|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
81.152.197.244
I wonder whether many folks who defend Stereophile on this site actually read the magazine, If they do I wonder what they made of Paul Messenger article in the February issue. He mentions that he and Martin Colloms "acknowledge Peter Azcel influence, while also reflecting on the paucity of serious criticism in today's media." Considering the view held by many audiophile who frequent this board on Peter Azcel, this seems to be some serious recognition for the his contribution to audio journalism. I salute their courage, if their magazine emulates the audio critic, I will be most glad, speaking of which I am seriously thinking a taking a subscription, something I was less inclined to do previously because of my dissatisfication with their previous work in the HiFi News and HiFiChoice.On another point, I noted with amusement the inclusion of excellent Slim Devices transporter and the Stereovox interconnects & Speaker cable, a 2m/pair of the speaker cable costs more than the Slim Devices transporter, now that is funny! Thanks Mr. Atkinson from bringing the transporter to my attention and also for measuring it, it makes the decision of buying it blind less risky, at least from a performance point of view.
PS: I know that the opinions expressed by Martin Colloms and Paul Messenger do not necessarily represent that of Stereophile.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Follow Ups:
> I noted with amusement [in the February 2007 Stereophile] the
> inclusion of excellent Slim Devices transporter and the Stereovox
> interconnects & Speaker cable, a 2m/pair of the speaker cable costs
> more than the Slim Devices transporter, now that is funny!
Glad you you detected the humor, sir. Of course, it should be noted
that no less an authority than Peter Aczel's associate Tom Nousaine
has declared that there is no place for humor in audio. :-)
> Thanks Mr. Atkinson from bringing the transporter to my attention and
> also for measuring it...
You're welcome.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
are we worthy????
...regards...tr
(nt)
...hardly a salute.The only recognition I read in that piece was that Aczel's rag is the "Audio Critic" and they are calling theirs the "Hi-Fi Critic".
The word "Critic" is about all they have in common and are acknowledging.
> ...serious recognition for the his contribution to audio journalism...>
What contribution?
Writing as an embittered old failure with a chip on his shoulder for the high end audio industry?
yet when we reflect upon what he's notorious for these days, stuff like,"As I have pointed out innumerable times, a properly designed amplifier has no sound of its own. It is impossible for two amplifiers to sound different at matched levels if each has high input impedance, low output impedance, flat frequency response, low distortion, low noise floor, and is not clipped."
then I'd venture to say he's been fairly successful in pushing the "bete noire" aspect to the background as now one naturally opts for sobriquets such as "dense", "deaf", etc.
Hmmmm...? an accomplishment of sorts I suppose.
[QUOTE]then I'd venture to say he's been fairly successful in pushing the "bete noire" aspect to the background as now one naturally opts for sobriquets such as "dense", "deaf", etc."No Guru, No Method, No Teacher "[/QUOTE]
If this lame attempt is what constitutes 'humor' in audio, maybe one *should* be against it.If Aczel didn't exist someone would have had to invent him, if only to counteract the torrent of nonsense that flows from the audiophile press. His accomplishment in putting kool-aid drinkers like you on perennial defensive is priceless.
< < he and Martin Colloms "acknowledge Peter Azcel influence, while also reflecting on the paucity of serious criticism in today's media." > >The thing that you are forgetting is that there were essentially *two* different versions of "The Audio Critic".
When Peter first founded it, it was probably the best magazine around because it combined critical listening with critical technical and design analysis. Sort of like a concise and readable IAR (instead of those boringly long and repetitive articles, and without the self-congratulatory undertones).
It was only after his speaker manufacturing fiasco that he lost his hearing. (Maybe he took too much oxycontin, like Rush Limbaugh!) After a hiatus (it seems like it was around a year or so), the reborn "Audio Critic" was a completely different animal -- tedious, irrelevant, and pompous to the point of absurdity.
When I read Messenger's column I simply assumed that he was referring to the original "Audio Critic". I can't imagine that they are planning to introduce a tedious, irrelevant, and pompous magazine. The only problem is that it will cost US subscribers $140 or so to find out...
As it happens those are the very words I'd use to describe Stereophile and TAS!The Audio Critic 'post Fourier', on the other hand, was and remains (as a web zine) an invigorating read -- one that even gives hope for the survival of sanity in the audio hobby.
But after the last fiasco with Steve, I am skiddish. Would you please email me like you did before? If it is too much trouble, do not bother to take your time to respond. My most important concern is that you devote all of your energies to get back on the bike!
