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...