No more preprints for Tara Labs would be a start.

Kal

JA just came over and suggested a ban on any TARA Labs reviews for one year. I tend to think that this one-year ban is too lenient. We absolutely hate to see this type of breach of our policies. Any action that may leave our editorial integrity in question cannot be taken lightly.

On the other hand, I wonder if, by imposing a longer ban on TARA reviews, we'd also be punishing our readers. Perhaps a one-year ban is fair.

In any case, I do think we must continue to provide manufacturers with preprints, which allow for verifying technical details and creating entertaining and interesting Manufacturer's Comments. When treated with respect, this system benefits everyone.

I'm curious how this works outside the boundaries of Stereophiles' "rules".

Once a review is published, are the comments of the reviewer considered "public domain" and therefore can be legally used by the manufacturer, or whoever?

As to the accuracy of the quotes, does the burden then fall back to the original publisher to request the user cease with use of misleading quotes (if any) or correct the quote?

I guess my question is: Does Stereophile have a "legal" right to enforce their rules on manufacturers' who would use quotes from said publication in advertising in other publications?

RG

Quote:
Once a review is published, are the comments of the reviewer considered "public domain" and therefore can be legally used by the manufacturer, or whoever?

No, they remain the copyright of the magazine. An advertiser can claim that his quoting of a small portion of the review falls under the "fair use" exception to the copyright law. However, we request manufacturers ask permission as, as I said, we can then ensure that the comments are representative and properly attributed. This is hardly an unfair burden for us to impose, I feel.

Quote:
As to the accuracy of the quotes, does the burden then fall back to the original publisher to request the user cease with use of misleading quotes (if any) or correct the quote?

Yes.

Quote:
Does Stereophile have a "legal" right to enforce their rules on manufacturers' who would use quotes from said publication in advertising in other publications?

Yes if the quotation is misleading or includes so much text that the fair use exception is not applicable. No, if the opposite is the case. But the question must be asked: Why would a manufacturer want to upset Stereophile by deciding to disregard its policies, none of which are arduous or unfair?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

This seems like a very rare occurrance. I can't think of the last time it happened.

I'd vote for asking Tara about it and see if perhaps their company had some sort of disconnect between divisions and one hand didn't know what the other hand had done. Kind of like your own editorial and advertising divisions.

Honest mistakes can be made.

Pointing out their "error" and not being punitive may be all that is required.

You can be sure they won't make the same error twice, and you would not be doing either them or your readers any disservice.

If I were the owner of Tara, and this had occurred without my direct approval, then I would have already apologized when I first found this out, and would make assurrances it would be an isolated event.

Tara has a good reputation and has never seemed to me to be too over the top.

Best wishes.

If memory serves, there's been a paucity of Tara ads in recent years. In fact, I began to question if they were still making products. I wonder if they got overzealous in wanting to take advantage of some recent positive press and their infrequency of advertising, and conveniently forgot about the mag's policies.

I can't remember the last time their cables were reviewed. Would giving them no reviews in the mag for 1 year really be punishment?

Maybe the advertising department at the magazine needs to check dates when they see the ads to see what issues featured the quoted reviews?

Quote:

I don't not wish to stop sending manufacturers preprints of our reviews ahead of publication, but something like this makes me think of doing so. Alternatively, some sort of sanction might be appropriate. Suggestions are welcome.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Perhaps, a reminder of your policies in the next available As We See It is in order? I imagine it's way too late to make the January or even February issue. Being made an example of might ensure Tara or any other company toe the line.

I understand being upset by the situation--but it could've been an honest misunderstanding on the part of Tara.

I would think the burden of enforcement of Stereophile's policies must fall upon...Stereophile. So, either the ad department needs to have a better understanding of the policy regarding quoting from reviews, or the "glass wall" between ad and editorial sides must be breached in order for editorial to review ads before press.

Speaking of the separation of editorial and ad--wouldn't a ban upon reviews of Tara products because of the ad, set a dangerous precedent? In that case, editorial content (or lack of content) is clearly being influenced by an ad.

Just pondering--not preaching.

Cheers, Bill

Quote:
I understand being upset by the situation--but it could've been an honest misunderstanding on the part of Tara.

I will submit that, as a manufacturer and an importer of equipment that Stereophile has reviewed in recent times, their policy was made very clear to me. I assume that Tara received the same advice that I received.

