Obviously, none of those is what most of the universe considers
"acoustic music", which is usually defined as music emanating from
non-electrical instruments. Once a circuit gets in the mix (pun
intended), then the idea of "acoustic" is thrown out the window since
there's no absolute standard anymore (which is the point of demanding
it in the first place).

Well, Arny, et al (he hasn't been posting recently), would point out that
the electronic signal eventually is converted to audible sound, and that
sound is "acoustic".


I'd argue though that even with acoustic music, you still have the
issue of microphone/recording medium/recording console/studio playback
monitors/production values and the recording room itself that keeps
there from being a true absolute standard anyway, which is why I think
that the idea of using "live, acoustic music" as the only standard is
not the great idea that it sounds like on first blush.

It's a fine idea if you make your own recordings!

When someone says "live acoustic music" the implication is "concert hall" --
not a studio.

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 06:21:52 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

Obviously, none of those is what most of the universe considers
"acoustic music", which is usually defined as music emanating from
non-electrical instruments. Once a circuit gets in the mix (pun
intended), then the idea of "acoustic" is thrown out the window since
there's no absolute standard anymore (which is the point of demanding
it in the first place).

Well, Arny, et al (he hasn't been posting recently), would point out that
the electronic signal eventually is converted to audible sound, and that
sound is "acoustic".

Well yes. I fully realize that's his "argument" at least in the first
case (if you put a mic in front of a guitar amp, yes, you are picking
up "acoustic sound"). However, the whole idea of using "acoustic
instruments" as a reference implies that the sound of such an
instrument is basically intrinsic to the instrument itself and, other
than differing playing techniques, is fairly inalterable. And that's
part of the problem in your argument, since there are INDEED variables
once you introduce a specific room and recording chain into the
equation. Also, a mic'ed guitar amp has an almost infinite number of
variations in sound that is independent of playing techniques (and in
some cases the instrument itself), even as those playing techniques
add even MORE variabillties. And, once you use an on-body pickup to
try to duplicate the sound of an instrument, you reduce the chance of
creating a "neutral" (open air) reproduction of the instrument to
almost zero. Recording a synthesizer doesn't even qualify unless, once
again, you are talking about mic'ing its output through an amp and not
directly into the board. And now you have the same problem that I note
above.

I'd argue though that even with acoustic music, you still have the
issue of microphone/recording medium/recording console/studio playback
monitors/production values and the recording room itself that keeps
there from being a true absolute standard anyway, which is why I think
that the idea of using "live, acoustic music" as the only standard is
not the great idea that it sounds like on first blush.

It's a fine idea if you make your own recordings!

But even *that* is not a slam dunk. This would let out using ANY
existing recordings, even if they're "acoustically based" because you
have no real reference as to how the ensemble sounded in the original
environment. You'd have no assurance that the recording chain didn't
add or subtract details extant in the original setting. Also, you
remove the validation that the reader of the review can make by using
the same recording in his or her own testing. Even though they have to
take the opinions of the reviewer at faith in any review, the reader
STILL has to have a way of calibrating how many grains of salt they
have to take when reading the opinion of a stranger.

When someone says "live acoustic music" the implication is "concert hall" --
not a studio.

There's your other problem. Which seat is the reference? Is the AC
system on or off? Is the hall full of bodies or empty (or half-full)?

All of this is nitpicking, to be sure. But to use such a strict
standard almost requires such nitpicking, because those nits affect
the efficacy of the standard.

The point is, for people familiar with the sound of "electric music",
they have a pretty good idea as to how a recording *should* sound vis
a vis their experience in hearing similar music and they can
extrapolate how close a system sounds to what it "should" sound like
(I put should in quotations because any kind of music is always
dependent on the production values employed, even in miminalistic
recordings).

On the other hand, I don't have to have heard Dire Straits live to be
able to tell whether a system makes "Brothers In Arms" sound "right".
And that goes to the subjective nature of evaluations, because someone
listening in the exact same spot as me might have a different opinion,
because they value different sonic attributes or have different life
experiences.

When someone says "live acoustic music" the implication
is "concert hall" --not a studio.

There's your other problem. Which seat is the reference? Is the AC
system on or off? Is the hall full of bodies or empty (or half-full)?

All of your points are correct, at least in theory.

