Speaker Cable v. Lamp Cord

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ban

Distinguished
Apr 14, 2004
146
0
18,630
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bob Marcus wrote:
>> And it's most unfortunate should
>> anyone go spend their hard earned dollars buying wire or equipment
>> based upon writers and editors life styles.
>
> This assumes that Stereophile readers believe cables make a difference
> because Stereophile tells them so. But it's just as likely that they
> read Stereophile *because they already believe* that cables make a
> difference. In which case, the magazine is giving its readers exactly
> what they want.
>

I think it is very unlikely that the average Joe Reader will invest into
these expensive cables. It is more like a car mag testing some exotic
Italian sports car, just for entertainment of the readers. Nobody will buy
one, even if the tester is enthusiatic about it.
And it is not only cables and other snake oil accessories, but all articles.
Every issue has to have a "breakthru" never heard before object to satisfy
the readers curiosity. Something new and better, unheard of before, so you
also buy the next issue, even if everything is just a repetition. There is
not much happening out there, but you have to deliver important news. This
"sensational" makeup is called Journalism. The mag wants to entertain and
the reader is happy.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy
 
G

Guest

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

nabob33@hotmail.com (Bob Marcus) wrote:



>"Norman M. Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:<cn5ied014hh@news2.newsguy.com>...
>> "B&D" <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:cn3oeb02f5h@news1.newsguy.com...
>> > On 11/12/04 2:04 PM, in article cn31f102va3@news3.newsguy.com, "Norman M.
>> > Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jim Cate" <jimcate@pdq.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:cn0vfg0di0@news3.newsguy.com...
>> >>>
>> >>> Any explanations will be appreciated. - Maybe I'm just confused about
>> >>> the
>> >>> whole issue.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> People (1) get to play with these toys free of charge, (2) pay their
>> >> bills
>> >> (wholly or in part) by their writings, and (3) attend conventions and
>> >> meetings to party around at reader's expense. Not bad at all if you can
>> >> swing it and manage a straight face.
>> >
>> > Hey - they have the subscribers to do it. I wouldn't blast them as they
>> > offer value to their subscribers otherwise there wouldn't be any
>> > subscribers.
>>
>> Hey - the question *is* whether or not speaker cable is better than lamp
>> cord. IF it is not better, they are robbing their subscribers BLIND, not
>by
>> a $14.97/year subscription, but by leading gullible readers to financially
>> support dealers and cable manufacturers. I believe the original poster
>> (sincerely ??) inquired about the basis for the entire hullabaloo if all
>> cable of similar gauge sounded the same, and if so, what is the basis for
>> the "whole issue"? Unfortunately the basis for the issue, like far too many
>
>> others, is $$$. Their *value* to subscribers might be entertainment, but
>> that entertainment subsides when you come to the realization that you are
>> contributing to their life style and wasting valuable serious listening
>> hours reading fantasies. And it's most unfortunate should anyone go spend
>> their hard earned dollars buying wire or equipment based upon writers and
>> editors life styles.
>
>This assumes that Stereophile readers believe cables make a difference
>because Stereophile tells them so. But it's just as likely that they
>read Stereophile *because they already believe* that cables make a
>difference. In which case, the magazine is giving its readers exactly
>what they want.
>
>bob

Well this latter point is certainly true but if the readership already believes
in magic and only uses the magazine to reinforce current held mythology then no
one would need the magazine to get a recommendation to coat their cds with
Armor All for better sound.

While I do think it's true that these books reinforce mythology I also wonder
why fair, honest reporting of the truth about sound quality is not of equal
importance.
 
G

Guest

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

On 11/13/04 8:57 PM, in article cn6e1m02uup@news2.newsguy.com, "Bob Marcus"
<nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote:

> This assumes that Stereophile readers believe cables make a difference
> because Stereophile tells them so. But it's just as likely that they
> read Stereophile *because they already believe* that cables make a
> difference. In which case, the magazine is giving its readers exactly
> what they want.

It is also that some subscribers take the reviews (as all reviews) with the
grains of salt they deserve, and buy the magazine not for the occasional
cable review, but the music reviews, the writing and the reviews of the
other components.

