text:
The biggest disappointment I have had with the "audio world" in general is with the magazines, particularly what was once called "the underground press". No other group; the manufacturers, retailers, or distributors, has let the average audiophile down as much as them.
The behavior of the audio press, during the last 20 years or so, is the worst "breach of trust" in our hobby/industry since it started more than 50 years ago. In fact, there is so much to criticize that I have had a difficult time even knowing where to begin, so I'll start with a discussion of the audio magazine with the largest current circulation, Stereophile.
After that, I will focus on other magazines, some well known and some obscure, plus various other subjects and issues concerning publishing an audio magazine today. Special attention will be given to the "reviewers", who perform the most important function that the magazines are supposed to provide.
I will continue to edit and add material to this file as time and circumstances permit.
Stereophile was the first "underground" audio magazine. Its existence even coined the term. It was started by maverick audio reviewer J. Gordon Holt. His efforts spawned other magazines, and set the standard for honest reporting. Eventually, after many years of struggle, he sold the magazine to Larry Archibald. A few years after that, Archibald replaced Holt as the editor. That job went to his new junior partner, John Atkinson. The magazine has never been the same since.
Stereophile is now basically a commercial marketing engine for established brands, and those rare new brands which can afford an extravagant marketing (advertising) budget, meaning hundreds of thousands of dollars. The only other audio companies they mention favorably are small companies whose owners are friends, or have some sort of "relationship", with the senior writers or the editor himself. Everyone else is "out", especially small, newly formed, innovative manufacturers who are perceived as a threat to any of the companies previously mentioned.
The "reviews" in Stereophile are rarely direct, with a definitive, unambiguous conclusion. Readers are forced to "read between the lines" in some vain hope that they can actually decipher the reviewer's true experiences, thoughts and feelings. Sonic downsides and compromises are rarely stated in frank and detailed terms. The finest and most valuable reviews, in any field of human endeavor, are enlightening, challenging and, in many instances, controversial. I can't remember the last time that ANY review in Stereophile could be honestly characterized in such terms.
Stereophile's original allegiance has now been fundamentally altered. What used to be a magazine whose main goal was "to inform" its readership, has now changed to a magazine whose main goal is "To Sell" its readership on the latest, most fashionable components, regardless of their true and relative merit. Their readers have been reduced to a simple statistic used for calculating advertising revenues.
To that end, they are increasingly less critical of components as their selling prices increase. If their readers' interests were their true first priority, as they continually claim, they would be increasingly more critical as the prices rise. In effect, they've now transformed themselves from being tough industry critics into pandering industry cheerleaders.
Their Recommended Components List reflects this new reality, with almost every component they review now earning this once prestigious achievement. It is the equivalent of every professional sports team making the playoffs.
If that wasn't bad enough, there are now more recommendations described as "Class A", meaning "the best available", than as "Class C", which is "the best for the money". This is, of course, logically impossible in the real world. It is analogous to having more Generals than Sergeants within the Army.
The section below within this file, which I termed "The Rules", was mainly, though not exclusively, inspired by the disheartening conduct and practices of this magazine.
I've written extensively about Stereophile within the Reviewing the Reviewers. It is highly detailed and includes some relevant examples of the continuing degeneration and blatant commercialization of the magazine.
The Absolute Sound has also seriously deteriorated. Here's one simple example: In issue # 114, they 'reviewed' the VPI Aries Turntable with the JMW tonearm, with a total cost of $ 4,995, and the Jadis 845 triode amplifiers.
What did they compare the VPI Aries with? The Rega Planar 3 at $ 695. (Yes, I'm serious.) Guess which was better? It's safe to say that no one (in the audio business) was upset at the result of such a comparison. More important, no prospective purchaser, of either turntable/arm combination, was enlightened about its relative audio performance and value.
Then there was the $20,000 Jadis 845. This should be thought of as an all-out design at that price. What did they compare the Jadis with? Their "references" were a VTL KT-90 push-pull amplifier and an original, stock, Dynaco Stereo 70! The price of both of these amplifiers, combined, is not much more than the sales tax on the Jadis, and neither is single-ended, as is the Jadis.
What really hurts is that TAS had been the finest audiophile magazine for more than two decades. It set the standard for complete and reliable reporting, not only the components, but also for seeking out the music itself. It started going downhill in the early to mid-eighties, after the "no advertising" policy was changed and it escalated after The Perfect Vision was started. There were politics and cronyism from virtually the beginning, but TAS always seemed to transcend them in the long run, and they had "continuity", a rare virtue.
