Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (
More info?)
B&D wrote:
> On 1/1/05 12:19 PM, in article cr6m270ga3@news3.newsguy.com,
> "nabob33@hotmail.com" <nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > michael wrote:
> >>
> >> try: http
/theaudiocritic.com/
> >
> > Well, will ya look at that! At least it's a sign of life. The
latest
> > issue I have on my shelf is #29, dated Summer/Fall 2003, which
means
> > they are now well behind even their usual one-a-year schedule.
>
> I have that issue - it is a pretty good issue, too
>
> >
> > Anyone who's not familiar with TAC should consider the back-issue
> > offer. (Don't subscribe till you hear there's a new issue out,
tho.)
> > The equipment reviews will be of mostly historical interest, but
> > there's plenty of meat, some good interviews with respectable
people in
> > the biz, and a fair bit of flame-throwing. Even if you're a
hard-core
> > subjectivist, you should check it out (for the same reason that
> > liberals ought to listen to Rush every once in a while).
>
> Did not strike me as being super hard core objectivist, though, I am
a
> subjectivist when it comes to this hobby, and I found nothing
objectionable
> in the magazine - even the editorial flames weren't terribly bad.
Senor Aczel has been getting soft in his old age--or maybe that was
Ivan Berger's price for participation. For an example of the classic
TAC tack, download "10 Biggest Lies" here:
http
/www.theaudiocritic.com/cwo/Sample_Articles/
bob