The (I believe incorrect) assumption is that somehow the readership endorse
and believe everything they read - I seriously doubt that. I certainly
don't believe everything I read, so why should the readers of Stereophile or
TAS?
 
G

Guest

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

I read Stereophile just for entertainment and laughs. I find it hard to
believe that any sensible person would accept the advertisers claims
without at least a home trial. This is especially true when you take
into account the things that really make a difference - room acoustics,
speaker placement, atmospheric conditions (temperature, humidity,
pressure), and state of mind.


---MIKE---
 
G

Guest

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

"B&D" <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:cn5urv01umu@news2.newsguy.com...
> On 11/13/04 1:06 PM, in article cn5ied014hh@news2.newsguy.com, "Norman M.
> Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>> People (1) get to play with these toys free of charge, (2) pay their
>>>> bills
>>>> (wholly or in part) by their writings, and (3) attend conventions and
>>>> meetings to party around at reader's expense. Not bad at all if you can
>>>> swing it and manage a straight face.
>>>
>>> Hey - they have the subscribers to do it. I wouldn't blast them as they
>>> offer value to their subscribers otherwise there wouldn't be any
>>> subscribers.
>>
>> Hey - the question *is* whether or not speaker cable is better than lamp
>> cord. IF it is not better, they are robbing their subscribers BLIND, not
>> by
>> a $14.97/year subscription, but by leading gullible readers to
>> financially
>> support dealers and cable manufacturers.
>
> Without getting into a large philosophical argument, since 'phile and TAS
> are both successful magazines - with large-ish readership. There is no
> shame in #1, #2, #3 above, and if you do not agree with their reviews, and
> your experience shows that you feel they are wrong, it does not diminish
> their validity as a magazine that specializes in audio entertainment.
> Only
> failure as a magazine would do that.
>
Success equals ?

> And if they get *all* of their cable reviews wrong, it is not a cable
> review
> magazine, either. Last time I checked they had music reviews, source
> component reviews, speaker reviews, preamp, integrated amps, power amp
> reviews, and so on. Since I purchase more in music that I do components,
> music reviews mean as much to me as the other stuff (since recorded music
> is
> such a minefield as far as recording quality)
>
Like yourself I thought I could use their reviews, until a purchased many
recordings to die 4, which were stinkers. Have you found their reviews 100%
on the mark? I became unable to trust the reviews and reading fantasy is not
my cup of tea (or coffee).

> And, I am assuming you are NOT a subscriber, nor do you purchase the
> magazine on the newsstand - so why the heck should they take heed? You
> aren't their constituency, and they aren't trying to satisfy non
> subscribers. Especially ones that are conflicted about the validity of
> "high
> end" itself.
>
> I like a variety of magazines, even ones that disagree with my
> experiences,
> why should there be such condemnation?

ARMOR-ALL.
 
G

Guest

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

>From: "Norman M. Schwartz" nmsz@optonline.net

>Like yourself I thought I could use their reviews, until a purchased many
>recordings to die 4, which were stinkers. Have you found their reviews 100%
>on the mark? I became unable to trust the reviews and reading fantasy is not
>my cup of tea (or coffee).

I haven't had utter faith in audio reviewers ever since Sam Tellig raved about
one of the original Adcom power amps in the late '80s (fortunately one of the
first issues I read). "Tubelike," I believe he called it. "Earbleedingly
shrill" is how I experienced a more powerful version of the amp.

But I didn't extrapolate from this experience all reviewers are wrong all the
time (nor do I think you're saying that), simply that I need to listen to stuff
myself at home, with my ears, and always, always, always make sure I can return
something for a full refund if I don't like the way it sounds at home.
 
G

Guest

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

"It is also that some subscribers take the reviews (as all reviews) with
the
grains of salt they deserve, and buy the magazine not for the occasional
cable review, but the music reviews, the writing and the reviews of the
other components.

The (I believe incorrect) assumption is that somehow the readership
endorse
and believe everything they read - I seriously doubt that. I certainly
don't believe everything I read, so why should the readers of Stereophile
or
TAS?"