Now, they are just a ghost of themselves, with new owners and format, without a direction, and with no idea where the audio pulse lies. The two junk 'reviews' discussed above couldn't have been published in TAS's prime years. Now they are routine.
The two main writers, Harry Pearson and Jonathan Valin, change their "reference" components almost ever issue. Worst of all- The "reviewers" even appear to be engaged in a decadent contest of who can spend (actually waste) the most amount of (other peoples') money on a system. Valin, through a "close friend", was even caught cutting a 17 meter pair of (expensive and unpaid for) Nordost interconnects into (17) 1 meter pairs, and then selling them on Audiogon. Since Valin can still "sell", nothing happened to him.
There are also some critical essays concerning The Absolute Sound within Reviewing the Reviewers. It includes details of the continuing degeneration and blatant commercialization of the magazine.
The worst example is, fortunately, now out of business, but sadly not out of audio. Have you ever read Audio Adventure? Check out an issue, but don't pay for it. Virtually all the "editorial" reads like ad copy, but with even less modesty. There were actually biographies of the 'reviewed' manufacturers, plus pictures of them, their family, spouse, factory etc.
It almost read like a National Lampoon parody of the cronyism and cowardice of the other magazines. Of course, all the "chosen ones", those who received the described Royal Treatment, just happen to have been their largest advertisers. Reading AA can bring up strong and conflicting emotions; nausea and extreme embarrassment being just two of them.
Are you wondering what happened to the owner/editor of Audio Adventure, Thomas O. Miiller? He was almost immediately rehired by TAS as a "senior writer". There's one constant truth about the audio press, once you're "in", you're always "in", as long as you keep your mouth shut and obey "The Rules". (See below.)
Addendum- To my surprise and horror, I now realize, in 2008, that Audio Adventure went out of business not because of its embarrassing degree of utter groveling, but because it was ahead of its time. Both Stereophile and TAS now routinely have the same multiple page "spreads" that Audio Adventure specialized in, along with their fawning "interviews" and common usage of words like "awesome" and "revolutionary".
In August 2002, Listener stopped publishing. This was unfortunate because it was different and its readership was growing.
Listener was published by Art Dudley, through a larger magazine company. Its biggest downside was that it had a strong bias towards English equipment; Linn, Naim, Spendor etc., but it didn't follow the industry dogma that spending big money is always better. It also had a Harvey Rosenberg column, which was usually provocative. On the other hand, outside of Dudley and Rosenberg, their other reviewers were unreliable. In fact, one of them has since blatantly misinformed the readers of Audio Asylum in his numerous posts in their forums, including unfounded personal attacks on members who are critical of Stereophile (where Dudley now works), and a sickening, groveling like "worship" of its editor, John Atkinson.
There is another magazine that deserves special mention, because in many ways it is unique. That magazine is The Audio Critic. It was originally published during the late 1970's until around 1981. Then it reincarnated around 1987, with the publisher being in the speaker business during that 6 year hiatus. I was a subscriber during the first period and enjoyed the magazine quite a bit. It was very precise and to the point, and did not tolerate any scientific "mumbo jumbo". It also didn't accept any advertising. I was very sorry to see it go.
The Audio Critic, in its new reincarnation, has profoundly changed, mainly because the publisher/editor's beliefs have also changed. It's still very scientifically based, which I like and it also pulls no punches, which I really like. In fact, it's the only magazine I know that breaks "The Rules" listed below in a consistent manner.
The new problem for me, and most others, is the editor no longer believes that any component, other than loudspeakers, can make an audible difference (improvement) in the sound; a cheap (powerful) receiver will sound as good as any power amplifier; the same with CD players, cables, preamp line-stages etc. He states he can prove all this with ABX testing. He also feels analog, meaning phono reproduction, is far inferior to any CD player and that "tubes are for boobs". No, I am not exaggerating.
While I concur about the prime importance of speakers and listening rooms, I don't agree with their position on tubes, phono reproduction, and everything else sounding the same, though I do feel that the sonic differences in most cases are greatly exaggerated. In fact, if I felt the same way the editor did about audio components, I wouldn't even bother being involved with an audio magazine in the first place. It would be too boring, and besides; What's the point?