In practice, if one mixes a multi-track pop recording in a studio over a
particular set of speakers to get the producer's "intended effect", that
sound becomes the reference -- and if the listener doesn't have the same
playback setup, he will not hear that sound with "correct" fidelity.

On the other hand, one can record a live performance with at least the
intent of creating a recording that accurately captures what is in front of
the mics, that is not dependent on the sound of a particular playback system
to appear life-like, realistic, etc.

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:12:36 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

When someone says "live acoustic music" the implication
is "concert hall" --not a studio.

There's your other problem. Which seat is the reference? Is the AC
system on or off? Is the hall full of bodies or empty (or half-full)?

All of your points are correct, at least in theory.

In practice, if one mixes a multi-track pop recording in a studio over a
particular set of speakers to get the producer's "intended effect", that
sound becomes the reference -- and if the listener doesn't have the same
playback setup, he will not hear that sound with "correct" fidelity.

That's part of my point. A person reading a review and trying to
evaluate a component or a system has, by necessity, to use a bit of
extrapolation.

On the other hand, one can record a live performance with at least the
intent of creating a recording that accurately captures what is in front of
the mics, that is not dependent on the sound of a particular playback system
to appear life-like, realistic, etc.

And how often does this occur these days? And who is the judge of this
"reality"? The producer? The artist? The end consumer?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
George M. Middius wrote:
William Sommerwerck said to Thing:

You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal
people make
their choices. If you value "realistic" sound, do you
need some
reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it? That
judgment
is as subjective as "too much bass" or "great imaging".

If you value "good" sound, do you need some reviewer to
tell you
whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as
subjective as "too
much bass" or "great imaging".

You're missing the point of what I wrote and how Mr.
Middius
responded. There's a vast gulf between buying something
simply
because you like it, and having an "expert" justify your
purchase.

Good luck getting Thing's teeth marks off your shoes. :-(

Thus Middius tries to distract us from the fact that his
response was some place between irrelevant and redundant.

Your responses are some place between irrelevant and incorrect.

Robert Morein said to the Big ****:

Your responses are some place between irrelevant and incorrect.

And he forget to chant his mantra: "Fecal obsession. Fecal obsession. Fecal
obsession...."

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Thus Middius tries to distract us from the fact that his
response was some place between irrelevant and redundant.

Your responses are some place between irrelevant and incorrect.



Arny's responses are somewhere in downtown ****sville.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Arny Krueger wrote:

Sander deWaal wrote:

Howard Ferstler said:


Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction
of "if it
sounds good, it is good".

What's wrong with that?

By your standards, this means that juke boxes in red-neck
bars are on the same audio-quality level as the very best
Wilson WAMM systems.

Hear tell that the very best WAMM systems aren't all that
grand sounding, once the hype is stripped away.

Yeah. I have heard that, too, and from some seriously expert
audio engineers. I was basically trying to make a point with
people who probably think that Wilson speakers are the alpha
and omega of speaker design.

Doesn't that depend on the person judging the system?

Ferstler did say red-neck, didn't he?

Yep. I definitely do live in that part of the country.
Actually, while I am not going to defend the juke-box sound,
it is kind of pleasant to sit and listen to that stuff while
nursing a few beers. The more beers, the better.

Howard Ferstler

wrote:


Clyde Slick wrote:

"robert casey" wrote in message
hlink.net...

Any of these magazines ever come out and say that
Product X made by Company Y really sucked?

The situation is that they are mostly reviewing extremely
expensive and high end products. Generally, such products do not really
suck.



SET amps, anyone? Shakti Stones? Shun Mook Mpingo discs? Bedini
Clarifiers? Power conditioners? High $ "interconnects"? High $ power
cords? Shall I go on?

SET amps may be legit, but the rest above are snake oil.

There would be several classes of products: Excellent and
expensive, but worth it; Excellent but cheap, That's a winner;
Excellent and expensive but a cheap product works just as well
(like speaker cables or power cords), a waste of money better
spent elsewhere in the system, crappy and expensive, obviously
to be avoided, and crappy and cheap, you wouldn't use it
in your "reference" good system, but might be suitable
to use say in the hot steamy bathroom so you can listen
to tunes in the shower. And not much care if it gets ruined.