> > It was only after his speaker manufacturing fiasco that he lost > > his hearing. (Maybe he took too much oxycontin, like Rush > > Limbaugh!) After a hiatus (it seems like it was around a year or > > so), the reborn "Audio Critic" was a completely different animal --> > tedious, irrelevant, and pompous to the point of absurdity.As someone who has read very late copy of the Audio Critic, I simply cannot agree with your comments here. The reviews are much more substantive than what is obtainable in other magazines with the notable exception of the AudioXpress which geared to slightly different market. At any rate, I salute the courage of Colloms and Messenger for publicly acknowledging the severe deficit of critical commentary in todays audio journalism and applauding Peter Aczel' work as an example of critical audio commentary.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Did you ever have a chance to read the original version of the Audio Critic? If so, what did you think of it? And how would you reconcile his stance at that time with his current stance?
No, but I guess you are speaking about this, his current viewpoint seems consistent with the audioworld outside of highend audio.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
I'm afraid it appears, based on the content of your curt post, that you haven't a clue!I mean what is the "audioworld outside of highend audio", is that the world that excludes readers of the most popular audio print magazines (Stereophile, TAS, Hi-Fi Choice, Hi-Fi World ... and that's just the popular ones in the US and UK) and WebZines (SoundStatge, Enjoy the Music... established ones out of what must be 100s!). Is it the world that excluded the bulk of the members of the Ausio Asylum?
If that's roughly correct then may I ask... who cares?
Your blinkers are showing.There is bnow (and has been since at least the 70's) a significant 'audio world' that has little use for the Emperor's Clothes fantasies that are the stock-in-trade of the 'audiophile' journals you cite. Today they read and post to places like hydrogenaudio.org, prosoundweb, Audioholics and AVSforum. They're more likely to read JAES articles, the white papers of people like Bruno Putzys and Dan Lavry, or the gear deconstructions of David Rich in Sensible Sound, than some column in TAS or Stereophile describing something as 'I don't know how it works, but it does!'. And even you can't fail to have noticed that even here, on the aptly named Asylum, there's a persistent contingent of hobbyists who don't drink the audiophile kool-aid.
...I thought his comparison of about 23 preamps in his first issue was pretty amazing.Even if he crowned the Rappaport Pre-1 better than the Levinson JC-2 and no one else seemed to agree. At least the tubed ARC SF-4 (follow-up to the classic SP3-A) came in third.
But no one else has ever attempted as exhaustive a survey as that.
Brilliant marketing - if nothing else - he WAS an ad copy writer.
And he printed my letter in that issue - my first published audio writing.
Maybe someday it'll be worth as much as the first issue of Marvel comics - with which it has much in common now.
I thought that the original 'Audio Critic' was pretty good. I knew Peter Aczel then, by phone, and we had productive conversations. I even contributed some TIM measurements to the magazine.
The later 'Audio Critic' is awful. It has attacked people, like me, without any real feedback or evidence in many cases. It is a double-blinders 'bible'.
I have been criticized by the 'Audio Critic' without any feedback from me, attacking my design philosophy. When I substituted an open loop follower to replace an IC (the best that I could find at the time), I was raked over the coals as being some sort of fool. Actually, I was helped, because I found that the manufacturer of the amp was not using the high current rating 'V' of the part that I had specified, and had neglected to tell me of the change. The bias resistors that I originally specified were specified for the V, and the use of Gr (low current) 'starved' the follower and it then distorted more than my original measurements came up with. A courtesy call to me, would have gotten me on to the problem from the get-go, rather than having to be berated in the magazine for something that I had no direct control over.
This is the difference between 'Stereophile' and 'The Audio Critic' If I had the same problem with the power amp, the people of 'Stereophile' would give me some feedback, before the article was published, rather than playing 'gotcha' with me.
Mr. Curl,Don't take these guys who have nothing to do but post nonsense and their aggressions towards people too seriously. God forbid you make a mistake with these guys. They are all tough behind the computer keyboard but when attacked face to face, most of them, if not all of them would cower like scared puppies. You command a high respect and by trying to defend yourself, you become vulnerable. Your work with Parasound and Audible Illusions as well as you very own Vendetta Research speaks for itself. Don't give these morons the satisfaction of trying to put yourself on their low level.
Heck! If you spell a word wrong or miss a punctuation mark, they would criticize you for not being too bright. Then it would roll over into your ability to design and build audio.
> Don't take these guys who have nothing to do but post nonsense and their aggressions towards people too seriously.>Sounds like a description of your claim above slandering HP.
> If I had the same problem with the power amp, the people of
> 'Stereophile' would give me some feedback, before the article
> was published, rather than playing 'gotcha' with me.
Not before you saw the preprint of the review in order to prepare your
"Manufacturer's Comment" letter, John. See my "As We See It" in the
forthcoming March issue for more on this thorny subject.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
JA, I would expect constructive criticism to be left into a review, but at least I could comment in the same issue on it. I would have thanked the reviewer, in my case, for pointing a problem out to me.
> > [Paul Messenger] and Martin Colloms "acknowledge Peter Azcel
> > influence, while also reflecting on the paucity of serious criticism
> > in today's media."
>
> The thing that you are forgetting is that there were essentially *two*
> different versions of "The Audio Critic".