According to their own findings and philosophy, all you have to do to get the best sound possible is to buy the cheapest receiver, CD player and cables you can find, then buy your favorite loudspeaker with all the money you saved. Further, the only improvement you will ever be able make in the future is with a better pair of speakers. Everything else must be, in effect, perfect, because it all sounds exactly the same. There is also a continually angry, bitter and negative tone to the writing that may put one off.
Addendum- Since the above was posted, The Audio Critic has ceased publishing and now only has a web presence. Sadly, their posts are infrequent and short, but then, when you think about it, there's not much to add to "almost every component sounds exactly the same".
One final print magazine well worth mentioning is International Audio Review (IAR), formerly published by Peter Moncrieff since around 1980. It was also scientifically based and the editor had an exceptional track record for finding previously unknown yet superb sounding components. He described why they were superior, though usually in excessive length, and he was also prone to exaggerating the degree of this superiority.
The magazine suffered from long publishing delays, a growing focus on low priority (digital) components and, for many years, equipment from Audio Research Corp. However, some of the issues are both provocative and very informative. The IAR issues from the early 1980's had an incredible amount of general, well thought out, audio information. He still has a website, with some sample reviews in it.
Looking back now, with the advantages and hindsight of decades of time, I believe that IAR was the single most valuable audio magazine for those serious audiophiles who were willing to think and act "out of the box". Peter Moncrieff not only provided practical and proven advice not found elsewhere, he even explained the scientific reasons supporting his theories and advice. This makes him, in my opinion, the most important audio writer of the modern era, even though many others were more famous. It's a shame more audio writers didn't emulate him, then and now. Whatever faults he had were mere trifles compared to the important positives he gave us.
As far as I know, this was a webzine found only on the Internet. However, unlike the typical and useless (and "free") audio websites I've visited, the reader had to pay for a subscription and then download the text etc. The publisher and editor was Richard Hardesty, now retired,who also had a long (30 year) career in the audio (retail, repair, design) business, and even had a musical background as well. His experience is formidable and his critical nature is very similar to mine.
There is a link to The Audio Perfectionist in the "Links" section of this website. There you will find a decent sample of his writing style, background and perspective.
For those of you who are interested in taking a second, critical look at some specific audio reviews, recommendations and correspondence from a variety of sources, both from print magazines and the Internet, please go to my column: Reviewing the Reviewers. The criticisms will be much more specific than the broad strokes mainly used in this essay. Both the "famous" and the less well known will be "featured".
"Stereophile is going to start taking ads...we are not considering...taking ads from manufacturers. There is just too intimate a relationship between a product and an advertisement for that product...we are not sure we could really ignore the fact that a devastating report might cost us three mortgage payments...if (...the manufacturer) happens to be a nice guy, it is hard to be as hard on his mistakes...as we should be in order to warn our readers of them." - J. Gordon Holt - Stereophile -(Issue 3-1971, Page 2)
"Magazines---all magazines--exist on the basis of advertising. That's all that counts. Magazines are "sold" simply to have circulation which can then be used to sell advertising at prices commensurate with the circulation. IN FACT most magazines LOSE money on circulation. It doesn't matter since they make their money on advertising." - Michael Fremer of Stereophile (From his Letter of October 29, 2000 - My Underlines)
There is much more to all this than just advertising dollars, but because advertising $$ is the root cause of much of the problems, we have to talk about the unpleasant, but inevitable subject of money before we get to "The Rules", for perspective's sake.
To paraphrase Michael Fremer above; Isn't it obvious that if you pay only $20 or less for an annual subscription, while a manufacturer (or retailer) pays up to $200,000 a year to advertise in that same magazine, that the publisher will think more than twice (how about 10,000 times!) about upsetting that (even potential) advertiser?
The magazine must protect their advertiser(s), or else they'll all go under, because neither can survive without the other. This will be the case until their readers demand more and, much more importantly, are willing to pay for it. Actually, I find it amazing that audiophiles really believe they can buy a magazine with over 200 pages, with color, in a large format, and even have it shipped to them for less than $2 an issue and still expect total frankness. And all this at the literal expense of the audio businesses that actually subsidize the entire production, through their advertising money, equipment "loans" and assorted "favors".
No, I'm not defending the magazines and 'reviewers'. One can acknowledge that they are dependent on the advertisers and have no choice but to mollify them, but they put themselves in that position by offering more frequent and larger issues, and even charging less for them. They gave the readers what they seemed to want; a lot more quantity and much less quality.