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Obviously, none of those is what most of the universe
considers
"acoustic music", which is usually defined as music
emanating from
non-electrical instruments. Once a circuit gets in the
mix (pun
intended), then the idea of "acoustic" is thrown out the
window since
there's no absolute standard anymore (which is the point
of demanding
it in the first place).

Well, Arny, et al (he hasn't been posting recently), would
point out
that the electronic signal eventually is converted to
audible sound,
and that sound is "acoustic".

Agreed. Furhtermore, I distinguish between the acoustic
output of an instrument that is inherently fed through its
own specialized amplifier (e.g. electric guitar or
electronic piano), the sound of an ensemble of instruments
and voices mixed together and amplified (e.g. the sound
system of a rock band).

To me most if not all amplified instruments are just
electronic analogs of a traditional musical instrument. They
work a lot like traditional instruments, except that some or
all of their functioning is replaced by electronics and/or
software.


I'd argue though that even with acoustic music, you still
have the
issue of microphone/recording medium/recording
console/studio
playback monitors/production values and the recording
room itself
that keeps there from being a true absolute standard
anyway, which
is why I think that the idea of using "live, acoustic
music" as the
only standard is not the great idea that it sounds like
on first
blush.

Agreed.

It's a fine idea if you make your own recordings!

Not at all. The same kinds of compromises slip in,
regardless.

When someone says "live acoustic music" the implication is
"concert
hall" -- not a studio.

Well, some kind of larger-scale performance space with an
audience of some size.

robert casey wrote




why don't you go off to idaho and start a minimalist audio cult?


North Dakota. No neighbors, so we can blast the music and
nobody will complain.... ;-)



Now I remember who you are. You are that numbnut from about
a year or so ago who proudly told everyone about your insatiable hots
for jesus or Lord was it, and then went on and on talking about your
addiction to religion 'cause you always thought there was something
wrong about yourself from the beginning.

Would it have been better if you instead directed your interest into
something like maybe, hmm say, homegrown potatoes?

Now I remember who you are. You are that numbnut from about
a year or so ago who proudly told everyone about your insatiable hots
for jesus or Lord was it, and then went on and on talking about your
addiction to religion 'cause you always thought there was something
wrong about yourself from the beginning.

Would it have been better if you instead directed your interest into
something like maybe, hmm say, homegrown potatoes?


Not me. Don't know who that was, but it wasn't me. :-)

wrote in message
oups.com...


William Sommerwerck wrote:
George M. Middius wrote:

William Sommerwerck said:

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it
sounds
good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of
"high
fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it
exists
primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to
make.

You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal people make
their
choices. If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to
tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective
as
"too much bass" or "great imaging".

If you value "good" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you
whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too
much bass" or "great imaging".

You're missing the point of what I wrote and how Mr. Middius responded.
There's a vast gulf between buying something simply because you like it,
and
having an "expert" justify your purchase.


What? "Middius" asked: "If you value 'realistic' sound, do you need
some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it?". I asked
essentially the same question, but changed 'realistic' sound (the old
SP paradigm) to 'good' sound (the new SP paradigm). IOW, if you do not
need a reviewer to tell you what sounds "realistic", why would you need
a reviewer to tell you what sounds "good"? At least "realistic" sound
has some sort of objective standard, so you have an idea of where the
reviewer is coming from. "Good" sound is *completely* subjective. What
sounds "good" to you (or JA or someone else) may not sound "good" to
me.


Surely no-one, but no-one buys a piece of equipment based on what he/she
has read in a review. But with so much equipment on offer, a amagazine can
give useful pointers. But the buyer has to make up his own mind. Luckily
I jknow my local dealer well, and he will let me borrow equipment for tests
at home. I have a vintage British valve amp which for which he is keen to
find me a modern replacement so that he can buy it from me:-)

Iain

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 19:53:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


I'd argue though that even with acoustic music, you still
have the
issue of microphone/recording medium/recording
console/studio
playback monitors/production values and the recording
room itself
that keeps there from being a true absolute standard
anyway, which
is why I think that the idea of using "live, acoustic
music" as the
only standard is not the great idea that it sounds like
on first
blush.

Agreed.

This is almost a first. Arnold agrees with something I've said without
trying to play words games with it, simply because it's me saying it.

Kudos for getting past the personal stuff.

"jeffc" wrote in message
m...

