Which is the best audio magazine?

roberjerman
The two Peters (Aczel and Moncrieff) remain the best objectivest reviewers in print to this day! And hated by the "golden ears" crowd!

>>>>Well, I’m not sure I’d say they were hated. Ridiculed maybe. Laughed out of town? Used as examples of how wrong things can go with pseudo skepticism? 

roberjerman"The two Peters (Aczel and Moncrieff) remain the best objectivest reviewers in print to this day! And hated by the "golden ears" crowd!"

This is completely false as anyone with any actual experience reading they're magazines knows while it is true that they called themselves objectivists they were both extremely subjective reviewers they dismissed all kinds of verifiable repeatable observable evidence because it did not fit with their belief system which was very much "faith based" and anyone who did not embrace promote and support they're faith was ridiculed and ostracized they portrayed themselves as exceptional tellers of the truth but in fact had very much Jim Jones like qualitys. They were cultists and hifi is full of people who want you to follow them blindly wherever they may lead.

6moons

Peter Aczel was a man of strong views but he had an enormous amount of experience in audio. He could be described as the James Randi (supernatural sceptic/ buster) of the audio world. His views were never refuted and its unlikely they ever will be.

I'm sure most people involved in Hi-Fi journalism/entertainment (?) would rather he was quietly forgotten. It's difficult to refute evidence of blind tests where the sound of a straightened coat hanger is indistinguishable from a pair of $2000 interconnects.

Thank you for your work Peter. 

cd318"Peter Aczel was a man of strong views but he had an enormous amount of experience in audio. He could be described as the James Randi (supernatural sceptic/ buster) of the audio world. His views were never refuted and its unlikely they ever will be."

His views were often refuted and his experiments which he presented as science were shown to be substantially flawed, erroneous and deceptive he was not a skeptic buster but an evangelist, cultist and self-proclaimed visionary who's goal was to sell magazines under the guise of science when in fact he was faith-based "fundamentalist" proselytizer and it is sad to say that he is not missed by anyone in the world of audio with the sole exception of those he duped so you might want to explore the facts that surround the myth he promoted and that you now seek to continue.