Cable Snake Oil Antidote

willemj

In fact, Peter was right all ten times.

Aczel proclaimed that science was on his side but like many measurementalists, he expected the reader to accept his arguments on faith, rather than by considering any actual data or studies. His goal was to sell magazines and this was his style. That is all.

willemj

Do you have data to falsify his conclusions?

He expected the reader to accept his arguments on faith, rather than by considering any actual data or studies. Yet he considered himself an "objectivist." Do you dispute those facts?

geoffkait

I’ll give Peter Aczel one thing. That boy sure has a way with words.

Agreed! His writing style was refined and focused, and I often enjoyed reading his renderings. (Of course, I never paid for a subscription - that would support his Crusade.) He cultivated controversy, then used his magazine as a firehose in an attempt to extinguish it. After all, angry voices get attention. But like Julian Hirsch before him, I suspect his work often produced unintended consequences: After listeners realized how very wrong he was, they left him behind forever. Hence, his magazine was never profitable and its publishing schedule was unreliable.

I bumped into Aczel once - quite by accident and not in an audio venue - and found him quite charming. His in-person style was very different from what his writings might lead you to expect. I suspect the same would be true of many of this forum’s members.

Aczel was not just a writer; he was a showman. And he knew it. Unfortunately, uncritical readers often didn’t recognize that.

roberjerman

Peter Aczel (The Audio Critic) did not prostitute himself to the manufacturers as the reviewers then and NOW do!

Do you have any specific examples of this, or do you think all audio reviewers prostitute themselves?

teo_audio

Everyone here prostitutes themselves to something.

This statement probably reveals more about you than you intended to share. And it's rather presumptuous of you to speak for anyone but yourself.