"Iain Churches" wrote in message
.. .

wrote in message
ups.com...

MINe 109 wrote:


I look forward to a magazine-purchased Halcro-Wavac comparison in S&V.


I was under the impression that equipment was loaned to magazines for
review. Is there a special surcharge for reviewing the more expensive
models?

Scott

Yes. Equipment is loaned for review. Quite often the manufacturer does
not ask for the review sample to be returned. I have worked in studios
were equipment delivered "for evaluation" has still been there, in daily
use, two years later. Manufacturers want their products to be seen
in places that have a good reputation. It's cheaper and probably more
effective than an ad in a glossy magazine.



My friend Pat The **** says he has seen a well-known reviewer (no names, no
Klu Klux Klan members) flogging his 'review samples' at audio fairs for a
number of years now....

In article . com,
wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:


I look forward to a magazine-purchased Halcro-Wavac comparison in S&V.


I was under the impression that equipment was loaned to magazines for
review. Is there a special surcharge for reviewing the more expensive
models?

Arny criticized Atkinson because Stereophile borrows while S&V buys
review samples, so I was having some fun. While buying avoids one kind
of bias for inexpensive gear, a magazine with "fractions of a million
dollars" investments would have an obvious interest in the resale value
of the reviewed devices.

Stephen

wrote in message
oups.com

I have done the same and I have discussed it wih people
who actually do hearing reearch for a living. The common
opinion I get from actual research scientists in the
field of human hearing are pretty much the same. If it
aint peer reviewed it's junk as frar as science is
concered and it is highly unlikely that audio jounalists
or audiophiles would be able to do tests that would stand
up to peer review.


I don't think you understand the problem, Scott. It is not about audio
journalists and audiophiles doing tests that would stand up to peer review,
it is about audio journalists and audiophiles doing tests stand up to the
cold light of day. Without a typical audiophile's suspended disbelief, most
of the alleged listening evaluations and opinions published in high end
magazines and web sites are well beyond the pale.

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article

. com,
wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article ,
Rob
[snip]

The kind of research you are talking about is simply
to expensive and time consuming for reviewers or
consmers to do.

It does take time and care. But apart from that the
expense is not really any different.


No it is quite different and to do them right there is
substantial expense.

Ahh, the Atkinson defense. Remember, this is the guy who
reviews power amps that allegedly sell for fractions of
a million dollars, but can't afford the wherewithall
that competing magazines like Stereo Review and its
sequel Sound and Vision have used for their DBTs in the
past.

I look forward to a magazine-purchased Halcro-Wavac
comparison in S&V.

Why hold S&V to a higher standard than TAS or SP?

Arny Krueger wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com

I have done the same and I have discussed it wih people
who actually do hearing reearch for a living. The common
opinion I get from actual research scientists in the
field of human hearing are pretty much the same. If it
aint peer reviewed it's junk as frar as science is
concered and it is highly unlikely that audio jounalists
or audiophiles would be able to do tests that would stand
up to peer review.

I don't think you understand the problem, Scott. It is not about audio
journalists and audiophiles doing tests that would stand up to peer review,
it is about audio journalists and audiophiles doing tests stand up to the
cold light of day. Without a typical audiophile's suspended disbelief, most
of the alleged listening evaluations and opinions published in high end
magazines and web sites are well beyond the pale.

I had an interesting chat with a guy who's into high-end audio last night.

You'd be amused to hear how they 'persuade' ppl to buy kit !

Graham

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article

. com,
wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article ,
Rob
[snip]

The kind of research you are talking about is simply
to expensive and time consuming for reviewers or
consmers to do.

It does take time and care. But apart from that the
expense is not really any different.


No it is quite different and to do them right there is
substantial expense.

Ahh, the Atkinson defense. Remember, this is the guy who
reviews power amps that allegedly sell for fractions of
a million dollars, but can't afford the wherewithall
that competing magazines like Stereo Review and its
sequel Sound and Vision have used for their DBTs in the
past.

I look forward to a magazine-purchased Halcro-Wavac
comparison in S&V.

Why hold S&V to a higher standard than TAS or SP?

I've already read the Halcro and Wavac reviews in TAS and SP.

Stephen

MINe 109 wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:


I look forward to a magazine-purchased Halcro-Wavac comparison in S&V.


I was under the impression that equipment was loaned to magazines for
review. Is there a special surcharge for reviewing the more expensive
models?

Arny criticized Atkinson because Stereophile borrows while S&V buys
review samples, so I was having some fun. While buying avoids one kind
of bias for inexpensive gear, a magazine with "fractions of a million
dollars" investments would have an obvious interest in the resale value
of the reviewed devices.


Seems like buying the equipment would create a bias in favor of
inexpensive equipment. Keeps cost down for the magazine to stick with
the cheap stuff.



Scott

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article

. com,
wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article ,
Rob
[snip]

The kind of research you are talking about is simply
to expensive and time consuming for reviewers or
consmers to do.

It does take time and care. But apart from that the
expense is not really any different.


No it is quite different and to do them right there is
substantial expense.

Ahh, the Atkinson defense. Remember, this is the guy who
reviews power amps that allegedly sell for fractions of
a million dollars, but can't afford the wherewithall
that competing magazines like Stereo Review and its
sequel Sound and Vision have used for their DBTs in the
past.

I look forward to a magazine-purchased Halcro-Wavac
comparison in S&V.

Why hold S&V to a higher standard than TAS or SP?

I've already read the Halcro and Wavac reviews in TAS and SP.

Did they have suitable speed, detail and pace ?

Graham

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

I've already read the Halcro and Wavac reviews in TAS and SP.

Did they have suitable speed, detail and pace ?

"(T)ranscendently neutral" and "astonishing measured performance" for
the Halcro; the Wavac made the flute solo in "Monday, Monday" a
"compelling musical performance...."

Stephen

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

I've already read the Halcro and Wavac reviews in TAS and SP.

Did they have suitable speed, detail and pace ?

"(T)ranscendently neutral" and "astonishing measured performance" for
the Halcro; the Wavac made the flute solo in "Monday, Monday" a
"compelling musical performance...."

I was pulling your leg slightly. I'm curious how a reviewer can talk of a
'measured performance' by ear alone !

How diiferent are these 2 DACs btw ? I'm not up to date wuth them.

Graham