What the mag, and others, sell is a culture of illusion. We can add all
but speakers to the same box as wire,,ie. they are now in the commodity
category where differences are no longer advances in sound reproduction
but merely marketing flourish. Prifits in wire are large and allow the
purchase of much ad space; which is the genesis of the illusion as
publishing/marketing merge for mutual benefit. What readers do believe is
the "I can hear it, I really really can, don't you hear it too, don't you
believe me" gospil which now sells these commidities.
 
G

Guest

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

On 11/14/04 11:45 AM, in article cn823n01oqc@news1.newsguy.com, "Norman M.
Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline.net> wrote:

> Like yourself I thought I could use their reviews, until a purchased many
> recordings to die 4, which were stinkers. Have you found their reviews 100%
> on the mark? I became unable to trust the reviews and reading fantasy is not
> my cup of tea (or coffee).

I have found the magazine on the whole well written, and relatively
informative, though I am not a subscriber myself. I have found that Tas as
well as Stereophile, when they rate "sonics" generally true to the mark.

If you don't feel that you can trust the reviews, then by all mean, you
shouldn't be reading the magazine.

For me, I subscribe the 2 magazines that give sampler discs with each issue
- which for me works out great. 1 magazine is an actual good read, the
other one is so much fluff, but the CD's usually have 1-2 good albums
featured, all I have to figure out is if the other songs are to my liking as
the sound quality song-to-song is relatively constant in most albums.
(Amazon is good for that)

I picked up "Shaker Loops" from Naxos because of that, and Marta Gomez [?]
based upon the sampler + some web searching.
 
G

Guest

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

nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote in message news:<cn81cr01qtt@news2.newsguy.com>...

> While I do think it's true that these books reinforce mythology I also wonder
> why fair, honest reporting of the truth about sound quality is not of equal
> importance.

Because magazines have to interest readers--but they have to serve advertisers.

bob
 
G

Guest

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

nabob33@hotmail.com (Bob Marcus) wrote:
>nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote in message
>news:<cn81cr01qtt@news2.newsguy.com>...
>
>> While I do think it's true that these books reinforce mythology I also
>wonder
>> why fair, honest reporting of the truth about sound quality is not of equal
>> importance.
>
>Because magazines have to interest readers--but they have to serve
>advertisers.
>
>bob

Sure; but isn't sound quality maximization a stated goal too? Do any of these
magazines say "we are just interested in maximizing the return to advertisers?"
and even then honest companies also advertise. What about them?

All magazines don't fear reporting the truth. Check out "Can You Trust Your
Ears?" and "To Tweak or not to Tweak " both in Stereo Review who, at the time,
had as much advertising as anybody in the industry.
 
G

Guest

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

Norman M. Schwartz <nmsz@optonline.net> wrote:

>Like yourself I thought I could use their reviews, until a purchased many
>recordings to die 4, which were stinkers. Have you found their reviews 100%
>on the mark? ...

There are some reviewers' opinions that I've come to trust, and others
I've learned to ignore.

--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
moskowit@core-sound.com Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912
 
G

Guest

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

Farrell22 <farrell22@cs.com> wrote:

>I haven't had utter faith in audio reviewers ever since Sam Tellig raved about
>one of the original Adcom power amps in the late '80s (fortunately one of the
>first issues I read). "Tubelike," I believe he called it. "Earbleedingly
>shrill" is how I experienced a more powerful version of the amp.

Funny... I had an Adcom 535 (still have it, now in my office system) and
it sounded pretty darned good for the price. When I tried the higher
power models in the Adcom line at that time, they didn't sound quite as
good.

Maybe Sam was right, but just about the low-powered model?

--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
moskowit@core-sound.com Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912
 
G

Guest

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

B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>The (I believe incorrect) assumption is that somehow the readership endorse
>and believe everything they read - I seriously doubt that. I certainly
>don't believe everything I read, so why should the readers of Stereophile or
>TAS?

Similarly, the Editor of Stereophile doesn't endorse everything his
writers write. It seems to me as if he's trying to leave enough room in
the magazine for opposing (perhaps even fringe) perspectives to be
aired. Makes it more entertaining, no? It almost certainly makes the
magazine appeal to a wider readership.

