sent,
you didn't know what the value of the cables was, and that you
couldn't tell me anything more. You concluded the conversation by
telling me that I should forget about it.
> I might note that I did not publically bring out the reviewer's
> name (JS) on this website, but told you privately, because I did
> not want to embarrass your magazine or the former reviewer > specifically...
And I told you that those were not concerns of mine, that if what
you were saying was correct, I would like to sort it out.
> I still wanted to make the point that being very high-minded means
> that one's situation must be pristine in order to accuse others of
> malfeasance.
A good point, of course, but I fail to understand why you are
condemning Stereophile for poor behavior when it was you, yourself,
John, who told me _not_ to bother when I offered to resolve the
matter last July. In addition, I am not a mindreader. If you and the
late Bob Crump were so upset by what happened, why didn't either of
you contact me at the time? Why did you wait several years to raise
this matter in public?
> I don't think that dragging stuff up like this out helps anyone.
So why did you raise it, John? You told me when I offered to resolve
the matter that it was a closed issue for you. Obviously it was not.
And now you are criticizing me for _not_ resolving it? Pshaw.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
JA, I did not want it to come to this: I am not trying to make a problem with 'Stereophile', you, or anyone else. What I wanted was that stuff like this occurs, and you tend to demand proof, before you will accept the facts.
Now, JV is accused of a 'malfeasance', and he works for a competing magazine. That magazine has corrected the problem, but we will all remember what happened.
I claimed that someone formally associated with your magazine, once did something similar. Or was he working at TAS when it happened? I don't know, and it really doesn't matter, because it was the PRINCIPLE of the thing that is important. I don't expect anything out of this, I just felt that JV needed a fair shake, since real manufacturers know that this sort of thing has gone on, at least sporadically, since the beginning of audio publication.
For example, I was there when an editor of a now defuct audio publication demanded that we GIVE him a Dennesen JC-80. He did not want to pay an accomodation price, he demanded it for free. It was too much for me at the time and I told him off. Here I was in his multimillion dollar house with his fancy car in the driveway, and he was demanding a free unit from some struggling audio people. He and I still remained friends after this incident, but he didn't get a free unit. He continued to remind me, however, that he 'could' have helped us further, if we had given him a free unit. That's the price of business, folks! (sometimes)
Mr. Curl? Nothing to say to me?Considering the actual facts as I recalled them in a message just above, about which you could easily have asked me about any number of times in all these years, you seem amusingly bent on sticking to your story and throwing cow pies at the passing parade hoping for the best.
"I am not trying to make a problem with 'Stereophile', you, or anyone else," you say.
But you have incorrectly smeared me, Mr. Curl. I am in business now. Words count. And you don’t seem to be taking any responsibility for your smear, other than justifying it to JA by defending another reviewer who’s in the crapper.
In another thread in July that I was unaware of you say, "... a few years ago, a former 'Stereophile' reviewer refused to return the line cords or cables that my former business partner, Bob Crump sent in for review. “
A “few years ago”, Mr. Curl? Can you be accused of “setting the scene” with florid lighting? That was sixteen years ago Mr. Curl! I'm actually fairly pleased you had to reach back that far to find some of the icky sticky substance you're trying to peddle—and not take responsibility for.
You continued, “Bob tried over and over, and was quite ticked off by the situation." Then you aggressively engaged JA regarding accountability, mentioned it again in a thread above, even while now mewling, “I’ve said too much.” Shades of Plamegate.
I agree that even though it was a real long ago, what's right is right and that's fine with me. But if Bob had ever ONCE after saying "keep'em and use'em" told me he wanted his power cords back, I would have sent them. Now call me a liar, Mr. Curl.
"I talked to that very guy at the 'Stereophile' party at CES. Should I have jumped all over him about it, or just let it go, as I have seen other examples like this over the years?"
Mr. Curl, where’s you backbone? I’d be ashamed to have a guy like you as a friend if that’s the way you deal with what you perceive as difficult matters! Added to your story about a wealthy reviewer demanding a free preamp—as you say, it doesn’t matter, it’s the principle, hah!--you said you remained friends with him! Doesn’t take much to be your friend, I guess, Mr. Curl. But I wonder how I got on your enemies list?
I always treated you with respect, I thought. I’ve been doing good business with Scull Communications for over two years now, and I don’t believe there’s anyone left out there who hasn’t taken the time, if they wanted to, to tell me off between the time I left Stereophile and when I opened my own company.