That said, I'm not sure that a ban on reviews would necessarily be constructive, regardless of whether or not it is thought appropriate. But perhaps a small monetary penalty on the price of advertising in Stereophile is in order - no one gets the rug yanked out from under them, and the offense is acknowledged and penance is paid.

Chris

It appears, John, that your practice of sending pre-prints to manufacturers and the adherance by manufacturers to your rules for their use have worked well overall. Your reaction to Tara's behavior implies that this is a rare, if not unique circumstance. If that is the case, discontinuing pre-prints accross the board would seem to approach throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Your rules seem easy to understand and even easier to enforce - in the rare instances when enforcement is needed. It's a clear-cut job for someone in your advertising department. Throw him a little bonus for each offense he/she catches. Certainly the "chinese wall" would't be jeapordized by that cheap and effective approach, nor would the good relationships you enjoy with many other manufacturers/advertisers.

Cut Tara some slack probly just a mistake and we all make them from time to time.I would love more tara reviews. After the beating monster cable gave them, saying they use chinese parts selling as US, then the government holds taras inventory almost causing tara to fold, our local shop droped tara during that time as did others couldnt get product so went to AQ.Later charges where false but damage was done.I might be a bit off on some of this but this is what I was told.YMMV

Hanging is too good for them, is what I say. Be sure to confiscate the "Zero" cables, first -- you know, for evidence.

Seriously. They already have a year's worth of good ink, from Michael Fremer's write-up. Technically, the ad quotes a review that didn't exist at the time it was submitted, right? And is thus misleading. You gotta ding 'em, JA -- protocol demands it, since other advertisers must obey the same rules.

Being the vendictive sort that I am, I would probably republish the legal problems with Tara and their outsourcing as some sort of follow-up.

Oh, and I would let Matthew Bond know that all future reviews of Tara products will be written in Chinese.

The magazine is a victim here, but so am I. This morning I received a letter sent to the editor suggesting the Tara ad and my review be published together because "they are the same thing" (or words to the effect). I want readers to know that I had nothing to do with that advertisement, nor do I gain any benefit from it and that the insinuation that I wrote an "ad" for the Tara Zero cable, really ticks me off! I stand by the review.

I

Michael, I have complete confidence in the integrity of your reviewing procedures. Now, your ears are a different matter, being occasionally tuned to a different drummer than the one I hear. But that is the way it should be, and in agreement or disagreement I always look forward to reading about your latest adventures.

I suppose the timing is the issue here, not the practice of advertisers quoting from reviews. Sam Tellig often gets quoted in Triangle ads, and Paul Bolin often gets quoted in Legacy ads. There is nothing wrong with this. But, here, the folks at Tara obviously jumped the gun, in hopes of gaining some kind of an advantage. Now, I don't see what advantage -- if I had written the ad (being aware of Stereophile's policies), I would have said, simply, "for a detailed review of our newest cable, see the latest Stereophile" or some such.

I think whoever wrote you the letter you refer to is an ass, someone just looking for any oversight as an excuse to bitch about the way the world turns. I don't think anyone who claims sanity doubts your integrity in the matter. Cheers, Clifton.

Quote:
Hey c

Quote:
Hey c

Perhaps, Tara should be asked to print a formal apology (and explanation) to Stereophile editorial staff and readers before allowing them to advertise again.

Okay. Now I'm confused. Ads appear in the same issue as the review, but not quotes from the actual review, right? What about a simple reference to the review (such as "see the review for our product in this issue for other details"), with no quotes or other hyperbole? I have noticed many ads that have quoted Stereophile reviews, but from past issues (note pages 87, 99, and 107 in the November, 2006, issue, where MBL, Portal, and Triangle all quote directly from reviews published in past issues).

I can certainly understand why quoting reviews from current issues would be disallowed -- it would preempt the editing process, even though much of it had already been completed in the normal sequence. It would also unfairly highlight the product (Tara wire, in this case) when taken against other ads for similar (non-reviewed) products in the issue. This latter seems the most insidious, to my non-lawyer brain, because certain buyers looking for wire might ignore the other ads (Crystal or Kimber, for example) in the same issue and focus exclusively on Tara. So I have to disagree with those who say, "let it go," because fair practices come into play in such a competitive field.

Quote:
A brief perusal thru a few recent issues turned up Sams October review/mention of the Triangle Anniversary Comete loudspeaker and a half page ad for same on page 159 of the same issue. Granted, no quoting from Sams' article, but it is these examples I was referring to.