Most 'underground' publishers and editors made a strategic choice:
More 'reviews', more ads, more pages, and all for a small price in dollars.
What a deal! The inevitable trade off: very little hard content or clear-cut choices; 50 amplifiers described as "the best", instead of 4. They figured that some audiophiles, mainly "old timers" like myself, would be put off, but we're a small minority. By now, there are only a few thousand subscribers who can even remember the early days of "no ads" and very frank and direct reviews. In short; the magazines became "commercial" and we were written off. Remember...
Fortunes (the ultimate goal for many) are rarely made from purists and perfectionists.
The audio magazines decided that their advertisers were their best and most reliable short and long-term sources of income. One key to understanding the priorities of any audio magazine is how much they charge for a subscription. The cheaper and more inviting the subscription price is to attract a maximum amount of subscribers, and increase their advertising rates, then the less dependent they are on individual subscribers and more dependent on those advertisers for their income.
In other words; The magazines are "buying you out" for a cheap subscription price.
The first (and usually the worst) problem is cronyism. It cannot be avoided, because it deals with the basic fundamentals of human nature.
How can readers ever know the true, overall "relationship" of the audio manufacturer or distributor and the audio reviewer? How close are they? What favors have been exchanged? When is a "loan" a gift? How much did the "reviewer's purchase" really cost? How important is this relationship to both of them? What will either of them do, or don't do, to retain it?
These are the questions whose answers only the true "insiders" know. I believe most audio reviewers begin their jobs wanting to be honest. This attitude doesn't usually last very long, because the reviewer won't be a reviewer very long if they are as critical of components in public as they are of those same components in private. So they learn first to be "diplomatic" and then later to fake "enthusiasm".
And then, sooner or later, they are "helped" by a manufacturer. It may take the form of a 'loan' of some exotic equipment they lust for, or a "give-away" price if they want to actually own it. If there's an expensive upgrade; "no problem", it's done for free, usually in their own home. They, in turn, will highly recommend the "reference" component, creating a symbiotic relationship.
This relationship may go on for years, with constant, reciprocal interactions; telephone calls; dinners; trips; and other favors (even for friends). After a while, a true friendship may even develop, but usually it is one just based on mutual gain and/or dependence.
Of course, as night still follows day, the reviewer will inevitably hear a component that is superior to the "reference", and it may also be cheaper. What does the reviewer do now?
The reviewer's (and the magazine's) choices are stark. Advertising, from the reviewer's perspective, may not even be the most important factor. If the reviewer is totally frank about the superiority of the new component, he knows he will compromise or even destroy the long-term "relationship" he has developed with the original manufacturer. Worse, he will scare off many other third-party manufacturers from loaning him equipment in the future.
While the original manufacturer must acknowledge that the reviewer helped them in the past, they will usually forget that when the new review, recommending their competitor's product over their own, is published. It will hurt their sales and may even bankrupt them. They will feel betrayed after all the favors they have given to the reviewer, maybe over the course of years. The fact that the new component really is superior to their own is irrelevant to them.
The reviewer also doesn't want to burn such an important bridge after all the time he has invested in it, and there can still be many future favors and interactions between him and the original manufacturer, let alone substantial future advertising dollars for the publisher/employer. So this is the point where "The Rules" come in to play, which were designed to insure that Everyone, except the readers, will be protected and satisfied in the long run.
Admittedly, the inevitable and endless temptations faced by influential 'reviewers' are considerable, and it should be no great surprise that most people can not resist them. Here is a typical example:
A manufacturer offers the reviewer a $20,000 amplifier for an "extended loan". The manufacturer receives a "rave review" shortly thereafter. (There is no formal agreement.) The manufacturer may eventually sell a few dozen amplifiers because of that 'review', and now tells the 'reviewer' to keep the "loaner", or purchase it for "parts cost", which may amount to $ 4,000, and usually less.
The 'reviewer', in turn, can now sell the amplifier for half of retail, $10,000. This is very easy to do since his own 'review' created the artificial demand for it in the first place. He becomes a "hero" for both the now very happy manufacturer and also the person purchasing the amplifier, maybe a friend, who saved $10,000 plus tax from the retail price. This same scenario may be repeated many times in a 'reviewer's' "career". In almost all instances, the readers are unaware that these "transactions" even took place.
