It gets worse, one of the kids showed Her how to use ebay and set up a paypal account!!!!! free shopping because payment is invisible (until the end of the month), at least with real shops she had to walk from one to the other so her purse got a bit of rest. Its the absolute rubbish she buys, some very similar to what Sy just posted, way out hair care products and rejuvenating cream, that must work because it sais so on the internet, thank goodness she is not an audiophile, even I would be fitted with a Bybee🙂
You spent all day digging up dirt on Aczel? Wow you must have it in really bad for him. I guess you hold a grudge for decades huh? How about posting a link instead of just posting pictures so we all can see what was said?
Okay so I did some reading on my own and found this:
"Jenn > wrote:
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > there's a fine and fairly wide-ranging interview with the man in the
> > online May '06 issueof The Audio Critic (circa his 80th birthday).."
> (snip)
> Does he discuss the Fourrier speaker controversy?
No. He does talk about Ohm though. It's funny how 'your guys' always brings up Fourier, as
if that, even in its worst interpretation, would somehow invalidate what Aczel says about
audio generally. To make an extreme analogy, Ken Lay, for all his dubious business ethics,
would still be right if he said V = I*R, right?.
From what I understand, Aczel in 1980 or so published a 'review' of the Fourier speakers,
which he admitted *in the review* to having helped design. It later came out that he had a 50%
share in the company as well, at the time of writing the 'review'. He then went on hiatus,
devoting himself entirely to said speaker company, which eventaully went belly up. During the
hiatus, TAC subscribers were left in the lurch, but upon resumptuion of publication, were
given credit towards new issues. He also apparenlty published an explanation of the whole
affair in the resumptive issue (which I have not read).
Have you ever read the original 'review'? I haven't, but I'd really like to,because
subjectivie warriors like your pals mkuller and Atkinson -- who are always quick to leap in
whenever Aczel's name is mentioned in forums they frequent -- claim it was a 'rave'. Yet I
find this post on Audio Asylum:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/cr...ages/5094.html
//
Posted by mp72 (A) on December 05, 2004 at 14:07:31
In Reply to: Would you call his Fourier review "very honest"? (nt) posted by Rob
Doorack on November 12, 2004 at 16:14:11:
"I recommend that you get all the back issues of Audio Critic too. Aczel's review of the
Fourier speaker is considered by many audiophiles to be the most egregious ethical violation
in the history of audio magazines." -Rob Doorack
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.
//
So, if what I read in that post is true, we had Aczel writing a description of the design of
the Fourier prototype, admitting upfront that he was involved in said design, and in the same
issue, citing another speaker as sounding *better* than his. AIUI, this was also at a time
when PA was still somewhat 'subjectivist' and hadn't adopted the hard line he later did.
Meanwhile, Atkinson still publishes 'raves' about equipment where the *accompanying bench
tests* tell a different story. He manages to wave the disparities away. He still publishes
editorials about the non-utility of blind tests. Still pushes the megabuck audio jewelry whose
makers advertises in Stereophile. Gee, how *conveeenient*"
and here's the link to said discussion
Interview with Peter Aczel - AudioBanter
and my opinion is also "so what?"
"Jenn > wrote:
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > there's a fine and fairly wide-ranging interview with the man in the
> > online May '06 issueof The Audio Critic (circa his 80th birthday).."
> (snip)
> Does he discuss the Fourrier speaker controversy?
No. He does talk about Ohm though. It's funny how 'your guys' always brings up Fourier, as
if that, even in its worst interpretation, would somehow invalidate what Aczel says about
audio generally. To make an extreme analogy, Ken Lay, for all his dubious business ethics,
would still be right if he said V = I*R, right?.
From what I understand, Aczel in 1980 or so published a 'review' of the Fourier speakers,
which he admitted *in the review* to having helped design. It later came out that he had a 50%
share in the company as well, at the time of writing the 'review'. He then went on hiatus,
devoting himself entirely to said speaker company, which eventaully went belly up. During the
hiatus, TAC subscribers were left in the lurch, but upon resumptuion of publication, were
given credit towards new issues. He also apparenlty published an explanation of the whole
affair in the resumptive issue (which I have not read).
