The point made by TAC is that 3100 cables are a joke.This is true and can be supported.If this MIT stuff was so good why can it be had used for less than 25% of its orignal value.Good product holds its value.Resale value of top notch gear is 50% and as much as 75% of original value.So when TAC make dont jump all over them to justify your foolishness take note they may be right.carl and Bundas you are self righteous and the self righteous are very dangerous.
"The Audio Critic" B.S. or what?
Has anyone ever heard of this magazine? In a nutshell, their premise is that audiophiles are ridiculous. They claim that all high-end equipment is marketed to audio magazines and their foolish readers. One particular area they sounded off about was cable and interconnect theory. They claim that spending hundreds and even thousands of dollars for cables is a joke and is a total waste of money. They claim that companies like Kimber are selling us a bunch of "snake oil." I just breezed through a copy and now it's got me wondering if we audiophiles are just masturbating each other with our concepts and discussion of "high-end" equipment and cables. Please tell me this is a bunch of sh*t. I'd like to think that we're getting at least a bit of "high-end" for our hard-earned $$$$
83 responses Add your response
Actually Leafs, it is YOU who is self righteous, and you are commenting about things that you do not know about, nor have direct experience with....and THAT'S the real "joke" here, and a stupid low brow one at that. Please do not presume to comment on, what you have no experience with. Also, it's a fact that expensive cables NEVER hold their value on the used market as well as less costly ones do, much less than do electronics of the more popular or widely known varieties. HOWEVER, that has ABSOLUTELY ZERO TO DO WITH THEIR SOUND QUALITY, AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH RETAIL DEALER MARKUP ON STATE OF THE ART CABLES, WHEN THEY ARE NEW. Next time, keep it on what you have experience with, and you'll not lose what little credibility that you started with. |
EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE, EVERYTHING. Heisenberg's principle is all the "science" we need here. So quoth Carl. Everything Carl says is subjective, everything Carl says is intrinsically uncertain. If we "know" Carl's position, can we know the momentum with which he is moving away from his position? He claims he can bench-press 300 lbs. He claims he can't think very clearly in the dark. (Is Carl a gorilla?) He suggests that Cartesian doubters hold back their bowel movements and that he avoids these practices so that he is able to defecate freely. He seems to equate modern psychology with another Carl, viz. Carl Jung. He claims that 100 year old books are "dusty". H-mm...Heisenberg's principle is 75 years old. Does that make it 3/4ths as "dusty"? Does "Carl" exist? Perhaps only "carlness" exists, temporarily quantified when the lights go on. I don't know, it's so subjective, so uncertain--correction--EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE, EVERYTHING. (Except this claim itself which is based on solid, objective facts--facts derived from observations of the world--and is to be held with fervent conviction). |
Someone above wrote: "Nonetheless, I vigorously defend every free person's right to stick weird dots on their equipment, color the edges of their CDS, reposition AC cords in astral shapes, perch their components on exotic materials even when -- in fact ESPECIALLY when under the influence of drugs or alcohol." That post summarizes the view of "If I like it it's OK". Of course it is. No one is seeking to limit your rights to act foolishly, even if you act like eber, David-Diva99, or anyone else. But most of us are trying to learn more absolute, objectives truths here. To hear a proclamation of our well-known rights is quite boring, and totally unenlightening. To hear incoherent blabble from eber and David-Diva99 may seem funny at first but quickly becomes boring too. Their mouths are too large for their heads ! To hear smart discussion points, whether I agree or them or not, from the likes of Leafs, ficciones, Jostler and Darvek, among others, is enlightening. Again: there are many limitations in the use of objective testing in audio. However, its not too hard to tell that a great many incumbents don't want any progress to be made in that camp. For know, I'll continue to find useful the opinions of the reviewers I respect more given their independance and track record. But I'm still hoping the search for more objective tools continues. I would also like some magazine to start doing modified blind testing, perhaps not for all of its reviews, just some, as an experiment. |
I just checked out this magazine. My measure of an audio magazine is how much I agree with it. For example, I tend to agree with TAS or Stereophile magazine descriptions of 'transparent', 'warm', or has 'digital haze'. I read Peter Azcels 'lies' articles and found that virtually everything he said contradicted what I had learned by my own experiments and experiences. His dogmatic, vehemently argued theorems and axioms pertaining to audio were completely devoid of both empirical facts and inductive or deductive reasoning. I also noticed he used a lot of caps. |
John_l: Vehement and dogmatic Aczel certainly is, and the "Lies" article was Peter at his worst. He was trying to cover a lot of ground in very little space, and wound up with a summary, rather than an argument. But judging a magazine by your agreement with it seems to me to be a good way to avoid learning anything new. As for your own "experiments and experiences," their exact meaning depends on how they were conducted, a subject on which Aczel has had a lot to say in the past. You might try checking out a few more issues, or ordering some back numbers. |