There's no other publication that has anything approaching John
Atkinson's reviews and their tech tests. Those alone make the magazine
a wonderful read and a subscription price bargain.

--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
moskowit@core-sound.com Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912
 
G

Guest

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

B&D bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>On 11/13/04 8:57 PM, in article cn6e1m02uup@news2.newsguy.com, "Bob Marcus"
><nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This assumes that Stereophile readers believe cables make a difference
>> because Stereophile tells them so. But it's just as likely that they
>> read Stereophile *because they already believe* that cables make a
>> difference. In which case, the magazine is giving its readers exactly
>> what they want.
>
>It is also that some subscribers take the reviews (as all reviews) with the
>grains of salt they deserve, and buy the magazine not for the occasional
>cable review, but the music reviews, the writing and the reviews of the
>other components.
>
>The (I believe incorrect) assumption is that somehow the readership endorse
>and believe everything they read - I seriously doubt that. I certainly
>don't believe everything I read, so why should the readers of Stereophile or
>TAS?

Sure, but when they endorse ideas that have never been verified such as cabling
making improvements in sound quality how can we believe anything else they say?


It's not a matter of just being mistaken. Wire sound can be verified with
simple bias-controlled tests. Indeed I've tried hard to do that myself. So when
a reviewer declares that "The Monsters were actually e bit better at the
frequency extremes than the Au24s and had slightly greater extension.....more
impact at the bottom...due to their improved precision and better pitch
definition....more vivid and electric...stellar in their speed, clarity, air
and extension at the top end...Edge, definition and detail were superb....sonic
picture a little sharper and more obvious..."

All this detail when no single person has ever demonstrated an ability to
reliably identify electrically competent wires when bias controls are
implemented. I'm wondering how you would distinguish this fanciful depiction
from any other observation in the magazine? If you're experienced enough to be
able to sort the wheat from this sort of sludge of what good is the magazine
for anything other than poetry.

I think it's sad the publication taints the useful information depicted in it
by, what seems to be pruposeful, Urban Legend promotion as opposed to a genuine
search for sound quality improvement.

But I agree it's pretty good poetry and hyperbole.
 
G

Guest

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

On 11/15/04 7:46 PM, in article cnbilg0ohj@news4.newsguy.com, "Nousaine"
<nousaine@aol.com> wrote:

> All magazines don't fear reporting the truth. Check out "Can You Trust Your
> Ears?" and "To Tweak or not to Tweak " both in Stereo Review who, at the time,
> had as much advertising as anybody in the industry.

The 'phile as well as other rags in our hobby have their strengths and
weaknesses. They get paid by advertisers and their readers. If you want to
be entertained, you can pick it up and for a period of time, be highly
entertained, scandalized or whatever.

Stereo Review, the Audio Critic, The Sensible Sound, TAS, UHF, Stereophile,
HiFi+, The Audio Perfectionist and others, all have their plusses and
minuses. Pick your poison.
 
G

Guest

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

On 11/14/04 10:51 PM, in article cn994o0tc0@news3.newsguy.com, "Bob Marcus"
<nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote:

> nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote in message
> news:<cn81cr01qtt@news2.newsguy.com>...
>
>> While I do think it's true that these books reinforce mythology I also wonder
>> why fair, honest reporting of the truth about sound quality is not of equal
>> importance.
>
> Because magazines have to interest readers--but they have to serve
> advertisers.

Also would be a pretty boring magazine. The best stuff really doesn't
change much year to year.

It is pretty clear, if you want to educate yourself about sound, you have to
go to a lot of liver performances - unamplified where you can - and listen
to a lot of recordings through a variety of setups over a period of time.
No magazine, regardless of the editorial policy, honest or otherwise, is
going to make up for that basic fact.

Do you personally know the difference between a Mark Levinson CD player's
sound vs. a NAD C541i? How about the resolving power of a CD played in a
Toshiba DVD player vs. an Ayre CX-7. What about a badly mastered Led
Zeppelin CD on a Sony player, and an Arcam?
 