Yup, I misunderstood in that I thought ypou were referring to ads that quote from a review in the same issue. My apologies. Yes, manufacturers will advertise products reviewed to maximize the impact of the review. This doesn't mean there is collusion, only that the manufacturer knows when he receives the preprint in order to submit a comment that his review is scheduled for that same issue. There is therefore a good chance it will indeed be published in that issue.

Not a 100% chance, please note, because I typically prepare around 10% more content than I end up having room for. When deciding what to omit, I take no notice of whether the manufacturer advertises or not. In fact, I can't take notice because I have no idea at that stage in the issue's preparation who is advertising.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

From: Matthew Bond at TARA Labs.

Friday afternoon my time...

I have been away for most of this week and have only just learned about this forum. I don't read forums, so this is my first forum or chat-room experience.

As of 2:00 PM PDT, I have now met with my advertising and marketing staff. It is fair to say that this matter has been blown out of all proportion.

I see that JA has been inquiring from the forum members and magazine reviewers as to whether TARA Labs deserves some sort of sanction ... I feel that a simple phone call in the last week from JA would have been both appropriate and sufficient.

Be advised that no attempt was made by TARA Labs to take an advantageous position with the magazine or its readers. Such notions or comments are nonsense.

The simple truth is that TARA Labs' ad department made an inadvertant mistake in putting together the content in our ad on page 159...

Importantly, TARA Labs has not advertised in Stereophile for something like 6 to 8 years. Yes, we have advertised in other audio magazines in those years, but the ad policies for the magazines are very different...

FACT 1: In other magazines we have been using review quotes as they appear, from the same issue for our advertisements.

FACT 2: None of the claimed review/preview material warnings and/or guidelines mentioned by JA or supposedly provided by Stereophile were received by us to the best of our knowledge. Since everything we received was sent to us via PDF files over the internet from Stereophile, the evidence of this is easily verified.

FACT 3: Stereophile had a cancelled page which was made available to us at the last minute. Everything happened within the last few days of the magazine's deadline...
And with no time available, and no known reason to do anything contrary, we did the same thing we have done in our prior ads in other magazines... we relied on the review quotations for the ad content. And we sent the ad to Stereophile, on Friday, October 13, 2006.

FACT 4: We expected a sign off or approval of the ad, before publication, just like we receive from other magazines. But no attempt to contact us with regard to the content of the ad was made for nearly a month, not until we heard about the comments being made on this forum.

So, here it is. Unknown to anyone at TARA Labs, we evidently made a mistake with regard to Stereophile's policy. To those of you who feel an apology is forthcoming... I apologize to you.

However, now I realize that our ad was not even proof-read or checked by anyone at Stereophile. That means we could have spelled the word fcuk incorrectly... Michael Fremer wrote it as F--- in the review. I'm glad we got it right.

Here are my thoughts on your spanking inquisition.
Any sort of sanctions and talk of banning TARA Labs' reviews of its products or our ads is petty, given the reality of the circumstances involved here.

I suggest that JA could be building relationships, and the magazine could be building its business and clarifying its' policies...

Instead we have a forum ... like notes being passed around in a classroom.

If you want to know something about my company, its policies or its products, send me an email or pick up the phone. I'd be happy to talk with you.

Matthew Bond

mbond@taralabs.com

Finally, the ZERO Vacuum Dielectric Interconnect is nearly 7 years old. So for all of you who keep claiming that such a technology doesn't exist, or to the others who want a royalty for coming up with the idea, call me.

How have you managed to keep a vacuum? Without continuos evacuation? Are the made in U.S.A. tags made in China? AND, WHY? What is the purpose of a vacuum in a piece of wire handling about 2Volts? hV uses vac for insulation so HV doesn't arc and cause ozone problems,corna,etc in x-ray systems? This is audio levels, mV. How do I know the vacuum is really intact, after time? do you provide a guage and pumping station to re evacuate it ? And lastly, is there really a LAB or just a marketing office?

John,i believe no one can afford penalties.In my opinion , you should reconsider the way you operate.Send reviews to the manufacurers only when there is something wrong with the equipment you have under review.

I can see that you are confused about the use and purpose of the vacuum in the TARA Labs ZERO Interconect. I will clarify your questions here. I will number your questions and place my answers below them...

