Regardless, the facts about this guy remain. Which makes him a scumbag. If he talked to me like he did to Atkinson, I would personally knock his old wrinkled ass to the ground.
"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
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. |
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 |
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. |
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/ |
"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. |
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. |
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: 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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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). |
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. |
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. |
This debate, although at times provocative and occasionally interesting, is a silly mery go round where each side is totally missing the point. Having worked in the audio business and met many of the scummy snake oil reps and voodoo practitioners that undoubtedly exist, I agree that insanity exists in the world of our hobby. I am also self confident enought to admit that I would probably fail double blind tests in attempts to identify differences in components whose quality I have coveted and promoted. 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. Why?! Because the point of owning fine audio equipment and listening to music is PLEASURE, CONTEMPLATION, FUN AND THE ENJOYMENT OF MUSIC. Have any of you engineering Audio Critic subscribing geniuses ever heard of PLACEBO effect? If you think alternative medicine makes you feel better, guess what? YOU DO FEEL BETTER! If you think organic peanut butter and mixed berry yoghurt smeared on the underside of your Rockport Reference turntable improves the sound -- IT DOES SOUND BETTER!!!!!!!!!! The E.E. Phd perfect sound forever crowd could better spend their time arguing that the USDA beef at McDonalds is just as good as Peter Luger's or that skid pad figures for the Corvette prove its superiority to Ferrari Maranellos. I bet you buy 100% silk ties from the Tie Rack at your local mall, drink the finest wine from screw top containers, wear cheap suits and have bad haircuts. You probably have great difficulty understanding the Swiss watch industry because quartz keeps better time for less money. Why don't you take your big brains and go cure cancer or eradicate world hunger or something. As for the subjectivists, don't be so paranoid and insecure. Relax, enjoy the music and and have fun. Who cares if you can "prove" it sounds better or not. It's just a hobby. Long live artists and audiophiles. Secret Geek Long live artists and audiophiles |
Sorry...I'm fairly new here and didn't realize that my post would result in all this difference in opinion. IMO...that's what makes a forum such as this so diverse and informative. But what do I know...In a blind test, I picked the B&W CDM 1 NT's over the Nautilus 805's....lol. I appreciate the ALL the feedback. |
Right on, Bob!! This numbskull hasn't even read what I've said. For instance, the networks are in PARALLEL, and therefore not in the signal's path...not that you could hear the difference between a jackhammer on your eardrum, and music, Leafs, because I doubt you can hear any better than you can spell. Sleep it off, and I hope somebody yells at ya when you're hung over in the mornin! |
You guys should marry.Mit and Spectral committ what amounts to fraud.These he two have gotten toghther to take fools like the both of you to the cleaners.What a joke.What Keith J know is there is a sucker born every second.You and eber with his long winded dribble should spare us your lame views.Both you so called Audiophiles should realize that they are coloring the sound.pay for wire not boxes with things that get into the signal path.Why dont you both just add Equalizers to your rigs.its the same as the houcus poucus Mit put in the box.Carl please stop the long winded bable.Your lost. |
I couldn't disagree with Jostler more. Since when do psychologists know anything about high end audio? Modern psychology is mostly religion anyway. If there is a "collective unconscious", then what am I thinking right now? The fact is, we are all individual beings with individual thoughts and desires. And if I have an opinion on the "sound" of an audio component, it is not for you to say it is "completely meaningless". It might be to you, but it may have lots of meaning to others.......I bet you are one of these people that lays your clothes out for the whole week, ahead of time. MY "METHODOLOGY", IS THAT I TRUST WHAT I HEAR THE FIRST TIME, AND DON'T DOUBT IT. THAT WAY, I HAVE MORE TIME TO MAKE MORE COMPARISONS, RATHER THAN WASTING TIME SECOND AND THIRD GUESSING MYSELF, FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN A BAD CASE OF ANAL RETENTIVENESS. The "psychoacoustics of human hearing", written in some dusty book 100 years ago are what "has no meaning", for me. What counts is what I hear right now, and no one will tell me that what I do "has no meaning whatsoever for others", and get away with it....You are NOT the sole arbiter of what is "objective observation", nor does anything in this hobby require "perfect" objectivity. EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE, EVERYTHING. Heisenberg's Principle is all the "science" we need, here. |
Trelja: For one thing, there are lots of reasons besides the sound to choose one component over another. For another, many audiophiles attempt to judge the sound of a component in a way that allows factors other than the sound to intrude on their perceptions. (They will tell you they can ignore those other factors, but the truth is our brains are not wired that way.) The point I was making was that if they want to listen that way, that's their business, and nobody should tell them, "Oh, but you should listen double-blind" or whatever. But if they want to pontificate to others about what things sound like and which things sound different from other things, then they need to do their listening in a way that takes into account what psychologists have learned over decades about the foibles of human hearing. Otherwise, their observations are completely meaningless to anybody else. And to get back to the original point, that is the difference between The Audio Critic and, say, The Absolute Sound. |