G

Guest

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

>From: moskowit@core-sound.com (Len Moskowitz)

>Farrell22 <farrell22@cs.com> wrote:
>
>>I haven't had utter faith in audio reviewers ever since Sam Tellig raved
>about
>>one of the original Adcom power amps in the late '80s (fortunately one of
>the
>>first issues I read). "Tubelike," I believe he called it. "Earbleedingly
>>shrill" is how I experienced a more powerful version of the amp.
>
>Funny... I had an Adcom 535 (still have it, now in my office system) and
>it sounded pretty darned good for the price. When I tried the higher
>power models in the Adcom line at that time, they didn't sound quite as
>good.
>
>Maybe Sam was right, but just about the low-powered model?
>

Quite possibly. But the salesman said I *needed* the 545ii for my B&Ws, and
that it would sound the same as the 535.
 
G

Guest

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

B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<cn81hk01o0c@news1.newsguy.com>...
> On 11/13/04 8:57 PM, in article cn6e1m02uup@news2.newsguy.com, "Bob Marcus"
> <nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This assumes that Stereophile readers believe cables make a difference
> > because Stereophile tells them so. But it's just as likely that they
> > read Stereophile *because they already believe* that cables make a
> > difference. In which case, the magazine is giving its readers exactly
> > what they want.
>
> It is also that some subscribers take the reviews (as all reviews) with the
> grains of salt they deserve, and buy the magazine not for the occasional
> cable review, but the music reviews, the writing and the reviews of the
> other components.
>
> The (I believe incorrect) assumption is that somehow the readership endorse
> and believe everything they read - I seriously doubt that. I certainly
> don't believe everything I read, so why should the readers of Stereophile or
> TAS?

Well, you are a sensible, discriminating person. I can assure you that
not all readers of these magazines fit that description. Read some of
the other audio discussion sites, and you will run across numerous
people who give every indication of treating every word they read
about audio as god-given wisdom. And it's not just magazines--they
will cite manufacturers' web sites as if they were peer-reviewed
academic journals.

Speaking of magazines, anybody heard from Aczel recently?

bob
 
G

Guest

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

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
> 1. The name of the publication is Stereophile, not Stereophile
> Review.
>
> 2. Each review is the opinion of the writer of the review, not of the
> editor. John Atkinson sets editorial policy but he does not write all
> the reviews.
>
> Kn@hammycorp.com> wrote:
>>>

You have defended Stereophile in previous discussions, and I don't
question your intellectual honesty in doing so. But think for a moment.
- Are you suggesting that John Atkinson has no responsibility for the
overall content of equipment reviews published in Stereophile, no matter
how misleading, since they represent only the opinions of the respective
writers? How absurd!

In view of trends in the audio industry in recent years as compared with
other consumer goods and hobbies, one would think that Stereophile would
consider whether in fact it might be part of the problem. In particular,
as a practical matter, I think that they could assume a greater
responsibility for educating their readers concerning the wild
assertions promulgated by some manufacturers and some audio enthusiasts,
and for guiding them in making the endless choices entailed in putting
together a good system at a rational price. Instead, Stereophile seems
only too willing to publish reviews containing even more jargon and
"black magic gobbley beloved patriot." - Reviews of cables have included statements
such as: "Break-in of this cable was simply hilarious...!" (It took
several weeks before the reviewer thought he could notice it.) Or, "This
cable has solid bass response, good high ends, and good pace." - - (Can
anyone tell me how a speaker cable affects the "pace" at which
electrical signals corresponding to recorded music are fed to the
speakers, in view of the fact that current flows through a conductor at
speeds approaching the speed of light?) Stereophile could be far more
forthcoming and forthright in providing clear guidance to their readers
with respect to choosing among the multitudes of components, to the end
of achieving "audio value," or maximizing audible results per dollar
spent. Clearly, much of their content concerns the equipment rather
than the music, so it's obviously of interest to their readers.

