Integrity (was Steely Dan Re: The Absolute Sound)

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Dennis Moore wrote:

>Good point JA, you had the integrity to publish the review and
>the tests that showed the real performance. 

I think you're setting the bar awfully low here. See my comments below.

>And such is about
>all that has been keeping me a reader of Stereophile the last
>couple of years.
>
>Dennis
>
>"John Atkinson" <Stereophile_Editor@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:9vMGc.36713$%_6.6021@attbi_s01...
> > "Dennis  Moore" <dmoore@bham.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:<ccei15018v1@news1.newsguy.com>...
> > > I just wonder if JA still owned the magazine rather than working
> > > for a large publishing owner, would he have said differently?
> >
> > No. I said what I had to say just the way I intended to say it, both
> > in the review and in my "As We See It." With respect, I believe you all
> > need to remember just how it was you learned this ridiculous amplifier
> > had such poor measured performance.
> >
> > John Atkinson
> > Editor, Stereophile
> >
I don't question the right of Stereophile to published unrestrained
praise--or even restrained praise--of anything they want. A large contingent
of Stereophile's readers want to know about the latest and greatest--and
they do not want to know that it is junk. So Atkinson was merely giving his
public what it wants.

The message those readers got, however, was, "This amp may not measure so
well, but it sounds great!" If John Atkinson thinks this amp is
"ridiculous," as he says here on RAHE, the message he sent to his readers
was something else entirely. He pulled his punches in the magazine; we can
only speculate as to why.

There's also a larger issue. This amp is perhaps the most sublime
manifestation ever conceived of what is wrong with high-end audio--the
triumph of marketing, glitz, and pseudo-technical bullshit over quality and
value, and the anointing of "golden-eared" reviewers whose judgment, if they
ever had any, goes south at the sight of a pricetag. Has there ever been a
better example of why high-end audio is the laughingstock of EE departments
from coast to coast?

Stereophile fashions itself a champion of the high end. Running a positive
review of an amp like this champions nothing but decadent excess. It's an
insult to the entire field, and to everyone who's ever tried to design a
quality component. It's also a disservice to every consumer who's out there
trying to find those quality components. Too bad the field doesn't have a
visible champion to stand up and say so.

bob

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/g [...] direct/01/

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

From: "Bob Marcus" nabob33@hotmail.com
>Date: 7/10/2004 10:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <CQVHc.62798$XM6.7819@attbi_s53>
>
>Dennis Moore wrote:
>
>>Good point JA, you had the integrity to publish the review and
>>the tests that showed the real performance. 
>
>I think you're setting the bar awfully low here. See my comments below.
>
>>And such is about
>>all that has been keeping me a reader of Stereophile the last
>>couple of years.
>>
>>Dennis
>>
>>"John Atkinson" <Stereophile_Editor@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>>news:9vMGc.36713$%_6.6021@attbi_s01...
>> > "Dennis  Moore" <dmoore@bham.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news:<ccei15018v1@news1.newsguy.com>...
>> > > I just wonder if JA still owned the magazine rather than working
>> > > for a large publishing owner, would he have said differently?
>> >
>> > No. I said what I had to say just the way I intended to say it, both
>> > in the review and in my "As We See It." With respect, I believe you all
>> > need to remember just how it was you learned this ridiculous amplifier
>> > had such poor measured performance.
>> >
>> > John Atkinson
>> > Editor, Stereophile
>> >
>I don't question the right of Stereophile to published unrestrained
>praise--or even restrained praise--of anything they want. A large contingent
>of Stereophile's readers want to know about the latest and greatest--and
>they do not want to know that it is junk. So Atkinson was merely giving his
>public what it wants.

He was also allowing MF to publish his subjective impressions. It seems he was
being consistant with established protocol for Stereophile.

>
>The message those readers got, however, was, "This amp may not measure so
>well, but it sounds great!"

Hold on here. The mesage that was given was that the amp measured as
Stereophile claims and MF thought it sounded great without knowing how it
measured. You are presuming that readers are trusting MFs impressions to be
universal and not personal. I can say for myself that I have on more than one
occassion had different impressions of the same equipment as MF. I would not
ake his or any other persons impression as gospel. Anyone who does and plunks
down 350,000.00 bucks on an amp without an audition does so with all the
potential consequenses. Are you really worried about protecting such an
audiophile for Stereophile reviews?