"Iain M Churches" wrote in message
...
Any editor who receives letters from dis-satisfied
readers in large numbers will certainly not ignore them.
But, an editor who receives little or no feedback will assume
that the readers are happy with the magazine, as long as
circulation figures are maintained.

Right, so what good does it do to listen to the readers? All that matters
is the circulation numbers. If it drops, lower the subscription price.

I really don't believe that any editor worth his salt is
interested only in the size of the circulation. I am sure journalists
and editors read other publications, and can judge from them
the standing of their own magazine. The public are quick to
complain, but to the wrong people:-)

Iain

"Signal" wrote in message
...
"Scott Dorsey" emitted :

If anything, the DIY phenomenon should be taking off. But it's dying.
Why?

Because there's little or no for motivation for up and coming
generations. Why bother?

Because you wind up with something that perfectly matches your exact
needs, instead of a product that someone in marketing decided would
meet most users' needs.

Can you give an example? I'm struggling to think of a D.I.Y.
electronics project that would impress a young person now.

A tube amp is the prime example:-)

Iain

It's a fine idea if you make your own recordings!

Not at all. The same kinds of compromises slip in,
regardless.

I have to disagree. First, you're hearing the original sound that is
supposed to serve as the reference. Second, you start to understand the ways
in which recordings differ from live sound. This is quite different from
listening to an "engineered" recording in which the sound is deliberately
manipulated to produce some effect.


When someone says "live acoustic music" the implication
is "concert hall" -- not a studio.

Well, some kind of larger-scale performance space with an
audience of some size.

Which is why I put "concert hall" in quotes.

Iain M Churches wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


William Sommerwerck wrote:
George M. Middius wrote:

William Sommerwerck said:

Under JA, the magazine gradually moved in the direction of "if it
sounds
good, it is good". Any pretense to honoring the original meaning of
"high
fidelity" has been lost. Stereophile has no "objective" standards; it
exists
primarily to justify whatever purchase a particular reader wishes to
make.

You might think it odd, but that's exactly how Normal people make
their
choices. If you value "realistic" sound, do you need some reviewer to
tell you whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective
as
"too much bass" or "great imaging".

If you value "good" sound, do you need some reviewer to tell you
whether a system delivers it? That judgment is as subjective as "too
much bass" or "great imaging".

You're missing the point of what I wrote and how Mr. Middius responded.
There's a vast gulf between buying something simply because you like it,
and
having an "expert" justify your purchase.


What? "Middius" asked: "If you value 'realistic' sound, do you need
some reviewer to tell you whether a system delivers it?". I asked
essentially the same question, but changed 'realistic' sound (the old
SP paradigm) to 'good' sound (the new SP paradigm). IOW, if you do not
need a reviewer to tell you what sounds "realistic", why would you need
a reviewer to tell you what sounds "good"? At least "realistic" sound
has some sort of objective standard, so you have an idea of where the
reviewer is coming from. "Good" sound is *completely* subjective. What
sounds "good" to you (or JA or someone else) may not sound "good" to
me.


Surely no-one, but no-one buys a piece of equipment based on what he/she
has read in a review.


It happens more often than you think, Iain.


But with so much equipment on offer, a magazine can
give useful pointers.


Yes, a magazine can give useful pointers, but not when the interests of
the advertisers are put above the interests of the readers.


But the buyer has to make up his own mind.


But glowing reviews of totally useless items such as Shakti Stones and
Shun Mook Mpingo, high $ power cords, etc., discs make intelligent
decisions more difficult, don't they?

Iain M Churches said to Little ****:

Surely no-one, but no-one buys a piece of equipment based on what he/she
has read in a review. But with so much equipment on offer, a amagazine can
give useful pointers. But the buyer has to make up his own mind.

Looks like you're not familiar with the Hivie 'borgma Thing is espousing here.

The gist of your assertion is that human beings have free will. This is an alien
concept in the Hive. To Them, there are no choices, only mindless obedience. Why
dickie the anonyrodent tries to blame Stereophile for the ****ty-sounding
equipment he's stuck with is somewhat of a mystery. One might reasonably
speculate that at some time in the past, before Thing joined the Hive, he tried
to invest his latent obeisance in the magazine. Then, when his fortunes turned,
perhaps he had to sell his expensive equipment at a loss. For that debacle, he
blames Stereophile. If he were a human being, he might understand that choices
have consequences; but since he does not believe in the ability to make a
choice, he is forced to deny he ever made one. Hence the cause of his
misfortunes must be laid at somebody else's doorstep.

