Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watdcsu.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!watdcsu!haapanen From: haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: Re: Magazines Revisited Message-ID: <374@watdcsu.UUCP> Date: Wed, 22-Aug-84 13:30:08 EDT Article-I.D.: watdcsu.374 Posted: Wed Aug 22 13:30:08 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 23-Aug-84 01:05:20 EDT References: <163@whuxl.UUCP>, <203@olivej.UUCP> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 40 <.^.> Here I am, defending Stereo Review (even if only to an extent...) Stereo Review is, admittedly, down on high-end equipment. This is because (1) the specs (ahhh, yes, the specs *are* important at SR) don't show that the high-end stuff is significantly better, and (2) they can't *hear* the difference in their tests. Naturally, their lack of hearing sparks great controversy (witness the recent Monster Cable brouhaha). As I recall, Julian Hirsch has said that he does not have `golden ears', but, then, neither do I. I know my hearing tapers off at about 18.5 kHz, and I am perfectly happy with my $500/pair speakers (cringe...). Oh, I'd *love* to have high-end stuff, but I can't justify spending the money for a difference I'm not sure I can hear. On the other hand, I can hear the difference between a high-quality turntable and a cheapo CD player --- to *me*, the CD player sounds considerably better. So, assuming I am in the majority of SR readers, they are on the right track. SR also reviews CD equipment, which is good by me, for reasons given above. Their reviews admittedly, range from quite good to amazingly magnificently excellent. They don't print reviews of bad equipment, and I can see a couple of reasons for this: (1) They don't want to be sued by the manufacturers for poor testing and bad publicity, and (2) [which is their official reason] they can only print so many reviews a month (5 or 6), and they'd rather tell people what *is* a good buy than what *isn't* a good buy. This reasoning, I assume, stems from the fact that people generally don't want to buy something that's bad, but, instead, would like to know what is good enough to buy. I suppose they could print a list of equipment `tested, but not reviewed', which would serve as a list of non-exceptional equipment... I'l renew when the time comes... Tom Haapanen {allegra,decvax,ihnp4}!watmath!watdcsu!haapanen ------ How about Pb-ears? Check mine out...