To truly understand how the vast majority of reviewers think, including the most famous and the total unknowns, you must put yourself in their position. They begin as "ordinary" readers and consumers, paying the highest prices, and with no special access to anyone. Suddenly they are "reviewers", with deals, loans, access, "respect" and privileges they never dreamed of.
What then becomes their single highest priority, almost inevitably, as soon as the shock wears off and they can think straight?
That's real simple:
Most reviewers will do virtually anything to retain this unexpected and highly beneficial status, and that means keeping their editor/publisher happy, which, in turn, means keeping the manufacturers/advertisers happy. In effect, they only "review" components for the purpose of allowing them to review more components in the future. This is in sharp contrast to an ordinary reviewer, whose first goal is to help his readers, by making a serious and honest effort to communicate his observations and expertise with them. Keep this in mind, at all times, when you contemplate their "work".
Finally, always remember that a "negative review" does much more than simply upset the manufacturer of the reviewed component. It also sends a signal to all the other manufacturers that they may be highly vulnerable if they decide to loan a component to that particular reviewer.
There is no subject or component category that has been as revealing of the magazines', and their reviewers', (lack of) integrity as audio cables. In less than 25 years audio cables have gone from an afterthought to a major investment in most systems. The prices have also skyrocketed from less than $ 50 to tens of thousands for the (so-called) "best".
Simultaneously, the cable companies have slowly become some of the largest advertisers in almost every audio magazine. In return, these magazines have published 'reviews', and "recommendations", of the "better known" (most heavily advertised) brands and models. Meanwhile...
Virtually nothing else has been printed about audio cables by them. So, one may ask, where is the problem with the magazines' self-proclaimed integrity? They're honest and open, aren't they?
Well, prepare yourself for a totally new perspective about audio cables and the audio magazines:
I used the expression "cable companies" in the above paragraph. Did you think it was an oversight on my part that I didn't use the word "manufacturer" instead? After all, that is the word that all the magazines (and the 'reviewers') use, or at least imply. I didn't use it for a very good reason: It is not true. What is the truth?
Are you surprised, or even shocked by this statement? Well, I was too, and remember, I was in the audio business for more than 20 years. In fact, I even discovered (from the actual manufacturers) that many cable companies don't even design their own cables. They simply choose among different designs, materials, colors, terminations and the overall volume (total length). Then they are quoted a price, and that's it. Some companies may perform some custom terminations at their "factory", but that's all the "manufacturing" they'll ever do.
The magazines (and their 'reviewers') know all of this of course, but they make damn sure that their readers don't.
Why do they suppress such basic information from their own subscribers?
The magazines realize that the word "Manufacturer" implies huge initial expenditures and investments of time and money, plus true size and importance. Simply ordering 50 or 100 pairs of cable from some large, 50-year old manufacturing plant, at their normal volume discount, doesn't even begin to convey the same image of scale, the same sense of expertise and commitment, or earn the same amount of respect or prestige, does it? Most importantly, a consumer, knowing this underlying reality, would be hesitant to pay the now outlandish prices on these cables.
It's obvious that anyone with some money to invest can do the same thing. Magazines don't want their readers to think that any of their advertisers are just "anyone". The only serious monetary "investments" any of these cable companies will ever make is in "marketing" their products.
Unlike most other components, audio cables are easy to compare with each other, and now even with a "straight bypass" (a direct connection of two components that bypasses the cables). It should be obvious to all that the closer any cable is to the bypass, the better that cable must be.
One cable company, Wireworld, came out with the Comparator, a device which allows any particular cable to be compared with both a "bypass" position and one other cable. They use it themselves at audio shows, and a few of their larger retailers also use it. (Audio 'reviewers' always avoid the Comparator at shows, during public hours, for fear of exposure.) There is another, older device, the ABX switcher, which also makes it very easy and convenient to compare cables with each other, though not against a pure bypass.
How many magazines use these informative devices, including the (free for them) Wireworld Comparator, with its ultra-revealing bypass position? Easy answer: None of them! A few 'reviewers' used the Comparator once, when reviewing some of Wireworld's cable, and never mentioned it again.
Even when they did use the Comparator, the results were always "inconclusive"; all the cables just happened to be "equally different" from the bypass.
The fact that the magazines refuse to even make these simple tests, let alone publish the results, is irrefutable evidence of their continual efforts to protect the inferior models. This means the "inferiors" will still be able to sell their products, give away "review samples" and pay their bills, most importantly their numerous advertising (AKA protection) invoices.