For more illustrations of this philosophy of self-abnegation, see the ponderous
prattle of H. Ferstler or the duplicitous bloviations of Arnii "Debating Trade"
Krooger.

Thing finally admits his problem is that he's just plain stupid.

But the buyer has to make up his own mind.

But glowing reviews of totally useless items such as Shakti Stones and
Shun Mook Mpingo, high $ power cords, etc., discs make intelligent
decisions more difficult, don't they?

LOL.

But seriously.... Not unless one is retarded, which I take it you are.

Iain M Churches wrote:

Surely no-one, but no-one buys a piece of equipment based on what he/she
has read in a review. But with so much equipment on offer, a amagazine can
give useful pointers. But the buyer has to make up his own mind. Luckily
I jknow my local dealer well, and he will let me borrow equipment for tests
at home. I have a vintage British valve amp which for which he is keen to
find me a modern replacement so that he can buy it from me:-)

Unfortunately I have seen a lot of people spend a lot of money entirely
based on reviews. As a reviewer, I find it it kind of terrifying.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey said:

Unfortunately I have seen a lot of people spend a lot of money entirely
based on reviews. As a reviewer, I find it it kind of terrifying.

Use your power wisely, then, lest in a future life you are called to answer for
your crimes.

Iain M Churches wrote:

I really don't believe that any editor worth his salt is
interested only in the size of the circulation. I am sure journalists
and editors read other publications, and can judge from them
the standing of their own magazine. The public are quick to
complain, but to the wrong people:-)

There are editors like that. For a while I wrote some articles for a
now-defunct electronics magazine. I remember the editor giving me an
assignment, and I pointed out that RF Design had done an identical article
the previous month. He said, "Our readers don't read RF Design. It's
a totally different group of people." I'm not sure how true that really
was. This is another example of editors who misjudge the positioning and
standing.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

wrote in message
ups.com...


Iain M Churches wrote:

Surely no-one, but no-one buys a piece of equipment based on what he/she
has read in a review.

It happens more often than you think, Iain.

Are people really that insecure/indecisive?


But with so much equipment on offer, a magazine can
give useful pointers.


Yes, a magazine can give useful pointers, but not when the interests of
the advertisers are put above the interests of the readers.

Agreed

But the buyer has to make up his own mind.


But glowing reviews of totally useless items such as Shakti Stones and
Shun Mook Mpingo, high $ power cords, etc., discs make intelligent
decisions more difficult, don't they?

Indeed, and also make it difficult to take any other reviews by the same
write seriously.

So any potential buyer should borrow a set and listen. After you
have paid big bucks for them, they will certainly make a huge
improvement:-)


But, as far as I am concerned, if people think they can
hear an improvement with their Shakti Stones, and solid silver 20A
power cords, then good luck to them.

It's picking out the fact from the fiction that makes audio such an
interesting pastime:-)

Iain

Iain M Churches wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


Iain M Churches wrote:

Surely no-one, but no-one buys a piece of equipment based on what he/she
has read in a review.

It happens more often than you think, Iain.

Are people really that insecure/indecisive?


The reviewer is seen as an authority/expert in their field. People buy
a magazine, book, etc., to tap into the "expertise" of the writers.
When the writer is either non compos mentis, cynical or corrupt, the
"expertise" is just about worthless, at best.


But with so much equipment on offer, a magazine can
give useful pointers.


Yes, a magazine can give useful pointers, but not when the interests of
the advertisers are put above the interests of the readers.

Agreed

But the buyer has to make up his own mind.


But glowing reviews of totally useless items such as Shakti Stones and
Shun Mook Mpingo, high $ power cords, etc., discs make intelligent
decisions more difficult, don't they?

Indeed, and also make it difficult to take any other reviews by the same
writer seriously.


Exactly! And this is one big reason that rags like Stereophile have
zero credibility.


So any potential buyer should borrow a set and listen.


But if the "expert" said he/she heard a big improvement using, for
example, Shakti Stones, many consumers are "conned" into hearing a
difference, too. Classic example of "the Emperor's New Clothes".