If John Atkinson thinks this amp is
>"ridiculous," as he says here on RAHE, the message he sent to his readers
>was something else entirely.

I must have missed that. He said the amp was ridiculous?

He pulled his punches in the magazine; we can
>only speculate as to why.

Looked to me like he simply reported the measurements. he did not comment on
the subjective performance did he?

>
>There's also a larger issue. This amp is perhaps the most sublime
>manifestation ever conceived of what is wrong with high-end audio--the
>triumph of marketing, glitz, and pseudo-technical bullshit over quality and
>value, and the anointing of "golden-eared" reviewers whose judgment, if they
>ever had any, goes south at the sight of a pricetag.

I have seen a 650,000 SET from Italy. But really, what are you worried about?
How many people do you think are going to even consider purchasing this amp. I
think , in some ways it is kind of interesting to know it exists. But true
potential buyers are fools if they drop that kind of money on an amp based on a
review. Either that or they are so rich it just doesn't matter to them. I doubt
these amps are selling fast due to the Stereophile review.

Has there ever been a
>better example of why high-end audio is the laughingstock of EE departments
>from coast to coast?
>
>Stereophile fashions itself a champion of the high end.

I did not know this. Is it stated in it's mission statement?

Running a positive
>review of an amp like this champions nothing but decadent excess

What should an editor do when one of his reviewers likes a piece of equipment?
Sensor his review? If you allow someone to do a subjective review of any unit
you face the possibility that the reviewer may really like it.

It's an
>insult to the entire field, and to everyone who's ever tried to design a
>quality component.

Oh c'mon. It's one person's opinion. One persons preference is an insult to the
entire field? So much for respecting peoples' preferences.

It's also a disservice to every consumer who's out there
>trying to find those quality components.

I am sure this review is not an obstacle for most audiophiles in their search
for better sound.

Too bad the field doesn't have a
>visible champion to stand up and say so.
>
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Mr. Marcus,

I pretty much agree with all you are saying. Still, they had the integrity
to state
their philosophy, do the review according to that philosophy, do the tests,
and
show you both. Without the testing, that they didn't have to do, you
wouldn't
have any idea as a reader, how ridiculous that amp was. If they had said in
this
case the logistics of moving and testing such a behemoth made it impractical
not many would have complained too much. But at great difficulty, JA had
the
testing done and published. Making it possible for you to have your opinion
with more information.

I don't too much mind people with other ideas, opinions and methodologies
if they are honest about it. Still may think them nuts or whatever, but
some
measure of respect is accorded that honesty.

I do feel JA pulled some punches. And wish I knew what he really thought
since he experienced the thing. Does he reconsider the philsophy they work
with now, or try and decide if it went wrong? Does he have some misgivings,
yet cannot publically admit them? I wish I knew. That would be showing
even more integrity. For if this episode hasn't given him pause he isn't as
smart as I thought he was. And I do believe his intelligence isn't lacking.

But everyone has the realities of their situation to live within.

