Thread: An Open Letter to John Atkinson, Editor of Stereophile Magazine

Posts: 63
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next

Post by DSD May 17, 2009 (21 of 63)
Stereo_Editor said:

Mainstream record companies have already made that decision without any prompting from Stereophile.

>Someone over at Stereophile could actually undo any damage done by Tellig and by misleading titles, by one of their reviewers or editors simply writing a "Now wait a minute, don't give up on SACD just yet" sort of article.<

Michael Fremer will be reviewing the dCS Scarlatti in our August issue. You will have to wait for that review to read his verdict on SACD as a medium for high-quality music reproduction.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John, as much as I love Michael Fremer and all he has done to keep the analog LP alive, I do not believe Michael Fremer or Sam Tellig are optimum choices to be handed an SACD player to review. Personally I prefer to read SACD player reviews from audiophiles/reviewers who actually love high resolution digital. Surely someone besides Kal Rubinson at Stereophile actually likes SACD?

I don't think you realize how much influence Stereophile magazine has? Sam Tellig in his review of the McIntosh MCD 500 following his uncalled for vicious attack on the SACD format said "It makes standard CDs sound almost as good as SACDs in terms of low level detail, ambiance, and a silky midrange and treble." (reluctantly indicating that SACD is indeed superior to CD) and then he says "Hear my hi-fi heresy: A pox on both your houses-LP and SACD." Surely you must see that Sam is not the correct person to review either SACD players or turntables?

I have a lot more of Sam Tellig's scathing quotes in this post about the review in the Audio Asylum: http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/25/257779.html

I know you do not want to be a dictatorial editor but when someone has a long history of disdain for a format that person should not be given a product to review in that format as it only gives them a platform to use as an excuse to attack the format they abhor. JMHO

Post by rammiepie May 17, 2009 (22 of 63)
At the dawn of the Compact Disc, vinyl's ultimate demise was forecast. What ultimately led to its eventual resurgence, was the audiophile outcry that digital or digititis was grating on the ears and lacked the warmth and "rightness" which only the vinyl record was capable of delivering.Fast Forward, two emergent, competing formats, each heralding the end to digititis due to less bits (try 1 bit) and 24bits...And taking away the banner from DTS which produced a few classic surround CDs at 16 bit/44.1 with a three to one compression scheme...Joshua Loves Ruth [Lyle Lovett] comes to mind; one delivered right out of the gate 5.1 surround in full 24/96 rez with videos, still galleries, etc (but only playable on a DVD player) and the other eventually added multi-channel and CD layer to make it a viable foe to DVD-A. But to access the SACD stereo and multi layers, one had to have a player capable of playing SACD. We're about to come out with Blu-Ray players that support all formats (the OPPO BDP-63). I personally salute ALL well-produced music in any hi-rez format, check out Jeck Beck's Blu-Ray "Live at Ronnie Scott's" Turn off the TV and the non-stop music in DTS Master Audio (okay-DVD-Audio...according to DTS... it could become the new Soundtrack For Your Life...okay, just kidding,. but this man just keeps re-inventing himself.....The VIDEO... three tables back from the stage at Ronnie Scott's.....Since we're still in the "Open Letter to John Atkinson" Post, Might we remind him at SA-CD Net that there are over thirteen or fourteen million SACD players out there and we are a picky bunch and what we want to see are more positive articles in your IMPORTANT magazine because your pen is mighty in the audiophile community and only because of this very vocal community the reproduction of Music in spectacular resolution will advance....let people who are suckling their Ipods read WIRE magazine (or whatever?)

Post by audioholik May 18, 2009 (23 of 63)
DSD said:

when someone has a long history of disdain for a format that person should not be given a product to review in that format

unless you DO want to damage that format.

Post by FullRangeMan May 18, 2009 (24 of 63)
audioholik said:
unless you DO want to damage that format.

They hate the SACD format and will try make jokes and ironies with the DCS gear and performance. There is much time until August.

Post by Perigo May 18, 2009 (25 of 63)
FullRangeMan said:

They hate the SACD format and will try make jokes and ironies with the DCS gear and performance. There is much time until August.

I don't know why dCS put in their hands a so good product.
I think it is better to wait august issue, because the results will strongly depend from the pages of advertisement the englishmen decide to put through the review pages...

Post by mahlerei May 18, 2009 (26 of 63)
Having now read the offending article I simply cannot understand the hostile reaction it has provoked here. Conspiracy theories and ad hominem attacks on the editor are sure signs this has now become a witch hunt rather than a genuine debate. Yes, SACD is wonderful but may i suggest we all spend more time listening to music - if we are indeed music lovers - than fighting over formats. Life really is too short for this kind of silliness.

Post by Lee Scoggins May 18, 2009 (27 of 63)
mahlerei said:

Having now read the offending article I simply cannot understand the hostile reaction it has provoked here. Conspiracy theories and ad hominem attacks on the editor are sure signs this has now become a witch hunt rather than a genuine debate. Yes, SACD is wonderful but may i suggest we all spend more time listening to music - if we are indeed music lovers - than fighting over formats. Life really is too short for this kind of silliness.

I agree. John is a terrific person and editor as are all the Stereophile writers I have met. It's sad to consistently see thugs create another snake pit of personal attacks. It takes away from enjoyment of the hobby.

I read Sam's column over the weekend. Far more innocent than some would suggest here. It is more of a two channel versus a MC beef the way I read it.

Post by Cicero May 18, 2009 (28 of 63)
mahlerei said:

Having now read the offending article I simply cannot understand the hostile reaction it has provoked here. Conspiracy theories and ad hominem attacks on the editor are sure signs this has now become a witch hunt rather than a genuine debate. Yes, SACD is wonderful but may i suggest we all spend more time listening to music - if we are indeed music lovers - than fighting over formats. Life really is too short for this kind of silliness.

I could not agree more!

Isn't it time now to stop this silly thread, which started because some people misconstrued a rather innocent article, reading something into it that it probably never meant to say?

Post by canonical May 18, 2009 (29 of 63)
Cicero said:

Isn't it time now to stop this silly thread, which started because some people misconstrued a rather innocent article, reading something into it that it probably never meant to say?

Well ... I think there are three problems with your assertion.

FIRST, one doesn't have to read anything into it. I don't think anyone misconstrued anything. The article states it blatantly - not the reader. In particular, the article asserts the now infamous statement - "audiophiles in the US continue to declare it a dead format". Rofl. I particularly like the "CONTINUE TO DECLARE". It's so try hard, it's actually quite funny.

SECOND, an editor of Stereophile then turned up here (which I applaud), and then, instead of fixing the problem, proceeded to repeat the exact same statement, asserting it to be completely correct. At this point, it became reasonably apparent to me, a non-reader of said epistle, that the claims that Stereophile was biased against SACD were in fact entirely appropriate.

THIRD, there is the absurd inconsistency of it all. The editor claims SACD is dead to audiophiles, at the very same time that the best audiophile companies in the US drop CD and move to SACD. He then announces that Stereophile will be reviewing another new SACD player in August 2009. Why? If they claim the format is dead, then why review the latest of the swathe of new machines popping onto the market? It makes no sense at all.

To paraphrase their Sony 5400 cover title: The August issue: the last Stereophile?

How rude is that?

Post by Jason Victor Serinus May 18, 2009 (30 of 63)
canonical said:

How rude is that?

Incredibly rude, given that both the author of the article - myself - and John Atkinson have repeatedly stated that the agenda you ascribe to us does not exist.

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next

Closed