Q1: How have you managed to keep a vacuum?

ANSWER: A specially designed set of valves and a vacuum pump
ensure a relatively high evacuation (vacuum pressure), with sealed ends and a completely sealed system.

Q2: Without continuous evacuation?

ANSWER: The light bulb, the vacuvin wine system are examples of common technology that do not rely on the use of a continuous vacuum. Although it may be argued that the cable and its sealing systems may leak over a period of time and draw in air, we have always provided a service to our customers so that they may send back their cables periodically to be checked for vacuum pressure and integrity of the vacuum system.

Q3: Are the made in U.S.A. tags made in China?

ANSWER: No. Made In USA tags are made in Oregon, USA.

Q4: AND, WHY? What is the purpose of a vacuum in a piece of wire handling about 2Volts? hV uses vac for insulation so HV doesn't arc and cause ozone problems,corna,etc in x-ray systems? This is audio levels, mV.

ANSWER: The conductors inside the ZERO Interconnect are not insulated. They are hand-polished shiny, pink Rectangular Solid Core conductors. Take note: The vacuum is necessary, so that the conductors will not oxidize.

Q5: How do I know the vacuum is really intact, after time?

ANSWER: Again, we ask that the customers send back their cables periodically to be checked for vacuum pressure and integrity if they want to do so.

Q6: Do you provide a guage and pumping station to re evacuate it?

Answer: Yes we use an electrically powered pumping station and a guage to measure the vacuum pressure. If any cable shows a vacumm pressure below -55kPa, we prefer to rebuild or replace the cable.

Q7: And is there really a LAB or just a marketing office?

ANSWER: There is a lab, and an engineering staff with real lab equipment for the measurement and correlation of mesurements to listening tests. TARA Labs developed the CCZT Test, an electrical measurement test that can measure the differences between audio conductors.
Additionally, we have Tektronics and Hewlett Packard type measuring equipment, including complex impedance analyzers, simple LCR bridge devices, and many different dual trace oscilloscopes and signal generators.

And yes, there is a marketing office, where we manage the logistics of the trade-shows and other sales support requirements, including advertising and promotion, along with the design of product packaging...

Matthew Bond

-55K Pascal? 2-3 Pa is a great vacuum, I'm conufsed -55K Pa / And lamps hold a vacuum with non flexible seals, glues, your diagrams show an o ring etc Other than trying to prevent axidation, what other purpase is having a vacuum at such low voltage levels? Seems rather complex for nothing? One mfg claims applying a bias voltage makes the difference, and yours pull a vacuum? so which one matters, in actual use? If I pull the center wire out of a piece of RG-6, it is never anything other than non oxidized, nice and shiney, no vacuum, no special seals. So I wonder, why have a vacuum?

You must let Tara Labs slide on this. You owe it to us stereophiles a breakthrough of this magnitude. Like many of us here are influenced by ad hype.
I had just read the review today and was so amused by the research behind the product that I had to read quotes from the review to my wife when she got home. Poor thing.
"Tara Labs claims its research shows that a conductor's impedance rises with frequency". Duh, where have they been?
Insignificant at the almost DC frequencys of audio.
Non-insulated conductors? Dielectric-free? Air, gas or vacumm are all types of insulators and dielectrics.
The old saying "nature abohrs a vacuum" is realized by those of us that have dealt with the world of reduced pressure. Maintaining a vacuum is extremely difficult.
I would be sceptical without a way to monitor.

Quote:
-55K Pascal? If I pull the center wire out of a piece of RG-6, it is never anything other than non oxidized, nice and shiney, no vacuum, no special seals. So I wonder, why have a vacuum?

The center conductor probably is oxidized even if visually it looks fine. So what. It's just the surface layer, an insignificant percentage of the conductor. Don't even start with the "skin effect" argument at these low frequencies.

Quote:
The editorial department does not see the artwork for advertising ahead of publication, so we rely on a manufacturer's integrity for them not to behave dishonorably.

Hmmm - so you don't proofread advertisements and if a rule is broken, it automatically becomes an integrity issue of the advertiser?

That's just dumb. You are the one who is ultimately responsible for what is printed in your magazine.

Now, from a business perspective, which is the best vantage point, you've done well making your advertisers follow the rules on the honor system. That allows your advertising department to be oblivious to the editorial content and therefore everyone spends much less time reviewing stuff which lowers your payroll. . .realize the thousands you've saved and that Tara did nothing vicious and move on.

