|
|
|
Re: Peter Aczel's side of the story [message #3485 is a reply to message #3480] |
Wed, 16 August 2006 08:23 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](/forum/theme/AudioRoundTable/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](/forum/theme/AudioRoundTable/images/down.png) |
akhilesh
Messages: 1275 Registered: May 2009
|
Illuminati (3rd Degree) |
|
|
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/messages/5094.html I haven;t actually read the review that manualblock has been touting. THe link above is a post by someone who actually has read thast review. Apparently it's not even a review. I find it seriously hard to beleive that someone with the talents of Aczell would ever do anything like that. -akhilesh
|
|
|
I doubt if any of the Aczel bashers here [message #3486 is a reply to message #3481] |
Wed, 16 August 2006 08:27 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](/forum/theme/AudioRoundTable/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](/forum/theme/AudioRoundTable/images/down.png) |
akhilesh
Messages: 1275 Registered: May 2009
|
Illuminati (3rd Degree) |
|
|
I doubt is any of the people vociferously bashing Mr. Aczel here have actually READ the review they are touting. Based on my web research, itss not even a review. I certainly haven;t read it, and I can;t find anyone reproducing this review. IF it were so bad, one would expect all these audiophile reviewers who are bashing Aczel to plaster this review all over the internet, right? Funny how I have never actuyallyt SEEN the review, but have heard a lot of negative INNUENDOs about it, usually from folks who have never read it themselves. Shows what sheep some audiophools can be and how ciorrupt the whole audiophile game is at many levels. -akhilesh
|
|
|
|
Ahh what the hell, here is the POST [message #3488 is a reply to message #3487] |
Wed, 16 August 2006 08:30 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](/forum/theme/AudioRoundTable/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](/forum/theme/AudioRoundTable/images/down.png) |
akhilesh
Messages: 1275 Registered: May 2009
|
Illuminati (3rd Degree) |
|
|
Her eis the post, reproduced from AA: There was no "review" in the usual sense of the word. Only the design specifications were actually discussed. The closest thing to what most people would call a review was the concluding statement which I have copied since the issue in question is no longer available."In view of our role as godfather to the [speaker]...we've decided not to review it here in the subjective sense. The objectively verifiable design data presented should be sufficient. It's large-signal bass response alone, not to mention its time-domain characteristics make the usual comparisons unnecessary." Next is a statement admitting that they are using it as one of several speaker references, but they advise that if anyone is really interested they should go hear it themselves when it becomes available. The magazine did, in their "reference" advice section, state that the Quad/Janus speaker combination was better sounding than the Fourier prototype design; an odd thing for Aczel to say if he was somehow looking to be untruthful about the speaker. As far as being some ethical violation, I would concur if the magazine had not come out and stated up front what they were doing. I find it no different than when Brock Yates had his creation recently featured in Car and Driver, the magazine he writes for. The article stated up front that the car was a project which might be manufactured for resale, and then it was put through the paces. Ethical violations happen when people are not honest about their intentions. Now, you may not like what Mr. Aczel prints, but I don't think he was ever not open regarding the speaker. When I first read the piece (many years ago) my thought was, so what? I knew that the market would sort all this out and that it would be pretty clear soon enough regarding his conclusions about the goodness of the speaker. It;s at: http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/messages/5094.html -akhilesh
|
|
|
Here is the post [message #3489 is a reply to message #3485] |
Wed, 16 August 2006 08:31 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](/forum/theme/AudioRoundTable/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to next message](/forum/theme/AudioRoundTable/images/down.png) |
akhilesh
Messages: 1275 Registered: May 2009
|
Illuminati (3rd Degree) |
|
|
There was no "review" in the usual sense of the word. Only the design specifications were actually discussed. The closest thing to what most people would call a review was the concluding statement which I have copied since the issue in question is no longer available. "In view of our role as godfather to the [speaker]...we've decided not to review it here in the subjective sense. The objectively verifiable design data presented should be sufficient. It's large-signal bass response alone, not to mention its time-domain characteristics make the usual comparisons unnecessary." Next is a statement admitting that they are using it as one of several speaker references, but they advise that if anyone is really interested they should go hear it themselves when it becomes available. The magazine did, in their "reference" advice section, state that the Quad/Janus speaker combination was better sounding than the Fourier prototype design; an odd thing for Aczel to say if he was somehow looking to be untruthful about the speaker. As far as being some ethical violation, I would concur if the magazine had not come out and stated up front what they were doing. I find it no different than when Brock Yates had his creation recently featured in Car and Driver, the magazine he writes for. The article stated up front that the car was a project which might be manufactured for resale, and then it was put through the paces. Ethical violations happen when people are not honest about their intentions. Now, you may not like what Mr. Aczel prints, but I don't think he was ever not open regarding the speaker. When I first read the piece (many years ago) my thought was, so what? I knew that the market would sort all this out and that it would be pretty clear soon enough regarding his conclusions about the goodness of the speaker. Can be found at: http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/messages/5094.html
|
|
|
|
|