Fair enough. It’s a little late, but stand up and attack me like a man instead of backstabbing me with a misinformed 16-year-old no-facts innuendo “complaint” used as a device to attack JA while mewling in your reply that you’re sorry it got this far. Man, the hypocrisy is giving me hiccups. Just how did it get this far, Mr. Curl? Why, because you keep pushing it, of course, as I have quoted you above and as JA has mentioned in other postings.
I wish you had said something that night at CES. I would have marched right over to Bob and straightened it out as is my way. But you didn't speak up; instead you "fought with yourself" (hah!) over it—I can just hear the internal conversation now—and tucked that little resentment in your back poopie pocket to use on a rainy day.
And I’ll always remember my conversations through the years with Bob Crump with great fondness, taking comfort that he was an outspoken guy who told me what he wanted me to know.
Alas, the same cannot be said of you, Mr Curl.
Jonathan
> I am not trying to make a problem with 'Stereophile', you, or anyone
> else. What I wanted was that stuff like this occurs, and you tend to
> demand proof, before you will accept the facts.
I am sorry you see my questions as demand for "proof," John. They
weren't meant as such. When I was offering last July you to get the
matter resolved and the question of restitution was concerned, I
thought it appropriate to ask you about the specific facts concerning
what happened: the value of the cables in question is hardly
irrelevant, for example, if they need to be paid for.
> I claimed that someone formally associated with your magazine, once
> did something similar. Or was he working at TAS when it happened? I
> don't know, and it really doesn't matter, because it was the
> PRINCIPLE of the thing that is important.
If you read Jonathan's post in this thread, you can see that the
cables were loaned to him when he was at TAS, which is why I have no
record of Stereophile being loaned these cables. It appears that
Jonathan persuaded Bob to let him hang on to them when he started
writing for Stereophile in the fall of 1993 and in the years since
then Bob never asked either Jonathan or me for the cables to be
returned. Despite your saying that it is the "PRINCIPLE of the thing
that is important," not the specific magazine, you presented this
matter both last June and again in this thread as involving
Stereophile magazine, and I felt that if that was indeed the case,
I was obliged to try to put things right.
Despite your protestations that "it really doesn't matter," it
obviously is still a live issue for you, John. Bob Crump can't be
compensated, obviously, but if you tell me what the dealer cost
of the pair of cables concerned was back in 1991, I will pay that
sum to charity on behalf of Stereophile. I hope you will agree that
my doing so will bring this matter to a close.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Now, I'm the 'bad guy' for pointing out that cables sometimes do not get returned, even if the company that made them still considers them of some value. I know that Bob wanted something for his cables, he told me himself. What about Nordost? Did they really want something for their (loaner) cables as well? Perhaps. Also, they might have taken exception to them being sold in the marketplace, because this might inhibit a potential retail sale for them. I don't know, but I will accept JV's explanation of what happened, just as I will accept JS's explanation as well. Why not, and why was JV's explanation not accepted here in the first place? Why one, and not the other?
My original input here was NOT to impune anyone, but create a more level playing field, since this sort of thing happens on occasion, I will leave it at that.
> Now, I'm the 'bad guy' for pointing out that cables sometimes do not
> get returned, even if the company that made them still considers them
> of some value.
No-one has said that you're the bad guy for saying this, John. I am
pointing out that the fact that you have now _twice_ publicly
impugned Stereophile's integrity on this forum for cables that were
loaned to a reviewer when he was at TAS, is misleading and defamatory.
I phoned you last year year to investigate this story the first time
you raised it, only for you to wave me off. And now I have offered you
a way of straightening the books, yet you appear to be waving me off
_again_.
> I know that Bob wanted something for his cables, he told me himself.
As I said, if you tell me what the dealer cost was in 1991, I will
donate that sum to charity. That way you can start sleeping at night
for the first time in, what, 14 years. If you refuse to tell me, then
I will still pay the charity -- the Southern Poverty Law Center, if
you need to know -- $200 and assume the matter is closed.
> What about Nordost? Did they really want something for their (loaner)
> cables as well?
I am told by a manufacturer that the reimbursement to Nordost was in
five figures. I have no idea if that is true or not.
> I don't know, but I will accept JV's explanation of what happened,
> just as I will accept JS's explanation as well.
Jonathan Valin has not offered any explanation, neither here or
anywhere else, to the best of my knowledge. His sole comment on the
subject to me in person was to call me a "fucker" in public at the
recent CES, apparently for knowing about the matter.