Something I thought everyone might want to see. A series of emails, unedited:

"Editors,

VOL. 29 NO. 12: A $15,000 interconnect is reviewed on page 139. The text from that very review is used in a full-page ad for same cable on page 159. Why not just combine the two ads together?

JD Svoboda
Boulder, Colorado"

"I take your point, Mr. Svoboda. Stereophile instructs manufacturers that they are not to quote from a review of their product until the issue that follows the one in which the review was printed. In this case, the manufacturer disregarded that condition and as the editorial department does not see the content of ads until the issue is printed, got away with it

I deal with vacuum daily, including hV, electronics, mechanical systems, high resoution optics, cooling systems, basic chemistry...I is multi dextorious, how a piece of wire, holds a vacuum, and how it affects the sound at audio freqs, is a mind F'. How they can sell it for $15K, is pure marketing GENIUS. How many suckers, I mean audiophiles purchased these? Why would you then negate teh amazing atributes of this breakthrough, by pluggin it into a system with mere WIRE in the componetns. Let along to speakers then driven by mere amps, with speaker cables on the floor!!!! Brain surgery is less complicated. Brain pulses are in what nanoVolts or Pico Volts, how many brains are in a vacuum (no comments about mine, it would be TOO OBVIOUS), blood is the next best thing for DIELECTRIC!!! Since the brain is the final stage in the system, TARA needs to work on Brain cell research in that lab of theirs!! Remember that whacky girl, Susan Powder, STOP THE INSANITY!!!!!

There is one slightly humorous aspect of this issue. We're talking about a $15,000 cable here. So what are the chances that some billionaire will purchase the Zero based on the quote in the ad, as opposed to having read the actual review? I understand the need to uphold the integrity of the manufacturers comments process, and certainly with affordable components in a crowded markert segment, there is the potential for abuse. But this looks more like a no harm - no foul situation, with the discussion here being a suitable penalty and deterent.

My thanks to everyone for contributing to this thread. It appears, from what Matthew Bond has said, that Tara Labs' use of quotes from Michael's review in the same issue was inadvertent. However, it does reveal a shortfall in our procedures, in that the problem was not subsequently caught by our advertising staff. We are implementing a fix for this.

However, I do take issue with "Rush"'s statement that "you don't proofread advertisements and if a rule is broken, it automatically becomes an integrity issue of the advertiser? That's just dumb."

Our policies are not kept secret from advertisers. We rely on them conforming to those policies and it is extremely rare for there to be a transgression.

"Rush" then stated that "You are the one who is ultimately responsible for what is printed in your magazine." Regarding editorial content, absolutely. Regarding advertising, no. I have written at length about the Chinese Wall that exists between editorial and advertising at magazines, but that wall does work in both directions: advertising may not affect editorial decisions but neither do the editorial staff have any connection with advertising, except in the area of allowing and approving quoted text that an advertiser wishes to use.

On that subject, John Svoboda wrote that "if the manufacturer has the opportunity to wait on final commitment to the advertising until after they have seen the review, regardless of their inclusion of any content from it, then a true conflict of interest exists as the editorial work can directly drive revenue."

I disagree. My editorial decisions regarding an issue's content are made before I have any knowledge whether or not any particular advertiser is going to appear in that issue. And the writers of the reviews have _no_ knowledge of who is advertising in an issue until they receive it in the mail. Without a time machine, there can be no causality of the kind implied by Mr. Svoboda.

(And regarding Mr. Svoboda's anger over the manner in which he was addressed by Michael Fremer, I don't see any apology is necessary. I took Mr. Svoboda's description of Michael's review as a "ad" as insulting but irrelevant to the important point he was making about the appearance of impropriety given by Tara's use of the quoted text. Michael is obviously less sanguine than I am.)

Matthew Bond said something that I believe revealing: "we have advertised in other audio magazines...the ad policies for the magazines are very different. FACT 1: In other magazines we have been using review quotes as they appear, from the same issue for our advertisements."

Stereophile is _not_ like other magazines, which is why, when Matthew said that "I see that JA has been inquiring from the forum members and magazine reviewers as to whether TARA Labs deserves some sort of sanction...I feel that a simple phone call in the last week from JA would have been both appropriate and sufficient...," I feel that an explanation of why I decided to use the forum to explore this matter will be of use.