John 1: Respectfully, I suggest that it's difficult to grow when we limit ourselves to those in agreement with us. There is occasional emotion within the pages of TAC. Much of it, I believe, is engendered by frustration with the deception which is perpetuated by many of the predominately subjective enthusiasts periodicals (you know of which I mean). I do understand how unappealing criticism of personal belief systems can be. It took several years in the past for some of mine to fall. But, if a claim cannot be reliably demonstrated to others, then that claim must be considered untenable. |
Heck sakes! Don't go a smashin my Beatles albums ! I buy used equipment to do my own comparisons and come to my own conclusions. I don't use retail dealers, so I need another resource of good advisors. I find these advisors by finding those magazines whose interpretations of sonic characteristics match my interpretations as related to a specific component. 'I agree with them'. I'm just learning what things like 'soundstage', 'transparent', 'midrange' and 'loud mouthed idiot' mean. A mutual understanding of these terms allows me to more accurately pick a component. I do read most of the audio magazines and find it interesting to see the differing value systems. We have everything from the milliwatt tubelet set to the megawatt make-it-go boom(!) home theater crowd. TAC appears to seek distinction by making contrarian STATEMENTS. That is why I put them in with the bottom feeders. Yeah Yeah Yeah ! Yeah Yeah Yeah! YeeaaaH! |
John 1: Sounds like you're having fun. Great! I don't think that I'd characterize TAC as being uniquely contrarian. E.g., search out issues of the AES journal or the erstwhile AUDIO magazine. In Audio you will find occasional forays into serious audio objectivism as is usually the case in the AES journal. Articles such as these are distinctive in that they are written by people who actually know what they are talking about...beyond simple opinion. I'm talking about credibility. TAC has credibility. We all have opinions which are, at the very least, valid for ourselves. Whether or not opinion (subjective) can be meaningfully tranferred to another is questionable since we're dealing with aurally subjective observations involving variables which are unique to each of us. I'm suggesting that if you give at least equal weight to what you read in TAC and fairly test out any claims from where-ever they might come, you will ultimately benefit. It seems that we share certain approaches to this hobby in that I also have a large collection of hardware which covers the full spectrum. As near as I can figure, I have about 70 years of audio technology represented and I have quite as good a time listening to old tube gear as with recent solid state. BTW, I wouldn't think of smashing your Beatles albums. You might check out the CD issue of their complete BBC recordings, if still available. |
"Engkirk, did you happen to notice that you are responding to a thread from 15 years ago? Don't know why I find that funny, but I do..." Spencer I wonder if Engkirk wants to "participate" in the argument, maybe find some willing to do so? This subject and Pete Aczel's views have been the subject of many debates in this forum. Sometimes I just wonder the point of it all, nothing is ever resolved and people remain firm in their position UNTIL and UNLESS they have that moment of discovery when their firmly held beliefs are turned upside down by what they actually hear. For many this never happens so the debates will continue, carry on. |
What's funny is that Aczel has recently called it quits...ding dong the wicked witch is dead? Not yet, but this is good news, imo. http://www.theaudiocritic.com/ |
Hey Engkirk Thanks for waking this one up after 15 years. Audiophiles are still super dumb these days if not dumber indeed. Also sorry to see it's going away. Whatever force trying to open eyes of the fools somehow decays and whatever brainwashes same rises up brand new again and again. A lie told often enough becomes the truth. ...and that's exactly what's happening in home audio industry and many many other industries full of snit. Same structure. Same pattern of the buried truth everywhere. Can anyone provide an example of major industry that actually truthful? I only know one, but in most of states it's illegal -- prostitution of course -- and even this one has been replaced with 'Escorts' to hide from the real facts. |
Aczel isn't only one. I know of engineers that published their articles towards audiophile insanity, but were bashed, criticized and devalued by large industries that would not like for their customers to know truth. Please view and judge... I usually trust advocates do you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woU6_Pexoj0 |
Aczel is a scumbag. This is not opinion, this is fact. He has been proven to be one whether it's his public behavior by throwing temper tantrums at an AES convention because of the presence of John Atkinson to giving a sterling review of a speaker whose company he had an interest in. Now, of course there's others who share his same viewpoint, but they are bashing just as much as the industry is bashing them. You call this truth, I call it half-truth. Measurements only tell half the story. I'm sorry, but I don't listen to graphs. I listen to sound and music. But, we a gree to disagree here I suppose. |