Yeah, listening to live music is so elitist.

I guess not listening to live music would explain some people's fondness for CD, however.

CG was a hoot. He enjoyed getting under people's skin...especially...well, the old guard of audio perfection. It's too damn bad that he let himself be corrupted because he was one hell of a fun read. But, you know what? I think his reviews were 100% on the level as far as what he really thought of a product. CG places a very, very high bar for amplifiers (as do I) that he can live with and I always read his reviews knowing that we valued the same characteristics in the sound we liked. There wasn't any of that nagging ambiguity when you know a reviewer has a completely different sonic hiarachy than you do.

CG once remarked in a round-table discussion something that defines the the two camps in as much as how they each approach the merits of a components reproduction worth when he said to the effect that how a component reproduces amplified sound that is true to the original is just as important as how a component reproduces unamplified sound. I don't think JGH ever adopted that standard, nor do I think many reviewers have. Knowing which camp a reviewer falls into is important to me.

Quote:
Yeah, listening to live music is so elitist.

I guess not listening to live music would explain some people's fondness for CD, however.

As I have posted before, live is not always better...for every well engineered polite audience event I have been to I have been to a half dozen where the engineer was on drugs, the sound WAY too loud and the audience a constant distraction..

Live can and should be better, but often studio recordings simply produce more music and less background and engineering muddle.

Quote:
CG was a hoot. He enjoyed getting under people's skin...especially...well, the old guard of audio perfection. It's too damn bad that he let himself be corrupted because he was one hell of a fun read.

Corrupted? So what happened to him? I first learned of DVD from him(a review in Home Theatre I think)and also, I enjoyed his review of the NHT Super Zeros(1994?) which I still use. He also wrote for S.R. when I was reading that.

Quote:
Corrupted? So what happened to him? I first learned of DVD from him(a review in Home Theatre I think)and also, I enjoyed his review of the NHT Super Zeros(1994?) which I still use. He also wrote for S.R. when I was reading that.

Corey had a superb talent both as a writer and a listener. When I first encountered him, in 1989, he was the house engineer at a radio station in Austin, TX. He wrote for Stereophile from 1990 through 1994, after which he joined Home Theater Technology, the predecessor to Home Theater magazine. He flared brightly there, then crashed and burned in spectacular fashion, trashing, I am told, the magazine's viewing room in the process. He had a column in Stereo Review for a while and promoted the magazine on speaking tours before becoming the editor of Audio magazine for its final 18 months.

After the Today Show's gadget guru was fired for cocaine abuse, Corey took over that gig, and did very well at it, until it was discovered that he was taking kickbacks from companies to promote their products on the TV show.

You can still find his writings at http://shaveblog.com/ .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Thanks John!
Too bad.

It can be so bad that: as a company that has our Goo Systems product out there..we have been approached by many of the major TV shows and internet blog/show/site/etc, for coverage of our product.

The odd one flat out stated that they want a payout before anything happens. One asked for over $200k up front. I think it was $250k they wanted. This was to cover the production of the 1/2 hour show, which at that point, would have been an infomercial disguised as a show. What we would have gained out of it, would have been about 150 plays of the 1/2 hour show on a major network in specific prime time slots. That is pretty darned cheap, actually! incredibly so! What the show would have gained, was free production, and then the use of the actual advertising slots and their associated revenue.

And they are approaching us!

However, these situations are the exceptions, in my experience. We,at the company, as a group, said no. It felt all wrong. If we had done it, it would have been hailed as a marketing coup. 'Gee, look at the exposure you guys are getting!', everyone would have said. But I do like my sleep at night, so I voted no.

It's not that simple Grosse...

For example, the manufacturers don't want the sample back.

They want the device in the reviewer's hands. That way that they can look people in the eye and say, "Hey, so-and-so has our gear!"

Which is how you end up with Mikey complaining in the Tara Zero review about having a closet load of cables he doesn't want. As a reviewer, he can't sell them. Some of us may have heard of a story about that sort of situation recently...

Note to Stephen: Get over to Mikey's, he's got a closet full of cables! Knock yerself out! (Stephen works for Stereophile, so that one is kosher, in it's own strange way - at least in my book. heh heh)

The other point is that differing people like the sounds of different gear, there is -generally- no single piece of gear that is best for all situations and all systems. Art represents one particular design and sonic avenue of musical enjoyment and group of considerations and Wes Phillips represents a slightly different orientation. When it comes to 'recommended components', and 'gear of the year', then you see the gear that has a more universal appeal or capacity to describe a difference that heads in a generally agreed direction. Votes are tallied. Then the components announced. Recommended components specifically makes mention of system matching needing to be done.

So don't get me wrong, I have read Arthur's site over the years and I've been in his store in Toronto when he owned it. Arthur represents a slight myopic view, and maybe he feels that it is necessary to do things that way to get to where he is headed. I don't know. That is one voice in the crowd, which is the whole point of "Recommended components"' Specific caveat at the start of that section, which goes something like: "Not all gear is created equal and not all gear is suited for all situations. This is a list of some of the gear you might consider looking at, gear that we found may provide what you desire, and NO we have not tested everything. Who could??"

Arthur is myopic as he is an END USER, who is trying to create a specific sound or balance of attributes, and other people might do it differently, with different gear and different emphasis. If you read Arthur's website it tells you flat out that he is of a nature where he wanted the best, in a specific way and direction, and this, almost for the life of his store. So when you went into his store the gear sold would have a specific direction and flavor, according to how Arthur wanted things to sound. DNM and MFA come to mind as two things that Arthur thought highly of- back in the day. He was a dealer for both, and if you find a older DNM or an MFA piece these days in the Toronto area, it is likely that Arthur sold it.

As for Mike Fremer being specifically oriented to one manufacturer, I don't think that is even remotely true. Not for a second. Do you actually read the magazine, Grosse? And if he's tied to just one manufacturer, Lord, let it be us, thanks and pass the potatoes - now that I can afford them.

Another example, is that when we just stared our production of cables, I sent a set to a VERY well known and respected audio designer. Before I sent the cables to him I swore, in print to him (And he did not ask, I stated it flat out-so the we would be clear with one another) that I would not use his possession of our cables as a marketing opportunity. "So-and-so has our cables!" Nope - can't go there. It was a gift for being an awesome dude. I can't take a guy who designs gear and then mislead people that he is USING our cable with his designs, that creates a serious problem for him. He has the cable in his possession, and that is all I know. For all I know he could be using it to tie the lid down on his compost to keep the raccoons out. Save the twine for something more deserving.

As I was explaining to a guy who considered being our distributor..and I grabbed him by the lapel and the arm and looked him in the eye and told him, "The guys who succeed in this business are the ones who never slip up, not even once, for 20 years straight. Those are the guys who make it". Integrity in the business is everything. Well, not quite but is important, to me at the least.

I own flea sized tube amps and amplifiers you can almost literally go welding with. I love them all, for what each of them do best. My daily fare right now is a modified XXXX integrated amplifier, a fully balanced design. Or I could hook up....whatever. I'll do strange things like a highly modified passive preamp going into a pure DC capable 300+ wpc power amp, that has a copper bar for a fuse and zero protection - Just brute force and an incredibly itchy trigger finger. That's for Reggae and such, obviously....

Arthur is seemingly taking Mikey to task for having such a preference. It saddens me that Arthur is seemingly getting worse on that front. He should understand that there is not just a specific green uniform marching up and down the square, and specifically...that this is not what Mike was saying in the review. AFAIK, Mikey was merely stating his preferences and experiences, and I for one, did not take it beyond that, in my mind. It almost appears as if Arthur is taking a very literal interpretation of what Mikey wrote and he is taking it way, way too far. As Jn2 accused me of in this other thread on psychic lava lamps, maybe Arthur should cut back on the coffee. Maybe Arthur should step back a bit. The magazine is supposed to be informative and also...entertaining...and Arthur should see it in that light, as it is - just that.

Is this where I get busted with 7 mistresses?

Well, here in this thread, we have the reviewers and magazines being hammered for apparently pandering to manufacturers...and over in another thread there is the hammering of the magazine for giving a bad review.

Make up your freaking minds, people!

Quote:
... Why do you think that TAS, for a long time, refused to take advertising? ...

I seem to recall that Stereophile also did not take advertising quite a while back. Am I mistaken about this?

Quote:

Quote:
... Why do you think that TAS, for a long time, refused to take advertising? ...

I seem to recall that Stereophile also did not take advertising quite a while back. Am I mistaken about this?

Neither magazine took advertising at the time of their launches, but both eventually did so, given that the economics of subscriber-supported publications are broken.

I'll have to look through my TAS back issues to be sure, but I believe TAS stated publishing ads around issue 10. Stereophile started pubishing dealer ads in 1972 and manufacturer ads in 1976 - see http://www.stereophile.com//asweseeit/483/ . (Note, BTW, that the date of this article at the top of the page is incorrect; our current Content Management System doesn't recognize dates before 1979.)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
Well, here in this thread, we have the reviewers and magazines being hammered for apparently pandering to manufacturers...and over in another thread there is the hammering of the magazine for giving a bad review.

Make up your freaking minds, people!

While I do a lot of complaining on these forums I have never thought the writers were in bed with any specific manufacturer. I am far more concerned with the special deals and business tax breaks that turn very expensive gear in the real world into 'budget' or 'moderate priced' in the review...That aside, I see little pandering to advertisers.

Quote:
While I do a lot of complaining on these forums I have never thought the writers were in bed with any specific manufacturer.

We're in bed with ALL of them!

Quote:

Quote:
While I do a lot of complaining on these forums I have never thought the writers were in bed with any specific manufacturer.

We're in bed with ALL of them!

Mathematically speaking, as positive infinity is indistinguishable from negative infinity, being in bed with all manufacturers is equivalent to being in bed with none of them. Quod erat demonstrandum, res ipso loquitur, and in pluribus unum.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

JA: positive infinity is indistinguishable from negative infinity? What university did you go to? Although infinity is "undefinable" or "unquantifinable" one is in one direction (positive X) and the other in the direct opposite (negative X). Mathematically, you could not be more wrong.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
While I do a lot of complaining on these forums I have never thought the writers were in bed with any specific manufacturer.

We're in bed with ALL of them!

Mathematically speaking, as positive infinity is indistinguishable from negative infinity, being in bed with all manufacturers is equivalent to being in bed with none of them. Quod erat demonstrandum, res ipso loquitur, and in pluribus unum.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Wasn't the old Stereo review in effect in bed with all of them in that there was never a negative review? Wasn't that the main beef with Stereo Review?

Quote:
JA: positive infinity is indistinguishable from negative infinity? What university did you go to?

To judge by some posters' reactions to my writings, the School of Hard Knocks.

Quote:
Although infinity is "undefinable" or "unquantifinable" one is in one direction (positive X) and the other in the direct opposite (negative X). Mathematically, you could not be more wrong.

I guess my attempt to inject some humor into this thread failed :-(

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
While I do a lot of complaining on these forums I have never thought the writers were in bed with any specific manufacturer.

We're in bed with ALL of them!

Mathematically speaking, as positive infinity is indistinguishable from negative infinity, being in bed with all manufacturers is equivalent to being in bed with none of them. Quod erat demonstrandum, res ipso loquitur, and in pluribus unum.

I had thought it clear that both Erick and I were joshing.

Quote:
Wasn't the old Stereo Review in effect in bed with all of them in that there was never a negative review? Wasn't that the main beef with Stereo Review?

My problem with Stereo Review was that according to the public admission of the long-term technical editor Larry Klein, they would either spike, ie, abort reviews that had any significant negative content or rewrite the review's conclusion after discussion with the respective manufacturer to eliminate the negative aspects. (Larry admitted this at a workshop on audio reviewing at an AES Conference in 1990.) The magazine was thus putting its advertisers' interests ahead of its readers.

By contrast, Stereophile's policy is to publish a review regardless of the outcome. Our review are mostly positive because we try to pick products that seem worth investing our time and resources in, but when that turns out not to be the case, we still say what we found.

Interestingly, as you can see from the current Bryston and Totem threads on this and other forums, this upsets some readers almost as much as it does the manufacturers.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Regarding positive vs negative infinity:

One must remember that Einstein flat out said that 'I could have got the sign wrong', meaning that gravity could be a push and not a pull.

There is a considerable amount of evidence to show that this is correct. Specifically, the fudge factors used in attempts to explain the positions of the planets. If Einstein said that it is a pull, then the planets cannot stay in their orbits, they fly apart from one another unless one applies the self created fudge factors so the math 'somehow' -works.

If the sign is reversed and gravity is a push, then the differential is there in the basic formulations to hold the solar system together. The other key point is that the universe is active and electric, not static. Then it all works and the vast majority of the fudge factors utilized in physics can be tossed for being the tosser crap that they are. Of course you have to go back to Maxwell's full equations to 'get' that point... the next sad point being that well over 99.99% of physicists and similar are not aware that they can't work in temporal or molecular levels (quantum finally squares up with Newtonian) due to this loss of Maxwell's full works.

Infinity intrinsically does not have any polarity as all conditions apply infinitely. therefore any polarity applies at a base level, the differentials being the key. Human understanding becomes the failure point, not the potentials of mathematical formulation, for humans must devise a mathematical path, as math does not define reality -humans do. Humans define math, and it can go anywhere, due to the attempt to take math to infinity. Therefore the descriptor of math can go anywhere, if we can wrap our heads around it. Since the formulation (mathematical creation and extraction, etc) exists in human hands and we are not infinitely clear -- then the math can, and does, -fail.

Math needs be seen for what it is, in most cases - it is an attempt to throw spaghetti at the fridge and see if it sticks. If it does, then it is done, it is ready to consume, if not, it falls to the ground, same as anything else. But always remember that it may change at any given moment.

To clarify, we use math, which is fine..to make attempts to describe physicality and there is no guarantee of any kind that our mathematical formulations are the actual descriptor for the reality we 'see' --it may change at any moment. Therefore, there is an inherent consideration that the math may fail at any moment, any moment of greater understanding by the given 'human vehicle' in the act of 'realization'.

Thus, one cannot call any mathematical formulation in physics a LAW, ever, this is the height of dogmatic religion which is inherently offensive and is clearly a moment of the fearful animal within attempting to control the environment for a sense of self security.

Mathematicians and scientists need to be aware that the very ground they stand on is based in philosophy, philosophy that is the core necessity or requirement to be able to extrapolate further than they now stand, and that this lack of mental clarity in the psychological makeup of the individual is the point that holds them back from a more expanded knowledge and/or discovery.

Realizing you were wrong means you just learned something. Being able to admit you were wrong ain't all that bad if you keep your ego in check.

Something has happened slowly, over time that has infected our culture of people willing to be wrong out of fear of getting blamed that has limited ingenuity on a grand scale. It's a damn shame. One of the qualities I admire most in people is a willingness to jump in with both feet and learn something...even if it means humiliation.

Re reviewers who have long-term loaner samples of pricey gear as their references: is it my imagination, or are such reviewers more inclined to say that "the Foobar Excelsior Cartridge is the <expensive loaner amp> of cartridges," or that "the Semicheap Speaker may not be the <expensive loaner speaker>, but it comes frightfully close." Stereophile has little or none of that crap, thank goodness and JA.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
While I do a lot of complaining on these forums I have never thought the writers were in bed with any specific manufacturer.

We're in bed with ALL of them!

Mathematically speaking, as positive infinity is indistinguishable from negative infinity, being in bed with all manufacturers is equivalent to being in bed with none of them. Quod erat demonstrandum, res ipso loquitur, and in pluribus unum.

I had thought it clear that both Erick and I were joshing.

Quote:
Wasn't the old Stereo Review in effect in bed with all of them in that there was never a negative review? Wasn't that the main beef with Stereo Review?

My problem with Stereo Review was that according to the public admission of the long-term technical editor Larry Klein, they would either spike, ie, abort reviews that had any significant negative content or rewrite the review's conclusion after discussion with the respective manufacturer to eliminate the negative aspects. (Larry admitted this at a workshop on audio reviewing at an AES Conference in 1990.) The magazine was thus putting its advertisers' interests ahead of its readers.

By contrast, Stereophile's policy is to publish a review regardless of the outcome. Our review are mostly positive because we try to pick products that seem worth investing our time and resources in, but when that turns out not to be the case, we still say what we found.

Interestingly, as you can see from the current Bryston and Totem threads on this and other forums, this upsets some readers almost as much as it does the manufacturers.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

The mistake is for any audiophile to have an emotional stake in a published review. The utility of reviews IMO is for factual information and an opinion that may inspire an audition of something that may have been otherwise overlooked. If one is looking for validation of the choices they already made.... feelings are bound to be hurt.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
While I do a lot of complaining on these forums I have never thought the writers were in bed with any specific manufacturer.

We're in bed with ALL of them!

Mathematically speaking, as positive infinity is indistinguishable from negative infinity, being in bed with all manufacturers is equivalent to being in bed with none of them. Quod erat demonstrandum, res ipso loquitur, and in pluribus unum.

I had thought it clear that both Erick and I were joshing.

Quote:
Wasn't the old Stereo Review in effect in bed with all of them in that there was never a negative review? Wasn't that the main beef with Stereo Review?

My problem with Stereo Review was that according to the public admission of the long-term technical editor Larry Klein, they would either spike, ie, abort reviews that had any significant negative content or rewrite the review's conclusion after discussion with the respective manufacturer to eliminate the negative aspects. (Larry admitted this at a workshop on audio reviewing at an AES Conference in 1990.) The magazine was thus putting its advertisers' interests ahead of its readers.

By contrast, Stereophile's policy is to publish a review regardless of the outcome. Our review are mostly positive because we try to pick products that seem worth investing our time and resources in, but when that turns out not to be the case, we still say what we found.

Interestingly, as you can see from the current Bryston and Totem threads on this and other forums, this upsets some readers almost as much as it does the manufacturers.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Ah yes, good ole Larry Klein. As a former long time subscriber to that rag, I'm disappointed. However, I did learn much from them. Now I'm glad to be a subscriber to Stereophile!

"The mistake is for any audiophile to have an emotional stake in a published review. The utility of reviews IMO is for factual information and an opinion that may inspire an audition of something that may have been otherwise overlooked. If one is looking for validation of the choices they already made.... feelings are bound to be hurt."

Very good point!!

Quote:

Quote:

..By contrast, Stereophile's policy is to publish a review regardless of the outcome. Our review are mostly positive because we try to pick products that seem worth investing our time and resources in, but when that turns out not to be the case, we still say what we found...

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

No you don't. You temporize. You wait for the next incarnation to show up to tell us how much better it is than the one who preceded it, etc. You have a bag full of tricks.
All those good reviews for Wilson??

It could be that they think Wilson is a very good speaker and I would agree

Quote:

Quote:
By contrast, Stereophile's policy is to publish a review regardless of the outcome. Our review are mostly positive because we try to pick products that seem worth investing our time and resources in, but when that turns out not to be the case, we still say what we found...

No you don't.

Forgive me for knowing more about what we do than some anonymous Internet troll.

Quote:
You temporize. You wait for the next incarnation to show up to tell us how much better it is than the one who preceded it, etc. You have a bag full of tricks.

In your opinion, of course, which is not the same as fact.

Quote:
All those good reviews for Wilson??

Deservedly so.

Happy New Year

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
They are not that good. You always had better speakers than Wilson.
When B&W came out with their new Nautilus line, Wilson was overnight obsolete, far behind.
Stereophile never said so of course.
They temporized, gave them time to come up with an updated series.
And they do that over and over.
You'll just never read anything of actuality and bad at the same time about Wilson. All the reviewers are on long term "loans" with Wilson.
On some forums you can't say anything negative about Wilson without being deleted.

As a Watt/Puppy owner I obviously disagree.

But you are French, your food and wine have been outclassed by most other countries at this point , kind of like what you are saying about Wilson.

Your only good cuisine came from the Vascos who are far more Spanish than French.
California wines now routinely beat french wines.
Face it, you come from a failed country with a failed culture , no wonder you have bad taste in speakers
The only thing you have left is your arrogance.

Quote:
When B&W came out with their new Nautilus line, Wilson was overnight obsolete, far behind.

In your opinion, and as I have said before, your opinion does not have the status of fact.

Quote:
Stereophile never said so of course.

We did indeed give a diamond-tweeter Nautilus a very positive review. And "of course"? You have previously and incorrectly stated on this forum that our reviews are influenced by advertising, but you should note that Wilson hasn't been an advertiser in Stereophile for a while now.

Quote:
All the reviewers are on long term "loans" with Wilson.

Ths is not correct with regard to Stereophile's reviewers any more wth Wilson than it is with any other brand. The two Stereophile writers who have used Wilson speakers as a long-term reference - Michael Fremer first with the MAXX2 then the MAXX3 , and Brian Damkroger with the Sophia 2 - purchased their samples.

Quote:
On some forums you can't say anything negative about Wilson without being deleted.

Obviously that isn't the case here.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Perhaps Stereophile should start offering a monthly centerfold depicting a reviewer posed with a favorite component in bed.

It is a silly point.

Readers are going to either audition components or not. If they do then they'll come to a conclusion as to what they like.

And whether they agree with what they read or not.

I salute JA and others who continually endure slurs of character and practice.

Happy New Year and may Stereophile have a prosperous 2010!

What he said!!
If the mag is so bad, why read it?

Quote:
An opinion is what it is, an opinion. So is the "opinion" of a Stereophile's reviewer. I stated my opinion. My opinion was shared by many at the time and printed somewhere in a magazine.

Wilson is very subtle about advertising. They do advertising of the kind of Moet & Chandon at Formula 1 racing events. Throwing Moet Champagne on the head of formula 1 Champions. Instead of that they throw Maxx III on the heads of the reviewers. Heavy discounts and giving advantageous in house credit terms to reviewers who in turn are talking favorably about a piece of equipment for years to come. It is like a celebrity paid for wearing a Rolex -and getting a Rolex at a discount I presume. "Debts" are forgiven for good behaviour, for talking favorably and endlessy about a product. There is conflict.

I think Wilson gets away with a lot of things in the audio press. They do get special treatment regardless of the quality of their speakers. Same thing happened with Dunleavy for a while. You just can't criticize a company that gives you a personal loan, be financial or material. At the minimum they buy your silence and this is what I am talking about temporizing.

Actually one of the reason that I never liked Wilson is the vulgarity of their indirect and direct advertising, branding their speakers like the Ferrari that David Wilson drives. They get all the gogos, all the wrong "audiophiles" with 400 CD collections and in most cases no vinyl. They cater to the Rolex crowd, the show off, the owners of 700 watts amplifiers which all sound bad, the cook, the dentist driving showy cars, not the Breguet, the tube lovers.

I completely agree and must say that it runs much deeper than this. Dave Wilson is from a very powerful family with ties that run back to the knights Templar. It's a not so well known fact that JA and just about every other audio reviewer are all free masons and there was a pact made in between the knights Templar and the free masons in the 16th century that they would support each other in audio when it would finally be invented in the late nineteenth century. Besides which I have it from a reliable source that Dave Wilson was the second shooter on the grassy knowl and JA was his get away driver. And lets not overlook the fact that Wilson Audio has an unfair advantage with their access to alien technology through their government ties. Michael Fremer has been overseeing the access to alien technologies so of course Wilson got first dibs. What really pisses me off is these guys all get to see Elvis play live in his secret hide out. But the word on the street is that his voice is shot so there is some justice in the end.

It all would be funnier if KBK had told it but heah...nice try.

Quote:
It all would be funnier if KBK had told it but heah...nice try.

I would have carried it better than that. Although, that was a good one, Scott. Remember, in the Queen's English...

I've always found myself defending David on forums, defending the right of his product and way of doing things to 'exist' against all those who can't afford them or have never heard them, or just have prejudice or bias for whatever given reason, real or imaginary.

We have been developing speakers for ,oh, 17 years now without releasing a product, and the speakers are quite technologically advanced. I use those, and don't use anyone else's speakers, including David's.

But I won't sit there and see him bashed for no reason. So I jump in and defend his products and his company.

I see people having the right to bash him, or anyone else for that matter, and I see myself having the right to defend anyone or any product whom I may desire to. At the same time I must now -as a so-called manufacturer (no longer just 'Joe Public')- have some sense of decorum and not bring any controversy or negativity to the given company or person I may decide to defend. Thrown crap can splash all over the dang place.

Quote:

Quote:
It all would be funnier if KBK had told it but heah...nice try.

I would have carried it better than that. Although, that was a good one, Scott. Remember, in the Queen's English...

I've always found myself defending David on forums, defending the right of his product and way of doing things to 'exist' against all those who can't afford them or have never heard them, or just have prejudice or bias for whatever given reason, real or imaginary.

We have been developing speakers for ,oh, 17 years now without releasing a product, and the speakers are quite technologically advanced. I use those, and don't use anyone else's speakers, including David's.

But I won't sit there and see him bashed for no reason. So I jump in and defend his products and his company.

I see people having the right to bash him, or anyone else for that matter, and I see myself having the right to defend anyone or any product whom I may desire to. At the same time I must now -as a so-called manufacturer (no longer just 'Joe Public')- have some sense of decorum and not bring any controversy or negativity to the given company or person I may decide to defend. Thrown crap can splash all over the dang place.

The queen's English? I'm a valley dude doing conspiracy theory improv late at night and you want the Queen's English? Jeez it was a first draft at best. Besides, I'm a visuals guy. I don't do writing good.

The irony is the author on that site shows such a high level of bias and emotion that he is meant to be accusing JA of.
Just curious you do see the author's bias and manipulation of arguments on that site?

Thanks
Orb

Quote:
Can we know how much Art Dubley paid for his Sophia

At the standard industry accommodation rate I imagine. Members of the industry generally offer each other the chance to purchase products. Typically they are asked to use them personally and to not resell them for a year. No biggie, standard stuff.

As most (all?) in the industry provide this no one is getting an advantage over anyone else.

I am jealous however of my friends in the industry; they can get speakers and other items much cheaper. OTOH, I get to play with their systems.

(The cited website is laughably biased and many of the arguments/conclusions do not make logical sense at all. Silly ranting.)

Corey is a genius, JA and I both know that. I told Corey that 20 years ago, and tried to help him on his way. JA hired him, but Corey 'screwed the pooch' and let his arrogant actions get him fired from a number of positions. Corey took bribes? Well most everybody who wrote for 'Audio' magazine took bribes, and it was not just that magazine, either. It was the price of doing business with many of my former employers. 20 years ago, I also told Corey, that while he liked writing about audio, now, that he appeared destined for greater things. More like a modern day, Mark Twain. I haven't spoken to Corey in more than a decade, but I will always remember him 15 years ago, playing in a band with JA, at CES and me 'getting down' on the dance floor, because I was AA at the time and while everybody else could get 'drunk as skunks' I had to dance my blues away. Corey noticed my dancing from the stage and wrote something in 'Stereophile' about it. You see, my other calling was to be a 'solid gold dancer' to interpret through dance, Rock and Roll, after I had given up on ballet. See, we are all more than we seem!