Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)
Did the Audio Critic go belly up? Been a while since I've received an issue.
- GRL
Did the Audio Critic go belly up? Been a while since I've received an issue.
- GRL
Audio Critic
- Thread starter Guest
- Start date
-
- Tags
- High-End Audio Product
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)
GRL wrote:
> Did the Audio Critic go belly up? Been a while since I've received an
> issue.
>
> - GRL
That's the way it is supposed to be. They are just sticking to their
usual publishing schedule. It's the Paul Masson-Citizen Kane school of
reviewing-->they release nothing "before its time". Of course, unlike
that drink of fat, overweight directors living on laurels, TAC is, IMO,
worth the wait.
But it's kinda like beer. Some folks are happy drinking a case of
Miller Lite every weekend. Some folks, on the other hand, would rather
sip a pint of Sam Adams Chocolate Christmas Bock once a year. I guess
it all depends on one's priorities.
michael
try: http
/theaudiocritic.com/
GRL wrote:
> Did the Audio Critic go belly up? Been a while since I've received an
> issue.
>
> - GRL
That's the way it is supposed to be. They are just sticking to their
usual publishing schedule. It's the Paul Masson-Citizen Kane school of
reviewing-->they release nothing "before its time". Of course, unlike
that drink of fat, overweight directors living on laurels, TAC is, IMO,
worth the wait.
But it's kinda like beer. Some folks are happy drinking a case of
Miller Lite every weekend. Some folks, on the other hand, would rather
sip a pint of Sam Adams Chocolate Christmas Bock once a year. I guess
it all depends on one's priorities.
michael
try: http
/theaudiocritic.com/Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)
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.
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).
bob
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.
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).
bob
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)
On 12/31/04 2:46 PM, in article cr4aae01ah6@news3.newsguy.com, "michael"
<pm279@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> GRL wrote:
>> Did the Audio Critic go belly up? Been a while since I've received an
>> issue.
>>
>> - GRL
>
> That's the way it is supposed to be. They are just sticking to their
> usual publishing schedule. It's the Paul Masson-Citizen Kane school of
> reviewing-->they release nothing "before its time". Of course, unlike
> that drink of fat, overweight directors living on laurels, TAC is, IMO,
> worth the wait.
>
> But it's kinda like beer. Some folks are happy drinking a case of
> Miller Lite every weekend. Some folks, on the other hand, would rather
> sip a pint of Sam Adams Chocolate Christmas Bock once a year. I guess
> it all depends on one's priorities.
>
> michael
>
> try: http/theaudiocritic.com/
But it has been a rather long time since the last issue - if a magazine
waits a really long time it is less a magazine, and may as well be in book
publishing.....
On 12/31/04 2:46 PM, in article cr4aae01ah6@news3.newsguy.com, "michael"
<pm279@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> GRL wrote:
>> Did the Audio Critic go belly up? Been a while since I've received an
>> issue.
>>
>> - GRL
>
> That's the way it is supposed to be. They are just sticking to their
> usual publishing schedule. It's the Paul Masson-Citizen Kane school of
> reviewing-->they release nothing "before its time". Of course, unlike
> that drink of fat, overweight directors living on laurels, TAC is, IMO,
> worth the wait.
>
> But it's kinda like beer. Some folks are happy drinking a case of
> Miller Lite every weekend. Some folks, on the other hand, would rather
> sip a pint of Sam Adams Chocolate Christmas Bock once a year. I guess
> it all depends on one's priorities.
>
> michael
>
> try: http
/theaudiocritic.com/But it has been a rather long time since the last issue - if a magazine
waits a really long time it is less a magazine, and may as well be in book
publishing.....
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)
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.
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.
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
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
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)
In article <crcd6e02oe0@news3.newsguy.com>, nabob33@hotmail.com
wrote:
> 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/
That was refreshing, even if you don't like the content. Aczel
can write. Compare the above to some of Randi's drivel for
example.
In article <crcd6e02oe0@news3.newsguy.com>, nabob33@hotmail.com
wrote:
> 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/That was refreshing, even if you don't like the content. Aczel
can write. Compare the above to some of Randi's drivel for
example.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
Facebook
Twitter