> why was JV's explanation not accepted here in the first place? Why
> one, and not the other?
It certainly looks to me as if Tom Martin's explanation has been accepted.
> My original input here was NOT to impune anyone, but create a more
> level playing field...
Yet impugne you did John, with gusto. You owe me a beer, I think.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
"His sole comment on the subject to me in person was to call me a "fucker" in public at the recent CES, apparently for knowing about the matter."Well, now that we all know about this tawdry affair, I guess we are all "fuckers" too. I hope my wife and kids never find out. Oops, they live with me, they already know.
I'm a fucker!
Cables should be made to self destruct as soon as the review is over.
We have the technology...
Did someone say something about a cold beer?
Bob certainly complained about those cables a lot sooner than 14 years ago. Heck, I didn't start working with him till about 10 years ago. Still, so what?
> Bob certainly complained about those cables a lot sooner than 14
> years ago. Heck, I didn't start working with him till about 10 years
> ago. Still, so what?
Just that this was a long time ago John, and it has been bothering
you ever since. All I am saying is that despite you and Bob
complaining privately, neither of you did so to me, or to Jonathan
despite the many occasions we have met in person since 1993. Had you
done so, I would have resolved the matter.
You didn't want me to resolve the matter when you raised on the
Asylum last June, but given that it is still an issue for you, I
feel it should be resolved, in the manner I suggested in my postings
yesterday: given the sad fact that Bob is no longer with us, I will
send the SPLC a check for $200 and I assume that my doing so will be
the end of the matter.
I have been worrying about _why_ you or Bob did not want to raise the
matter with me, John. I hope you weren't concerned about retaliation
of any kind. Please be assured that I respect the fact that loan
equipment remains the property of the manufacturers and they have
every right to ask for it back when they need it back. If there
_are_ any manufacturers reading this who have equipment on loan to
Stereophile reviewers and who are nervous about requesting its
return, feel free to email me. I will gladly arrange for its return.
And as I said, John, you owe me a beer. :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Instead of donating to charity, how about pitching in on (and attending) next year's pizza and beer party, the tradition of which was started by Bob Crump several years ago at CES? This year's party was held in the VMPS/Audience room at THE Show, where John Curl showed the prototype of the new Vendetta phono stage. I think Bob would welcome the idea and know John would be all for it. :-)
Best regards,
> Instead of donating to charity, how about pitching in on (and
> attending) next year's pizza and beer party, the tradition of
> which was started by Bob Crump several years ago at CES?
That's an excellent idea, Brian. Most appropriate. I'll still donate
the money to charity as promised, but will also contribute to the bar
bill at the 2008 CES Bob Crump Memorial party.
I hope that that by my doing so, all will be satisfied with the outcome.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Thank you, John! That's a really fine gesture on your part. I surely hope you and others from Stereophile can stop by for a slice and a brew and good cheer. As the time approaches I'll keep you posted on the venue. It would be on the second night of the show.Thanks again!
Best regards,
< < It would be on the second night of the show. > >Sorry, that night is taken. That's the night we have scheduled to bribe all of the reviewers with a night of cocaine and hookers.
Aw, shucks, Charlie! Will you attend anyway, I hope? :-)
Best regards,
Hey John,My Mercedes could use some work. I could surely use one of those donations at the moment! How bout it?!? (I'll buy the six pack)
(I just LOVE this stuff!!!!!)
W.
Best leave it Brian, or we may never be invited to the 'Stereophile' party again. ;-)
It's obvious Atkinson was seeking some kind of victory and *his* choosing to divulge the reviewer's name only indicates just how desperate his pursuit of that goal.But then Atkinson hasn't exactly been putting on a classy performance here of late, and one would be near purblind to have not noticed that a persistent aspect of his debating style is the attempt to goat what he likely sees as his opponent into a spitting match, i.e. don’t be surprised if shortly he solicits you to put down your “crackpipe”.
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
this obsession of yours has become embarrassing.
> one would be near purblind to have not noticed that a persistent
> aspect of [Atkinson's] debating style is the attempt to goa[d]
> what he likely sees as his opponent into a spitting match, i.e.
> don’t be surprised if shortly he solicits you to put down
> your “crackpipe”.
I have known John Curl for almost 30 years and have enormous
respect for him as a design engineer. I even like him personally.
But that still doesn't mean that everything he says is correct.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
At least most of us do. Thanks for the post.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