My philosophy as a magazine editor has always been that the relationship between magazine and reader is more akin to a conversation between equals than what you witness with conventional magazines, where the good and great dispense received wisdom. In the days of paper, the conversational aspect of the relationship was necessarily stilted, though I served it as best I could with a "Letters" section that would occasionally run as long as 10 pages.

With other magazines, the ones who don't see any conflict in allowing advertisers to make use of quotes in the same issue as the review, not only is there no conversation with the readers, it is the conversations with manufacturers, conversations that take place behind closed doors, that tend to dominate their thinking.

By contrast, with Stereophile I have let readers as much as possible into the why and how what they read comes about. My policies regarding review procedures, how products are chosen for review, how the reviews are conducted, are all a matter of public record. Even then, as you can see from John Svoboda's original email quoted in his forum posting, there are always those who choose to believe the worst of my magazine.

With the advent of the Internet, the conversation I believe to underlie the relationship between magazine and readers acquires a new energy. Perhaps in the past I _would_ have called Matthew Bond, but now Stereophile has a Web forum, it seemed more appropriate to air this matter in public. This would allow all sides affected to offer their take on what happened and what should be done. It's a brave new world.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

PS: Although

JA, after buying $15K pieces of wires, breathing will become difficult, after you realize what ya just did!!!! That kind of money buys some niiiiiice speakers. and they only come with a limited warranty!!!!! There are cords out there from www.procosound.com come with a lifetime warranty, even if ya beat them to death, since they are mostly sold to pro users, they are priced on this planet too. For $15K, the warranty sucks. I get a lifetime warrnty on a $20 XLR cable, and they are made in U.S.A. Waiting to see TARA II, vacuum plus series, vacuum and battery to bias teh outside!!!!!

Instead of a vacuum, could one use nitrogen or an inert gas and accomplish the same thing?

Just curious.

The equivalent of 12,000 feet doesn't seem all that "vacuum-y."

Then I start to wonder about the implications, above 12,000 feet, could I just use uninsulated wires?

Finally, an excuse to move to Telluride!

Having climbed Mt. Kiliminjaro last summer, I can tell you that even at 19,500 ft (roughly), one can still breathe without supplementary oxygen. Unfortunately, I didn't bring my system along, so I can't testify as to whether my cables would have sounded better.

Quote:
Having climbed Mt. Kiliminjaro last summer, I can tell you that even at 19,500 ft (roughly), one can still breathe without supplementary oxygen. Unfortunately, I didn't bring my system along, so I can't testify as to whether my cables would have sounded better.

Having recently been blasted high above Kilimanjaro by the sound of Tara's The Zero interconnects - see my Dealer Profile on Ultimate Audio-Video on this website's homepage - I can well understand why Michael Fremer raves about them. Yes, they are ridiculously expensive. But my God are they amazing. They can't make faulty equipment sound good, but they do seem to be able to bring out the best of what's right to begin with.

My personal thought when hearing them was that there must be other interconnects that can do the same thing for less money. But without being able to perform elaborate comparisons of various top-of-the-lines and pretenders to the throne, I can only hope. If only Santa Claus would drop a pair down my chimney for Christmas. There is a Santa Claus, isn't there? DUP, please don't tell me I'm wrong on that one as well.

jason victor serinus

www.procosound.com Check out warrantys, and they don't cost $15K !!! Digital coax, tell me you can hear a difference between these and anything else. I like the other cords, with unlimited warranty, even if you abuse em. Seems like a lot less or no hype with wires that are made for use in the real world, not hyped to the absurness of magic layers and treatments, and add on boxes of dubious ckts and effects. Susan Powder, said STOP the INSANITY. http://www.procosound.com/diglitindex.htm

I belevie there are use of a gas by teh phone company to keep moisture out of soem lines. along some street poles there is sometimes a gas tank, i think charges the line overhead to drive out moisture? Maybe in an area they have found to be a problem, with a broken seal or something. They purge it, to drive out moisture. Wonder what those wires cost, the ones around here have been up lamost 40 years. Hot, cold, wind, everything beats em up, they keep on making teh phones work, i think they are finally upgrading to fiber optics, they got their money out of teh copper wires. Bell labs probaly piuoneered all kinds of wire treaments over teh years, for reliablity and stuff. don't think they froze any, did they?

If you didn't know they where ther, you wouldn't have heard any difference. come on. Look inside a pre amp, and amp, before and after this magic wire, it ends in probably basic hookup wire or standard thin coax, at the amp input and pre out. But somehow this small length of evacuated wire, makes all the difference. Now if i don't have my pre amp and CD player on magic wood, and i don't have my speaker wires on elevators, and on and on, how on earth can this length of magic suction possibly do anything?

Quote:
If you didn't know they where ther, you wouldn't have heard any difference.

But what about Santa Claus? If you know what's really going on in my mind, you must know about Santa Claus.

jason victor serinus

Yes, I do. The Easter Rabbit told me. The power of suggestion, at $15K, of COURSE they sound better. Just like $40K highly distored CD players do...and the Zander doesn't do SACd DVD-A, it is soooooo OBSOLETE, and who in their right mind buys that stuff? It's useless. That thing costs more than an EMMLABS Meitner, which was chosen by teh inventors of DSD/sACD Philips to use in their work. When does it start to beome totaly absurd, and beyond reality? At least Meitner is involved in teh format, who is this Zander nonsense, obsolete old ckts, using chips not even made anymore, probably got em as close out for about $2 each. Attach an absurd over the top price, all of a sudden it's so great sounding. Would a $40K CD only player benefit from Furutech, Ayre WOOD, ByBee,Tara,Mapingo,Blue Dots?

You should really read all the ads before publish them period.

Quote:
However, I do take issue with "Rush"'s statement that "you don't proofread advertisements and if a rule is broken, it automatically becomes an integrity issue of the advertiser? That's just dumb."

Our policies are not kept secret from advertisers. We rely on them conforming to those policies and it is extremely rare for there to be a transgression.

Surely you don't believe that when an advertising rule is broken, the advertiser, by default, has an integrity issue? It sounds like you are reinforcing that stance.

Quote:

"Rush" then stated that "You are the one who is ultimately responsible for what is printed in your magazine." Regarding editorial content, absolutely. Regarding advertising, no.

I made my statement based on my belief that you own the business of Stereophile Magazine. As in Top Dog, Head Honcho, Big Wig, Boss. I apologize, my statement of responsibility of content was directed to the person(s) who own the rag. The owner(s) of the magazine are responsible for it's content, whether it be an advertisement or editorial content. They may entrust others to proof things, but the owner(s) are still the ones who own the responsibility.

How did the whole Tara Labs/Federal raid thing finally shake out? Were they exonerated in any way?

Quote:

Quote:
"Rush" then stated that "You are the one who is ultimately responsible for what is printed in your magazine." Regarding editorial content, absolutely. Regarding advertising, no.

I made my statement based on my belief that you own the business of Stereophile Magazine. As in Top Dog, Head Honcho, Big Wig, Boss.

I wish. My partner, Larry Archibald, and I sold Stereophile in June 1998, though a condition of the sale was that I stay on as editor. As editor, I have no role in the production of the advertising side of the magazine.

Quote:
I apologize, my statement of responsibility of content was directed to the person(s) who own the rag. The owner(s) of the magazine are responsible for it's content, whether it be an advertisement or editorial content. They may entrust others to proof things, but the owner(s) are still the ones who own the responsibility.

The responsibility in this case ultimately lies with publisher Keith Pray. Note, BTW, that at Primedia, editors and publishers are of equal rank, each reporting directly to the VP of the division. This signifies that neither editorial nor advertising dominates the magazine's strategic direction.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Rush, "it's" is the contracted form of "it is." "Its" is the possessive form of the neuter pronoun, "it." If you need an editor (many do), I am available for a mere $300/hour, billable to the nearest half-hour. Gerald ("Miss Grundy") Clifton, at your service.

Does TARA, mean This Ain't Really American? So they may not have done a nasty, by changing labels? Do the people that bought the label changed items get their money back? Or new LABELS only. Made in *****. Do you think any other magic wire seller would ever do such a thing?

The rectangular copper with the anticorrosion coating sounds like various magnet/alternator/motor wires. A twist on the old anti-cables.

Thought I should clear up a couple of things for you. In regards to the products not being made in the US, it only referred to the commodity based products i.e. the Prism line. The problem was not labeling where the Prism cable was from, just like every other cable manufacturer out there has done from time to time. Check out their packaging.

I have been a long time user of TARA products and I asked the questions to TARA Labs. Whether magic or not their cables do sound better. Read the reviews...or listen yourself.