>
> When Peter first founded it, it was probably the best magazine around
> because it combined critical listening with critical technical and
> design analysis.
This is my opinion also, and I have publicly acknowledged the
influence the late-1970s Aczel had both on my own career and on audio
journalism. But after the ethically questionable Fourier episode and
the late 1980s relaunch of his magazine (directly bankrolled in large
part, I was later told, by a manufacturer whose products Azcel
repeatedly covered), that influence had been dissipated.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
c'mon John, if you don't have t!he spheroids to name names and offer specifics, don't spread rumours. Be up front and be honest or begone. Talk about sleazy!!!!!You should be ashamed of yourself! I wouls cancel my subscription but I did some time ago!
> if you don't have t!he spheroids to name names and offer specifics,
> don't spread rumours. Be up front and be honest or begone. Talk about
> sleazy!!!!!Regarding Aczel's unethical behavior, the Fourier affair is not rumor.
It was eventually disclosed in the pages of The Audio Critic. His
illegal use of a copy of Stereophile's subscriber list is also not
rumor; he was forced by Stereophiles lawyer to publish a statement in
TAC explaining that he would not use the purloined list again.
Regarding the investment issue, I had no reason to believe the report
untrue, but you are right: Without being able to offer substantiation,
I should not have mentioned it. Consider it withdrawn.
> You should be ashamed of yourself!
Speaking in general terms, I would indeed be ashamed if I a) had taken
money from a company whose products I was to review in my magazine, b)
favorably reviewed products made by a company in which I had an
ownership interest, c) illegally made use of another magazine's
intellectual property, d) given preferential treatment to companies
that advertise in my magazine. Please note that I have done none of
those things.
> I would cancel my subscription but I did some time ago!
Yeah, right.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Odd, I seem to recall that this is the *second* time here you've mentioned something that legally 'you should not have' regarding Aczel.
Ah yes, here it ishttp://www.audioasylum.com/scripts/t.pl?f=critics&m=15106
Then of course there's the question of whether some rather non-disinterested parties are reporting the Fourier fracas accurately:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/f44d2cc8b0a1fbe6?hl=en&
Non - disinterested equals interested. Since I'm quoted in one of the web sites you referenced I can only assume that you mean me. Please explain exactly why you think I'm an interested party in the Fourier scandal. I had and have no claim or stake in that sordid affair except as a former subscriber to The Audio Critic whose expection that the owner would meet minimal standards of decent behavior was abused. On what evidence do you assert otherwise?It's noteworthy that the very same people who attack Stereophile, TAS , and the other audio magazines for a wide range of perceived sins against reason and science resort to absurd, tortuous hairsplitting to excuse Aczel's misbehavior ("it wasn't really a review so he didn't do anything wrong"). The point is so simple that a child can understand it but Aczel's obsequious toadies somehow cannot: he never told his readers plainly and directly anything like "I own half of the company that makes this speaker that I'm writing about and I'll make money if you buy a pair." If he had just been open about his direct financial interest in the Fourier company no one would have had anything to complain about.
The jury will ignore the witness's previous outburst...
> After a hiatus (it seems like it was around a year or so), the reborn "Audio Critic" was a completely different animal -- tedious, irrelevant, and pompous to the point of absurdity.>The hiatus from subjective reviews to absurdity was from 1980 to 1987 - *seven* years, if that's the one you are referring to.
TAC often went many months if not a year between issues.
< < The hiatus from subjective reviews to absurdity was from 1980 to 1987 - *seven* years ... Time flies when you're having fun. > >Yes, I was having fun at that time! (It's when I was racing bicycles full-time.) I guess it was some time during those seven years that Aczel also became stone deaf. The only thing I can't figure out is why he felt compelled to trumpet his warped views to the world.
> The only thing I can't figure out is why he felt compelled to trumpet his warped views to the world.>My suspicion is that he became very embittered when no one was interested in buying his 'best ever' loudspeaker and the company went bankrupt. Now he seems to have a vendetta against the high end industry. Payback, perhaps? He was a pretty arrogant guy to begin with.
Who knows what really goes on in his twisted mind.
Gee that story sounds familiar with someone here. Arrogant designer with embittered outlook following failed products. Current mission to "marginalize high end audio".
to judge by his antics over at PH these days it appears he's desparate for a one-way ticket to SM Land... really misses his soul mate, must be tough!
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
< < Gee that story sounds familiar with someone here. Arrogant designer with embittered outlook following failed products. Current mission to "marginalize high end audio". > >It would seem so. I guess that we human beings are a rather predicable lot, falling into predictable patterns...
< < My suspicion is that he became very embittered when no one was interested in buying his 'best ever' loudspeaker and the company went bankrupt. Now he seems to have a vendetta against the high end industry. Payback, perhaps? He was a pretty arrogant guy to begin with. > >
...a speedy recovery back to your bike racing form.
i have an idea that this venture will fail.
...regards...tr
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: