Opinions - The Absolute Sound

I have always been a bit perplexed by the level of cynicism expressed by some audiophiles about audio mags; particularly TAS and Stereophile. I have come to the conclusion that many of us are closet reviewers; magazine writer wannabes. IMO, this level of cynicism is usually not warranted.

Sure, TAS is not what it used to be. But to declare that it is a worthless rag is absurd, and simply not true. IMO, anyone who insists that it is, simply doesn't know what he is talking about. Particularly for young audioplies, it can be an invaluable source of information. If anything, about the history of high-end audio. TAS has done more to promote the high-end in a way that is rooted in something resembling integrity than any other magazine. It has contributed more to the development of a meaningful audiophile lexicon than any other force in the high-end; certainly more than any other magazine. And most importantly, it (along with the early Stereophile) set a standard, and reference, for the judgment of components' sound: the sound of live music. Imagine that, that audio systems should sound like real music! Sorry, now I am showing my cynicism.

Mceljo, you wrote: "Before the mailing arrived I'd never heard of The Absolute Sound". IMO, the answer to your original question is a resounding YES! Usually good to excellent music recording reviews, interesting retrospectives about the history of the high-end, and audio reviewing. And audio reviews that while not at the level that they once were written, still sometimes demonstrate glimpses of the quality that was once routine (wether we agreed with the conclusions, or not). In general, exposure to writing that will expand your audio lexicon in a way that is rooted in some sort of standard. All for $14.95? Are you kidding me?

Mrtennis, I am sorry I upset your sensibilities; sensibilities seemingly rooted in political correctness. Beyond that, I offer no apology for what I wrote. Moreover, I believe you could not be more mistaken in your characterization of what I wrote, or the issue at hand; certainly, as concerns the issue of logic, or it's absence. And yes, even mathematics, or it's absence; issues that you raise in your own disagreeable comment about what I wrote. Why don't we start by practicing what we preach?

On the issue of disagreeability: Kindly explain to me how making an arguably disagreeable comment in response to someone else's, likewise, disagreeable comment about a publication's worth is more deserving of your scrutiny and lecturing than the original offense. Particularly when the publication in question is one which has been, faults aside, unquestionably influential in a positive way. (And yes, IMO anyone who refuses to acknowledge this is a curmudgeon with his head in the sand). Notice that I said IMO; just as I did when I made my original comments. Comments that you found so troublesome.

So, the basis of your argument is that the views which I "attacked" are opinions, and thus not provable. I made it clear that my comments are my opinion. So, what exactly is the problem? Additionally, my comments were an attempt to encourage someone with no knowledge about this publication to explore what it has to offer; a positive endeavor, I think. More positive than the unfounded, knee-jerk negativity expressed by many. That, to me, is logic of the highest order.

Now, on to the subject of mathematics: $14.95?

Peace.