I write Stereophile. Any comments?

avahifi · « **on:** 16 Sep 2006, 03:46 pm »

I just wrote the following letter to John Atkinson, editor of Stereophile:

Quote

In the August issue of Stereophile, you reported on a visit to the home of Carl Engebretsen to evaluate his Legacy Whisper speakers.

In Stereophile, you seemed to be reasonably impressed with his sonic setup.

Carl explained to you at the time that the system was being driving by all Audio by Van Alstine current electronics: Several AVA OmegaStar 500EX solid state amplifiers (all new AVA insides in Hafler 500 boxes), a new AVA Ultra EC hybrid preamplifier, a couple of AVA Ultra phase inverters (used to bridge the 500EX amplifiers), and an older solid state AVA DAC.

In your report in Stereophile, all this equipment appears to have "vanished" replaced by a terse note that he was using several Hafler 500 amplifiers.

I respectively submit that this "editorial change ???" does not serve your readers or Audio by Van Alstine very well.

If the system was working well run by our equipment, then I would expect that your readers might deserve a heads up that there were reasonable alternatives to the very high priced units out there.

Obviously given the cost of the speakers themselves, Carl could have afforded much more expensive electronics if he had thought they would have been good value.

It might also be consider misleading to think that stock old Hafler amplifiers could have generated the dynamic range and overall sound field you experienced. Your readers buying old original Hafler amplifiers and expecting that same kind of performance will be disappointed in you.

I would appreciate a correction.

Sincerely,

Frank Van Alstine
President
Audio by Van Alstine, Inc.

Dear AC readers, what do you think?

Frank

zybar · « **Reply #1 on:** 16 Sep 2006, 03:58 pm »

Looks ok to me.

Pretty straight forward and nothing personal or too aggressive.

George

Bemopti123 · « **Reply #2 on:** 16 Sep 2006, 04:06 pm »

Stereophile ought to be put in the same sleeze league as Monster etc....While Monster attempts to dominate through lawyers and litigation, Stereophile's influence through heavy editing, sounds to me like Censure of the worst kind. Sheez....Although I used to get a subscription of Stereophile until about 5 years ago, I am glad that I stopped. I just could not take their impartial "reviews" of a slew of components of the same manufacturer, in the same issue, which in itself was heavily laced with glossy ads of the same company. I say, if you want to censure or edit to make the consumer purchase a certain type of equipment, do so tastely and not so OBVIOUSLY, as the editing that Mr. Alstine has mentined.

The letter is nice, but perhaps too "polite" for those dudes at Stereophile. Even the name of their zine is a joke.

WEEZ · « **Reply #3 on:** 16 Sep 2006, 04:09 pm »

I seem to notice Legacy ad's in the magazine frequently. Could there be a connection?

I will be surprised if you receive a response. But if you do, I hope you post it here 'cause my subscription to Stereophile is about to expire and I am not renewing it.

WEEZ

Bemopti123 · « **Reply #4 on:** 16 Sep 2006, 04:21 pm »

Two manufacturers that paid heavily to have ads and perhaps even reviews of their glorious products in the same issue...
Musical Fidelity

and

Triangle Acoustics.

I remember an issue with no less than 3 loudspeakers of the same company being reviewed.

ohenry · « **Reply #5 on:** 16 Sep 2006, 04:30 pm »

I think the letter is concise and civil.

Also, I bet JA will respond with the defense that he thought the Haflers where only modified by AVA, not gutted having the remaining carcasses used for Frank's circuits. You have to admit, Frank's approach to recycling classic boxes is unique.

john1970 · « **Reply #6 on:** 16 Sep 2006, 05:05 pm »

Frank,

Your letter was direct, polite, and pointed out an obvious mistake by Stereophile. The real test is to see if they make the correction. It would be a disservice to their readers and to your company not to make the correction.

Very well done,

John

Zheeeem · « **Reply #7 on:** 16 Sep 2006, 06:10 pm »

Frank,

I think that, if you want John to publish your letter, shorter is better. There are also a couple of places where your remarks could be misinterpreted as value laden - after all, all you really want John to point out is that Carl was using AVA electronics. (And rightly so, I might add!)

I've made a quick cut at editing below. Please feel free to use or trash as you wish.

Jim

"In the August issue, you (insert author's name) reported on a visit to the home of Carl Engebretsen to evaluate his Legacy Whisper speakers. The article indicated that he was using several Hafler 500 amplifiers, with no other indication of other associated equimplent.

Carl explained to you at the time that the system was being driving by all Audio by Van Alstine current electronics: Several AVA OmegaStar 500EX solid state amplifiers (all new AVA insides in Hafler 500 boxes), a new AVA Ultra EC hybrid preamplifier, a couple of AVA Ultra phase inverters (used to bridge the 500EX amplifiers), and an older solid state AVA DAC.