Have you ever read the original 'review'? I haven't, but I'd really like to,because
subjectivie warriors like your pals mkuller and Atkinson -- who are always quick to leap in
whenever Aczel's name is mentioned in forums they frequent -- claim it was a 'rave'. Yet I
find this post on Audio Asylum:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/cr...ages/5094.html
//
Posted by mp72 (A) on December 05, 2004 at 14:07:31
In Reply to: Would you call his Fourier review "very honest"? (nt) posted by Rob
Doorack on November 12, 2004 at 16:14:11:
"I recommend that you get all the back issues of Audio Critic too. Aczel's review of the
Fourier speaker is considered by many audiophiles to be the most egregious ethical violation
in the history of audio magazines." -Rob Doorack
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.
//
So, if what I read in that post is true, we had Aczel writing a description of the design of
the Fourier prototype, admitting upfront that he was involved in said design, and in the same
issue, citing another speaker as sounding *better* than his. AIUI, this was also at a time
when PA was still somewhat 'subjectivist' and hadn't adopted the hard line he later did.
Meanwhile, Atkinson still publishes 'raves' about equipment where the *accompanying bench
tests* tell a different story. He manages to wave the disparities away. He still publishes
editorials about the non-utility of blind tests. Still pushes the megabuck audio jewelry whose
makers advertises in Stereophile. Gee, how *conveeenient*"
and here's the link to said discussion
Interview with Peter Aczel - AudioBanter
and my opinion is also "so what?"
people, especially monied people don't care,
if they can afford to buy even at an exorbitant price, they will...
there is no stopping them...no amount of technical/engineering explanations matter to them, they won't understand anyway....
after all how they spend their money is nobody's business but theirs...
if they can afford to buy even at an exorbitant price, they will...
there is no stopping them...no amount of technical/engineering explanations matter to them, they won't understand anyway....
after all how they spend their money is nobody's business but theirs...
Actually, SOC, the topic came up independently just this week. I have to show evidence that I am not making anything up about Peter Aczel, as implied by SY. I knew all about most of the details before these messages came up, but I was too polite to bring them out, initially.
Yeah I found the link on my own to the posts you refer to and just two people said anything about it and as you can see by what I posted, it amounted to nothing other than people spreading rumor and being "outraged"🙄
I'd be more concerned about present day editors letting false info being posted as fact about snake oil products and the potential for money exchanging hands for doing so.
Glad you were being so "polite" 🙄
I'd be more concerned about present day editors letting false info being posted as fact about snake oil products and the potential for money exchanging hands for doing so.
Glad you were being so "polite" 🙄
I didn't imply it, I said it , straight up, and gave specifics. No response to those, just a subject change. Your attempt at a smear is irrelevant to your mis-statement.
Why would I lie about Peter Aczel, SY? I have known the guy for about 35 years, and sometimes say hello to him at conventions. He personally has done me no harm but his smart A reviewer has attempted to make me look bad. More an irritation than anything.
Last edited:
Oh, now I understand. Peter Aczel did not badmouth everybody, just everybody that I care to know, and respect in the audio business.
You knew what I meant SY, why quibble?
You knew what I meant SY, why quibble?
For everyone else, I might relate what we are debating about:
In his publication, 'The Audio Critic' Aczel separated notable people into 2 classifications. Black hats and White hats.
I was not rated, as I am somewhat in-between, and I called myself a Grey Hat, as far back as 1998. Later. Aczel added 'Grey hat' to his evaluations.
Virtually all of my colleagues were Black hats, and all of SY's colleagues were White hats. It has to do with double blind testing, mostly.
In his publication, 'The Audio Critic' Aczel separated notable people into 2 classifications. Black hats and White hats.
I was not rated, as I am somewhat in-between, and I called myself a Grey Hat, as far back as 1998. Later. Aczel added 'Grey hat' to his evaluations.
Virtually all of my colleagues were Black hats, and all of SY's colleagues were White hats. It has to do with double blind testing, mostly.
Last edited:
I have no "colleagues" in audio, with the possible exception of Jan Didden with whom I just co-authored an equipment review; I don't derive income from it other than payment for magazine articles now and then. I don't know anyone on that list personally. I only know them through their work and reputations, and I can say the same for the snake oil guys you like to promote.
I think we've been through this one before as well.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.