It's obvious that complexities are entailed, that tastes differ, and
that, particularly with respect to speakers, one should listen to the
component before making a major purchase. Realistically, however, it is
quite difficult to compare several components of interest at the same
dealer or showroom. And it would no doubt be even more difficult to find
a dealer willing to let one compare the "response" of $1,000 cables to
that of 12-gage Home Depot speaker cable or the like. (Anyone ever tried
it at a dealer?) For these and other reasons, in my opinion, Stereophile
should assume a greater responsibility to their readers for providing
clear guidance in sorting out such claims. Their relationship to their
readers is, IMO, a semi fiduciary one because of the peculiar nature of
the hobby and the industry, in which so many often expensive options
and choices are entailed.

In fairness, I do subscribe to Stereophile and I do get helpful and
interesting information from the publication.- It's an interesting read.
Further, I respect their willingness to organize and publish the
semi-annual recommended equipment ratings, despite the limitations
entailed. (For example, how does one know whether a component reviewed
six years ago and no longer included in the recommended component list
would be considered by at least some of their reviewers as having better
response at a given price range than those in the list? - If Stereophile
was really interested in serving their reader's interests, shouldn't
reviewers' opinions or suggestions along this line be included?) Also
regarding the recommended equipment lists, it seems that at least 80% of
the space devoted to descriptions of such recommended components
relates to equipment that is so expensive that it simply would never be
an option for most readers. While it may be interesting to learn about
high-end technical breakthroughs (and while I have admittedly spent some
fairly big bucks on my own system), again, if their goal is to serve the
needs of their readers, why the disparity between the amount of copy
devoted to equipment that in all likelihood will never be seriously
considered or even listened to by most readers? Why not instead include
greater emphasis on suggestions to the reader as to how to maximize
results by spending less $$$ on components that don't provide
significant audible difference and more $$$ for components that do make
a significant audible difference, in the opinion of the reviewers, or
from other test or survey results. Further, why not include combination
of Stereophile reviews organized or summarized as in Consumers Reports.
Or, why not include an occasional blind test of components of particular
categories. - Why does the subject of blind testing have to be an
"either-or" rather than a "both-and" issue? - Hey! As suggested above,
the audio industry isn't doing so well, and maybe a little
out-of-the-box thinking might help.

The bottom line, as others have suggested, is that Stereophile's
concerns seem, on balance, to be primarily directed toward keeping their
advertisers happy rather than serving the needs of their readers. If
they would include a disclaimer to that effect in each issue, I would
have greater respect for Mr. Atkinson.

Jim Cate
 
G

Guest

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

B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<cnbusg01ee9@news4.newsguy.com>...
> On 11/14/04 10:51 PM, in article cn994o0tc0@news3.newsguy.com, "Bob Marcus"
> <nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote in message
> > news:<cn81cr01qtt@news2.newsguy.com>...
> >
> >> While I do think it's true that these books reinforce mythology I also wonder
> >> why fair, honest reporting of the truth about sound quality is not of equal
> >> importance.
> >
> > Because magazines have to interest readers--but they have to serve
> > advertisers.
>
> Also would be a pretty boring magazine. The best stuff really doesn't
> change much year to year.

This isn't peculiar to audio rags. Money management and women's books
face the same problem. How many different ways are there to tell
someone to buy an index fund or offer the same lame relationship
advice?
>
> It is pretty clear, if you want to educate yourself about sound, you have to
> go to a lot of liver performances - unamplified where you can - and listen
> to a lot of recordings through a variety of setups over a period of time.
> No magazine, regardless of the editorial policy, honest or otherwise, is
> going to make up for that basic fact.

If you really want to educate yourself about sound, start with a
little technical background. Then you'll be able to see through a lot
of the editorial nonsense, and you'll be in a much better position to
learn from listening.
>
> Do you personally know the difference between a Mark Levinson CD player's
> sound vs. a NAD C541i? How about the resolving power of a CD played in a
> Toshiba DVD player vs. an Ayre CX-7. What about a badly mastered Led
> Zeppelin CD on a Sony player, and an Arcam?

No, and I doubt anyone at Stereophile really does, either, because
there's no evidence that they do valid comparisons. (And what does
"the resolving power of a CD" mean??)

bob