I would be grateful if you could print a correction. Your readers certainly deserve accurate information on the equipment associated with listening evaluations. It might also be consider misleading to suggest that stock old Hafler amplifiers could have generated the dynamic range and overall sound field you experienced. Your readers may also wish to be informed of reasonable alternatives to the very high priced units out there."

rlee8394 · « **Reply #8 on:** 16 Sep 2006, 07:20 pm »

Nah, keep it the way it is Frank. I've seen longer letters published in Stereophile, and a lot less polite. Hopefully, it will make the "Letters to the Editor" section, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. They've had years to evaluate your eletronics and have not done so. Even when you have mitigated their excuse that products had to be purpose built and not modifications. As far as I know, your products and your company meet every criteria that Stereophile has established for evaluation, except for the unwritten criteria of heavy advertising! Unfortunately, JA's experience will just reinforce his opinion that AVA only "modifies" Hafler and Dynaco equipment. Sure, he knows better, but will still claim plausible deniability because evaluating AVA or any other qualified manufactuer who does not advertise heavily just is not part of Stereophile's agenda. Thank goodness for the Internet, AC, and general word of mouth advertising that gets the truth out there to all who are willing to have an open mind. Hell, if you don't get the letter published, maybe we all can write JA until it is done. I let my subscription run out 2 years ago because I was tired of reading about Musical Fidelity every damn issue. Hang in there, we're with you!

Toka · « **Reply #9 on:** 16 Sep 2006, 07:36 pm »

Much nicer than I would have been Frank, so good going there! I would say 'shame on Stereophile', but that would imply that they had any credibility in the first place.

Bill Baker · « **Reply #10 on:** 16 Sep 2006, 07:46 pm »

Hello Frank,
I wrote a letter to the editor a few years back (don't recall the issue but it was the issue with the MAC MC-2000 on the cover). I never received a response but the letter was publish. So there is hope.
Maybe they did make an honest mistake

and a correction will be posted. As others have mentioned, I think you did a good job of keeping your cool while still making your point.
Good luck and I hope you get the exposure you very much deserve.

Bemopti123 · « **Reply #11 on:** 16 Sep 2006, 08:54 pm »

Quote from: rlee8394 on 16 Sep 2006, 07:20 pm

I let my subscription run out 2 years ago because I was tired of reading about Musical Fidelity every damn issue. Hang in there, we're with you!

I am glad I was not the only one who noticed this sort of rant at Stereophile.

Gordy · « **Reply #12 on:** 16 Sep 2006, 09:05 pm »

A bit OT I suppose... In the recent past JA has gone out of his way to plug the cottage industry, not in the print magazine maybe, but he has in the S'phile newsletter. In his musings on the SB2's he mentioned and linked the web sites of both Vinnie/RWA and Wayne/Bolder as sources for mods... Like Bill said, there is hope! Some anyway...

hmen · « **Reply #13 on:** 16 Sep 2006, 09:28 pm »

I'm sure it would get published if you bought an ad.

EMM801 · « **Reply #14 on:** 16 Sep 2006, 10:22 pm »

If you haven't sent it yet, I believe you meant to say "respectfully" rather than "respectively". Otherwise it's better than they deserve.

Stereophile, however, caters to the 'rich-idiot' audiosnob market and may not care less. My first speakers- Dyna A25s- were bought largely because of their glowing review. Even though JGH* made the ridiculous claim that they were "flat to 30 Hz" (he was only off by an octave), it was a very positive review. That wouldn't happen with today's hoity-toity version. They'd rather push speaker cables that cost more than my entire first system.

*They also started the annoying affectation of referring to everyone by their initials.

avahifi · « **Reply #15 on:** 16 Sep 2006, 10:55 pm »

By the way the "you" was actually JA in person.

Frank

Zheeeem · « **Reply #16 on:** 17 Sep 2006, 12:14 am »

Quote from: avahifi on 16 Sep 2006, 10:55 pm

By the way the "you" was actually JA in person.

Well, [insert something lamely defending JA here].

Anyhow, I reckon it was just a mistake. I can't imagine that his intent was to mislead people into thinking he was hearing beautiful sounds from hafler stuff.

BTW, Suzy just came out of a kidney/pancreas transplant (September 6th). She's just out of the hospital. Prognosis good, but that's a really major surgery. You might drop her a line. I'm sure she's appreciate it.

James Romeyn · « **Reply #17 on:** 17 Sep 2006, 06:12 am »

One full color ad page is SP was about $15k circa 1990, no idea how costly it is now.

SP has every financial interest in making sure nobody finds out about internet forums like this & internet sellers like Frank.

That said, I must thank SP informing me of the Pathos integrated amp via Sam Tellig's review.

FredT300B · « **Reply #18 on:** 17 Sep 2006, 11:37 am »

I definitely prefer Zheeeem's version of the letter. When somebody makes a mistake, intentional or unintentional, a non-confrontational response is likely to be more effective.

Also, I wouldn't write a letter, because nobody will see it unless it's published, and I doubt yours will be published. I would post a message on the Stereophile forum under the "August 2006 Issue" heading where others will see it and John Atikinson will feel the need to respond.

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/postlist.php?Cat=0&Board=August2006

PhilNYC · « **Reply #19 on:** 17 Sep 2006, 11:52 am »

Quote from: FredT300B on 17 Sep 2006, 11:37 am

I definitely prefer Zheeeem's version of the letter. When somebody makes a mistake, intentional or unintentional, a non-confrontational response is likely to be more effective.

The problem with Zheeeem's version is that by listing the specific gear, it looks like he was writing it with the hopes it would be published "as is" as a sort of advertisement.

I like Frank's letter. It would be WAY more effective if Carl wrote it (or mentioned it in his Manufacturer's Response comments in reaction to the review of his speakers).