As we enter this new decade, it is no longer even slightly surprising to see cables for thousands of dollars, even for short lengths. Some cables are now above $ 20,000 a pair. Only around 20 years ago, the most expensive cables were all $ 200 or less, and some of them even used pure silver. So what has happened?
Well, the cable companies discovered that some customers were prepared to pay more, a lot more. Even more important, they also found out that the magazines never questioned, let alone challenged, the prices they charged; $ 500, $ 1,000, $ 5,000, $ 10,000 etc. (Retailers weren't complaining either with this new development; A $ 200 sale became a $ 5,000 sale!)
No one, not even those cable companies that didn't advertise, was ever asked to justify their prices. It didn't matter what the cable was made of, or its build quality, or its terminations etc. No questions asked. Why?
The magazines are afraid, almost to the point of terror, that the readers/customers will discover that the markups on cables are now very similar to those on "illegal drugs", over 1,000%! The outraged reader may even lose his Audio Faith. (See the next subject below.)
The magazines' "don't ask, don't tell" policy doesn't stop there. For further protection, they will not even compare any of the (now rare) reasonably priced cables to any of the high-priced models, unless they already know that they are inferior (a "fix"). Why?
The magazines know that if even one low-priced cable is better, the entire myth that all high-quality cables must also be high-priced will be shattered, permanently.
The magazines have never compromised their "total package of protection" for the cable companies. That's why there exists today a "reference speaker cable", with "rave reviews", from a very well known "manufacturer", which retails at $ 9,500 for an 8' pair, while his own cost is less than $ 100 from the real cable manufacturer, and he can still "sleep like a baby". (Yes, under $ 100 dollars, including terminations!)
The mainstream audio magazines, self-described as "your friends in the audio world", have shown a strange method of demonstrating their "friendship". They have allowed and even contributed to the illusion that ordinary individuals are actually large and serious "manufacturers". They have avoided even the simplest and most basic tests on cables with extraordinary claims and prices. No retail price, even above $ 20,000, has ever been questioned, and any reasonably priced cable is shunned as if it were the audio equivalent of "truth serum". In short;
There is an obvious consistency and pattern of behavior in evidence here. Audio cables have presented a revealing and ultimate test of every magazines' basic honesty and integrity.
"Ultimate" because there is no other situation in audio where, simultaneously, the readers are so uninformed and vulnerable, the magazines tempted by huge advertising income and their 'reviewers' by "gifts", while the respective 'manufacturers' have unprecedented amounts of gross profits (90% or more of sales) to spread around to anyone who can help them. How many magazines have actually passed this "Ultimate Test"?
For the reader who would like to see a confirmation of the above essay, plus an example of the (now standard) uninhibited markups in this "industry", please check out this enlightening thread on Audio Asylum: The JPS Labs Power Cord. You will also note the absence of contributions from the prominent reviewers who regularly hype these cables and, as a bonus, some "defences" of these highly misleading cable "manufacturers" from their shameless shills operating within these groups. In contrast, Steve Eddy, the Audio Asylum "member" who actually tracked down this invaluable information, at his own time and expense, has done an admirable service for the entire audiophile community. Congratulations!
This will be old news for most readers, but Tara Labs, a North American based cable "manufacturer", found itself in some trouble because they mislabeled a huge number of cables (42,000!), by claiming they were "Made in the U.S.A.", presumably in their own "plant", when they were actually made in Asia, at an average cost of around $ 14! (Now compare that $ 14 cost to the retail price of the average Tara Labs cable.)
For more details, Stereophile has a short article; http://www.stereophile.com/news/091304taralabs/ Also, search Cable Asylum and Audiogon in September 2004 for more discussions about this particular subject. You're sure to find apologists for both the mislabeling and the price gouging.
Personal Note- The Tara Labs' model for outsourcing its products is "The Rule" concerning cable companies, and not an "exception".
There was a recent incident at The Absolute Sound which was very indicative of the current state of the audiophile cable business. It also confirms what I wrote above about the unprecedented profit margins in audio cables. According to threads in Critics Asylum, Romy the Cat's audio website and TAS' own "Forums", it appears that TAS senior reviewer, Jonathan Valin, received a 17 meter pair of highly expensive Nordost interconnects for a review. Valin never purchased them. Later, Valin, with a "friend", had this same 17 meter pair cut down and re-terminated into (17) individual 1 meter pairs, and then sold them, to unsuspecting audiophiles, on Audiogon. How the all the money they received was actually split between the two "friends" was never disclosed.