After you
have paid big bucks for them, they will certainly make a huge
improvement:-)


Agreed. IMO, many audio scammers count on this effect.


But, as far as I am concerned, if people think they can
hear an improvement with their Shakti Stones, and solid silver 20A
power cords, then good luck to them.


I guess....


It's picking out the fact from the fiction that makes audio such an
interesting pastime:-)


And it was easier when the magazines and reviewers were both more
competent and more honest.

Phil Allison a écrit :
"Jocelyn Major"

Phil Allison

** What gives you the right to completely change someone's post before
adding your asinine reply ??

???? I simply don't understand what is your problem.


** Answer the question - bitch:
Ok poor little idiot. I will try to explain something that I am not sure
that your
poor tiny brain will fully understand.

First: You show that you are a dumb misogynist. Just for that you prove
that you totally suffer brain damage at birth.

Second: If you can read (at least you can do that) you will see that my
email address is from Videotron in Canada. Videotron is a Québec
Internet Provider. The point is that I live in a french speaking place.
And as you cannot understand (since you suffer from a severe lack of
oxigen at birth) Jocelyn is in french a MAN name. So poor little Phil
you where telling to a 6 feet tall 200 pound MAN that he is a bitch. I
am pretty sure that you would never have told this if I was right in
front of you. Of course not.

Like the little idiot coward that you are, several little boy (that like
you **** in their bed at night) are always hiding behind something or
someone when the insult others. You hide behind your computer now. Where
you hiding behind your little sister when when a toddler want to beat
you in college?

And if you really want to know who you where trying to insult just click
on the following link

http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawac...a-3ebc3dee9f94

For your info I am his son and like him, better not get me mad.

Have a GREAT day poor little girly boy

It is the last time I waste my time reading your stupid words.

Little **** is still whining about Stereophile.

And this is one big reason that rags like Stereophile have
zero credibility.

No credibility with you, or with people who are actually interested in
purchasing audio equipment? A bottom-feeder like you can buy whackoff magazines
anywhere.

Iain M Churches wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...


Iain M Churches wrote:

Surely no-one, but no-one buys a piece of equipment
based on what
he/she has read in a review.

It happens more often than you think, Iain.

Are people really that insecure/indecisive?

The more relevant i-word would be ignorant.

But with so much equipment on offer, a magazine can
give useful pointers.

Yes, a magazine can give useful pointers, but not when
the interests
of the advertisers are put above the interests of the
readers.

Agreed

But the buyer has to make up his own mind.

But glowing reviews of totally useless items such as
Shakti Stones
and Shun Mook Mpingo, high $ power cords, etc., discs
make
intelligent decisions more difficult, don't they?

Indeed, and also make it difficult to take any other
reviews by the
same write seriously.

Agreed.

So any potential buyer should borrow a set and listen.
After you
have paid big bucks for them, they will certainly make a
huge
improvement:-)

Borrow from whom?

But, as far as I am concerned, if people think they can
hear an improvement with their Shakti Stones, and solid
silver 20A
power cords, then good luck to them.

Good luck for them would involve learning enough about audio
to have good judgement.

It's picking out the fact from the fiction that makes
audio such an
interesting pastime:-)

Having a leading magazine in the field that is full of so
much muck makes it a lot tougher on the newbies, and others
who simply don't know what to believe.

Stereophile is a corporate sell-out rag, designed to give raving reviews of
all of its advertisers

don't feed the trolls by responding to any Stereophile related post

just killfile the sender

Iain M Churches said:

Surely no-one, but no-one buys a piece of equipment based on what he/she
has read in a review.

It happens more often than you think, Iain.

Are people really that insecure/indecisive?

That's not the usual problem why people buy overpriced audio stuff. Fact
is, there's high noise-to-signal ratio in audio marketing. Somehow or
other (but not because of Stereophile), audio has acquired a mystique
among people who are new to the arena. The array of choices is daunting.
The noise you get at the mass-market box stores can give a beginner all
kinds of wrongheaded notions about what to look for.