Dennis

"Bob Marcus" <nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CQVHc.62798$XM6.7819@attbi_s53...
> Dennis Moore wrote:
>
> >Good point JA, you had the integrity to publish the review and
> >the tests that showed the real performance.Â
>
> I think you're setting the bar awfully low here. See my comments below.
>
> >And such is about
> >all that has been keeping me a reader of Stereophile the last
> >couple of years.
> >
> >Dennis
> >
> >"John Atkinson" <Stereophile_Editor@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> >news:9vMGc.36713$%_6.6021@attbi_s01...
> > > "Dennis Moore" <dmoore@bham.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:<ccei15018v1@news1.newsguy.com>...
> > > > I just wonder if JA still owned the magazine rather than working
> > > > for a large publishing owner, would he have said differently?
> > >
> > > No. I said what I had to say just the way I intended to say it, both
> > > in the review and in my "As We See It." With respect, I believe you
all
> > > need to remember just how it was you learned this ridiculous amplifier
> > > had such poor measured performance.
> > >
> > > John Atkinson
> > > Editor, Stereophile
> > >
> I don't question the right of Stereophile to published unrestrained
> praise--or even restrained praise--of anything they want. A large
contingent
> of Stereophile's readers want to know about the latest and greatest--and
> they do not want to know that it is junk. So Atkinson was merely giving
his
> public what it wants.
>
> The message those readers got, however, was, "This amp may not measure so
> well, but it sounds great!" If John Atkinson thinks this amp is
> "ridiculous," as he says here on RAHE, the message he sent to his readers
> was something else entirely. He pulled his punches in the magazine; we can
> only speculate as to why.
>
> There's also a larger issue. This amp is perhaps the most sublime
> manifestation ever conceived of what is wrong with high-end audio--the
> triumph of marketing, glitz, and pseudo-technical bullshit over quality
and
> value, and the anointing of "golden-eared" reviewers whose judgment, if
they
> ever had any, goes south at the sight of a pricetag. Has there ever been a
> better example of why high-end audio is the laughingstock of EE
departments
> from coast to coast?
>
> Stereophile fashions itself a champion of the high end. Running a positive
> review of an amp like this champions nothing but decadent excess. It's an
> insult to the entire field, and to everyone who's ever tried to design a
> quality component. It's also a disservice to every consumer who's out
there
> trying to find those quality components. Too bad the field doesn't have a
> visible champion to stand up and say so.
>
> bob
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar Â- get it now!
> http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/g [...] direct/01/
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lwfIc.56901$MB3.2180@attbi_s04...
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 05:33:05 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Bob Marcus" <nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:CQVHc.62798$XM6.7819@attbi_s53...
>
> >> There's also a larger issue. This amp is perhaps the most sublime
> >> manifestation ever conceived of what is wrong with high-end audio--the
> >> triumph of marketing, glitz, and pseudo-technical bullshit over quality
and
> >> value, and the anointing of "golden-eared" reviewers whose judgment, if
they
> >> ever had any, goes south at the sight of a pricetag. Has there ever
been a
> >> better example of why high-end audio is the laughingstock of EE
departments
> >> from coast to coast?
>
> Um, Kimber 'Black Pearl' cables at $1,000 a foot, perhaps? :-)
>
> >> Stereophile fashions itself a champion of the high end. Running a
positive
> >> review of an amp like this champions nothing but decadent excess. It's
an
> >> insult to the entire field, and to everyone who's ever tried to design
a
> >> quality component. It's also a disservice to every consumer who's out
there
> >> trying to find those quality components. Too bad the field doesn't have
a
> >> visible champion to stand up and say so.
> >>
> >I'm sorry, Bob, but like many others here on RAHE, your underlying
> >assumption is that the typical audiophile is a sheep, simply willing to
be
> >led around by the nose.
>
> That's not an assumption, it's an observation................
>

Well then, tell us what you *observe* that leads to that assumption.
Observations do not denigrate; the assumptions about the observations do.
You have just confirmed my observation about some of the opinions here.

> > In truth, they are usually well educated, affluent,
> >and perfectly able to make their own, usually intelligent decisions.
>
> So why does all this ability apparently collapse at the sight of a TAS
> or S'pile review? Why is there such a thing as a 'high end' cable
> industry?
>

Care to sight specifics of when you have seen an audiophile *collapse* at
the sight of a Stereophile or TAS reveiw? And incidentally, how long has
it been since you've even read these mags regularly to be able to speak of
them and their readers with such authority?

> > I dare
> >say anybody interested in this amp would certainly give pause after
seeing
> >Johns technical evaluation and conclusions. If they are still interested
in
> >hearing it, they have been forewarned that technically it is subpar.
>
> Subpar? That's like saying that a Rolls-Royce which is actually
> powered by a 50cc Honda lawnmower engine is 'subpar'!
>
> >powered Then
> >it is up to them. That's what a review magazine can and should
do....give
> >the reader advice pro and con so that they can decide whether or not it
is
> >worth the time and trouble to audition.
>
> And in this case, they should simply have laughed in the supplier's
> face, then told their readers that the amp is ludicrously
> underpowered, hilariously overpriced, and not worth bothering about
> unless you have Lowther speakers.
>

They provided the information. Again, the readers are not sheep. They can
decide.