You are reading the older HTML site

Positive Feedback ISSUE 62
july/august 2012


Our readers respond…we respond right back!

Send your comments to either or

Regarding the PFO article, "Why I am a subjectivist”…


If I may add a few comments to this wonderful read, I have been "preaching" this for several years now, and have actually been banished from one forum because I got one too many objections from the objectionists.

I coined a term for them, "wallpluggers," because, for the most part, plugging into the wall with the stock cord minus power conditioning was all that was needed in their perfect world.

That term really caused a stir, akin to a racial slur, an outrage to many of the "others" as I also like to call them.

They could join us and get in on the fun by trying some tweaks, but they prefer to be on the outside.

It's cheap, and of course they know better than we do.

Most of us  do know better. We need upgraded power cords, power conditioners, wires and yes, fuses, if we want to get the most music out of the systems that we listen to.

That is, if we do listen to the music.

The other side would have you believe that all you need are good specs, and that the ears are not to be trusted.

I've said it before, if that's what you think, then forget about a sound system altogether and just buy the sheet music.

Something else that always gets bashed are the people who have invested more than chump change in their systems.

The ones with pawn shop fodder always comment about what a rip-off audio has become .

Anyone spending more than what they deem as acceptable is one step closer to the looney bin.

And just in closing, what I've noticed is that the "others" like to hunt in packs, and when they start to lose the thread battle, they revert to futile attempts of humour or go off topic.

In the end, I am left to wonder why they bother with this hobby.

Chuck Lee

I like PFO because I feel that it is the only straightforward audio journal left on the market. It is easy to read and understand. It covers a wide spectrum of topics and items in a wide price range to appeal to most audiophiles. Keep up the good work.


The Higher End

About the "expectation of privacy" and those emails to Positive Feedback Online

Ye Olde Editor

We do like hearing from you, our readers. It adds a great deal fun to what we do, encourages our editors and writers, provides information we may have missed, and correction that we may need. This is all to the good.

Your communication with us these days is almost always via the highly rational path of email. And we do read it, responding to the constructive correspondence—which is most of it, really—as quickly as possible. (The destructive stuff is routed directly to the bit bucket. Didn't yo' mama teach you better than that?!) Dave Clark and I are generally pretty rapid in getting back to you if a response is needed from us, or in re-directing inquiries to the appropriate person at PFO if it needs to go to an editor or writer.

By the way: please understand that the writers and editors at PFO are helpful folks, eager to assist their fellow audio/music lovers, or they wouldn't be doing what they're doing. Nevertheless, PFO is not an audio consulting service. Please do not clog the gears with complex requests for assistance with the sourcing of audio gear in your personal setting. Remember too that PFO is not, and has never been, an audio ombudsman. If you are having problems with a particular vendor, company, or dealer, please avail yourself of the normal channels for such resolution; no audio publication has the time or resources to take on such a responsibility for consumers. Enough said.

With an increasing flow of emails to Positive Feedback Online, and upon evidence of some recent confusion on the part of our email correspondents, it's become necessary to re-state the ground rules by which we operate here. So gather round the campfire, friends…

Any time an email, or an exchange of emails, is both constructive and of potential wider interest, we exercise the reserved right to publish it in "Reverberations," the letters section of PFO. This is, after all, a publication, a "journal for the audio arts." We are seeking to further educate and entertain our readership in our common love for fine audio, and contributions in the form of emails/letters from our readers are one way that we accomplish this goal. When you write to any of us… our essayists and reviewers included… we assume that you are aware of our nature as a publication, and that you write to us in the light of that knowledge.

This means that—unless you request confidentiality explicitly in your email or letter—there is no expectation of privacy here at Positive Feedback Online.

To put it another way: Any email or letter sent to this journal will be considered fair game for publication, unless you state in the document itself that the contents are private/confidential.

So… our default is PUBLISH.

The reverse is also true: the editors do reserve the right not to publish an email or letter. We are not obligated to publish your letter or comments simply because they are submitted. And hostile, negative, sarcastic, destructive emails or letters are never published.

So…sometimes we DON'T PUBLISH.

Finally, our subtitle for "Reverberations"—"Our readers respond—we respond right back!" is not a guarantee that we will always respond to an email or letter that is published. Often we do; sometimes we don't… usually when we don't, it's a case of res ipsa loquitur.

So finally… sometimes we PUBLISH WITHOUT RESPONSE.

I think that makes things clear. Having said all of this in the name of clarity, keep those cards and letters coming in!

All the best,

David W. Robinson