Sad to say, the class war constantly being raged on Usenet by the
downtrodden of the world is also seen in somewhat high relief in audio.
The main reason for that is that the utilitarian stuff is priced to fit
90% of consumers' budgets, but the fancy stuff has prices that go
through the roof. Even the big box stores have engaged in the
higher-price-equals-better game, although not so much any more because
now it's TVs that command the lion's share of the budget. And the notion
of "better" is fuzzy too, because it can apply to sound quality, build
quality, ergonomics, feature set, warranty, etc.

If you've never helped guide a newbie through the portals of consumer
audio, give it a try. (Especially a female.) Then you'll see all the
pitfalls that can lead to a bad decision.

cowboy wrote:
Stereophile is a corporate sell-out rag, designed to give raving reviews of
all of its advertisers


Succinct and to the point. The best summation of Stereophile in years!
:-))

On 6/20/05 6:04 PM, in article
, "
wrote:
cowboy wrote:
Stereophile is a corporate sell-out rag, designed to give raving reviews of
all of its advertisers


Succinct and to the point. The best summation of Stereophile in years!
:-))

BEN! it's yet ANOTHER thread on a magazine discussion that ha NO PLACE being
crossposted where it's going!
Let's Kill It Now!
Thanks!

On 6/20/05 12:36 PM, in article , "Iain M
Churches" wrote:


Are people really that insecure/indecisive?


No Iain, just unconcionably inconsiderate by continuing to crosspost across
groups that have NO desire for this thread!
Let's edit those crosspost headers!
Thanks!

On 6/20/05 1:08 PM, in article
, "
wrote:

And it was easier when the magazines and reviewers were both more
competent and more honest.


Ben, it was easier when folks paid attention to where they sent posts, and
weren;t just unconscionably inconsiderate by continuing to crosspost across
groups that have NO desire for this thread!
Let's edit those crosspost headers!
Thanks!

On 6/20/05 1:57 PM, in article , "George Middius"
wrote:

A bottom-feeder like you can buy whackoff magazines
anywhere.

Charming helpful post there George, it'd help if folks paid attention to
where they sent posts, and weren;t just unconscionably inconsiderate by
continuing to crosspost across groups that have NO desire for this thread!
Let's edit those crosspost headers!
Thanks!

On 6/20/05 5:38 PM, in article , "cowboy"
wrote:

don't feed the trolls by responding to any Stereophile related post
just killfile the sender

Cowboy, that's like putting up a screen to hide folks dumping trash on the
street in front of your house... Better , it'd help if folks paid attention
to where they sent posts, and weren;t just unconscionably inconsiderate by
continuing to crosspost across groups that have NO desire for this thread!
Let's edit those crosspost headers!
Thanks!

On 6/20/05 5:44 PM, in article ,
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

If you've never helped guide a newbie through the portals of consumer
audio, give it a try. (Especially a female.) Then you'll see all the
pitfalls that can lead to a bad decision.

Nice, George, but not a thread topic that warrents all the crossposts...,
it'd help if folks paid attention to where they sent posts, and weren;t just
unconscionably inconsiderate by continuing to crosspost across groups that
have NO desire for this thread!
Let's edit those crosspost headers!
Thanks!

"SSJVCmag" wrote in message
...
On 6/20/05 12:36 PM, in article , "Iain
M
Churches" wrote:


Are people really that insecure/indecisive?


No Iain, just unconcionably inconsiderate by continuing to crosspost
across
groups that have NO desire for this thread!
Let's edit those crosspost headers!
Thanks!


Yes Indeed!!!
Just how clueless can you be?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"SSJVCmag" wrote in message
...
On 6/20/05 6:04 PM, in article
,
"
wrote:
cowboy wrote:
Stereophile is a corporate sell-out rag, designed to give raving reviews
of
all of its advertisers


Succinct and to the point. The best summation of Stereophile in years!
:-))

BEN! it's yet ANOTHER thread on a magazine discussion that ha NO PLACE
being
crossposted where it's going!
Let's Kill It Now!
Thanks!



We thank you for NOT firing the first shot!



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"SSJVCmag" wrote in message
...
On 6/20/05 1:08 PM, in article
,
"
wrote:

And it was easier when the magazines and reviewers were both more
competent and more honest.


Ben, it was easier when folks paid attention to where they sent posts, and
weren;t just unconscionably inconsiderate by continuing to crosspost
across
groups that have NO desire for this thread!
Let's edit those crosspost headers!
Thanks!


Come on Guru!
Show us how!!!



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----