I think you missed the point Jostler3. How could you go about "deciding what you like", without knowing that one thing sounds better(or different) than another? I don't rely on other people to do my hearing for me. I try my darndest to audition before buying. Yes, I use others as a first step(a tool). But pity the audiophile who buys sound unheard. |
There seems to be some confusion here between "deciding what you like" and stating that one thing sounds better (or different) than another. If all you're about is "deciding what you like," you can go about that any way you wish--sighted, blind, standing on your head. But if somebody tells you that a particular cable has a certain sound, you need to know how he came to that conclusion in order to decide how much credence to give him. As for Charlie's point about blind testing, scientists long ago figured out that even the most unbiased helper gives subconscious cues that can throw off a test. That's why they always use double-blind listening tests. |
In medical research, "double blind" studies are the "gold standard." For example, this is where neither the researcher nor the patient are aware of whether they are giving/receiving the researched drug or a placebo. This eliminates prejudicial judgements. Double blind testing in audio could/should be unneccessary as long as the "helper" is not giving any hints and is completely fair/impartial with the set up of the a-b comparison. Charlie |
I think the thing that we audiophiles should remember is that this hobby can be enjoyable. Really! I know first hand. It can be whatever we choose it to be. I seek my own pleasure from it, and do not worry what others believe(or hear) or don't. I invest in my own tastes, and if someone heard my system and thought it was the most God awful noise producer in the world, I would care not a bit. Different people focus on different things. My favorite thought about life is that's why they make vanilla AND chocolate(and more these days). The goal is there for all of us to reach. Whether you are an objectivist or someone who only trusts their ears, think all amps sound the same or not, or whatever... Happy listening. |
Well stated, DK. To add to that thought, an important aspect of these tests not yet broached in this discussion is the severe polarization of the camps. Naysayers with unswayable opinions are so prevalent that it's actually surprising the discussion herein has been so civil. (But then, you guys never cease to amaze!) Even if a manufacturer were to undertake a blind or double-blind test using the most stringent of controls, and they probably have, publication of the results would undoubtedly be welcomed with cries of "improper methodology" and "no validity". It's a no win situation. |
I do not see anything wrong with blind testing, but I do not believe that it is an "end all." No two people perceive reality in exactly the same fashion IMO. And since it all boils down to personal taste anyway (since we do not all share a common system), I again say "what's the big deal." I do not nit pick when it comes to my opinions on gear. What purpose would it serve as we all hear and judge differently. The most a review/opinion can give me is the "general" characteristics of a piece of equipment. The fine points are left (as always) to my discretion. Taking into consideration how much the listening room, system synergy and even the shape of our ears (both internal and external) affect the sound, just exactly how accurate can any review/opinion be? When you also take into consideration the inter working of the individual mind, "get out of town" with the fine details. These details are most likely yours and yours alone, or theirs and theirs alone. Carl noted how different music sounds when we listen with our eyes closed. Yes, it sounds way different IMO. There are too many variables involved to achieve an accurate "anything" that can be used by those of us that are trying to push the envelope, so to speak. These types of reviews and opinions are entertaining to read, but they are not gospel, not in my book anyway. |
I agree with Sedond. I believe cables and interconnects have their unique sound qualities but to spend thousands of dollars for a pair of ICs? I think that money will be better spend in upgrading your Speakers/Amps/Preamps. I have witness in a blind test where identical ICs were used but with different color jackets. And to everyone's surprise, every person that participate in the demonstration said that the blue ICs are more detailed, warm or better imaging than the Red ICs or vice versa, even though they are the exact interconnect? Try this on your friends....you will be amazed |
onhwy61, yure correct - ya don't have to be blind to do blind testing. while i have heard differences between amps, pre's, cables, etc., for reviewing purposes, when lotsa times, there's really a lot of hair-splitting, it would be helpful if there was some sorta review-proces whereby the "sighted" listener would *not* know the identity of the product being reviewed. sure, a $2k interconnect may be better than a $200 ic. but, *how much* better? is it really a major difference? or is it something more subtle? i'd bet some $200 cable comes pretty close to the expensive stuff. shouldn't be too hard to arrange this - speakers, it would seem to me, would be difficult, cuz of the *transparent* fabric needed - would it really be transparent in all applications? and source components would need a 2nd person to change the software. it would be pretty hard to disguise the identity of anything related to vinyl playback; cd-playback being only slightly less difficult. but, i still see no reason why commercial review publications could not have dedicated reviewing rooms where equipment is reviewed. the reviewers could also use their own home-systems as tangent-points. regards, doug |