Nordost did not ask for the cables back, which is their standard policy with reviewer "loans". This is true despite the fact that these particular cables sold for many thousands of dollars (which then tells you how little they actually cost to manufacture). Valin obviously knew Nordost would never ask for the cables back. He was only caught because one of the buyers of a 1 meter pair had a problem, called Nordost, and they (Nordost) couldn't figure out how the serial number of a 17 meter pair was now located on a 1 meter pair. After a quick investigation, and a few phone calls, the truth was discovered, but only after Valin first claimed he "lost" the cables.
So what happened to Valin? Nothing. All the blame was placed on Valin's "nefarious friend", who has never been identified.
The Bottom Line- When it comes to contemporary audio journalism, particularly in the mainstream press, all that matters is if the writer can "SELL"*.
*As far as I know, Robert Harley, the TAS Editor, is the person with the authority to "fire" Valin. These two men have worked closely together for many years now, and, of course, have many shared experiences and confidences.
The pictures below are what you are actually buying, some times, for $ 10,000+! This short article doesn't qualify as "news" by strict definition, as these pictures were taken years ago. However, most audiophiles are still ignorant of the scope and degree of the (now routine) greed and contempt which is involved in the cable industry.
This is the kind of critical information, or investigating reporting, you will NEVER find in Stereophile or The Absolute Sound, which is why I felt compelled to post it here. These examples easily explain how cable companies can afford the largest and most expensive ads in the print magazines, such as the back covers, month after month, as well as how their respective editors "earn" their generous salaries.
Kudos to those audiophiles who took the time and expense to expose the truth about these cables, while also publically embarrassing (if that is possible) both the perpetrators and their loyal promoters/apologists, also known as "the audio press".
Further, here are two relevant links on this general subject:
HiFi Wigwam Cable Thread
A $ 12,000 cable for $ 200 DIY project?!
Secret Rule No. 8- "The more dishonest your magazine is, the more you shall proclaim your honesty."
"That is true in life....and has nothing to do with hifi!" - Michael Fremer, Stereophile (Letter of October 29, 2000)
Those audiophiles who have "audio faith" strongly believe that all audio components are fairly priced (even if they are incompetently designed or are not to the believer's "taste"), and they are also convinced that basic, universal, human greed always amazingly disappears as soon as someone becomes an "audio manufacturer".
In addition, the "faithful" also believe that all the 'reviewers' are both competent and honest, which is the reason they attained their desired and exalted positions, and are only concerned with their readers' welfare, rather than their own, their magazine's and/or the manufacturers who 'loan' them their components. The "believers" are even encouraged to express their gratitude to the manufacturers for just building and selling their equipment.
The magazines' main priority is to keep this "faith" alive in their readers, because they know all too well that once a reader questions just one manufacturer's prices, or the integrity and/or competence of just one 'reviewer', that reader may start questioning all of them. Magazines don't want their readers to "go there". Why?
The magazines fear that these same readers will finally realize the fundamental reality beneath and beyond the "fun" and "carefree" image these same publications have worked so hard and long to create about the audio industry. What is that "reality"?
The brutal truth is that "audio" is just another very serious, highly competitive and ruthless business. The industry is owned and operated by very serious businessmen. Many, if not most, of them are motivated almost exclusively by profits. Further, that description, without a single doubt, includes almost all of the audio magazines themselves.
Once that depressing reality is understood and accepted, a person's "guard" must automatically go up. It is at that exact moment that the manufacturers lose their "romantic" aura, and the magazines also lose their influence, and with it, their only source of power.
There has been a growing (and unspoken) "trend" in the audio magazine industry for more than a decade. In fact, I understand that one editor/reviewer (Jonathan Valin) finally stated and defended (a version of) this "theory" (or "belief") in a major magazine (TAS). Later on, another audio writer, Michael Laborgna, this time in Stereophile, made the same claim, in almost the same words.
I call this new "theory": "Audio Relativism".
It is the belief system that virtually every component has strong merit and can produce "great sound", for someone's "tastes", if it is matched correctly with other components.
What are (some of) the ultimate implications of this theory?
1. Every component has some validity in the audio marketplace.
2. No component is inherently superior to another.
3. All sound reproduction differences are just a simple matter of taste.
4. There is no objective standard to aim for.
5. (High) Fidelity to the source, or in general, is irrelevant.
6. Audio is an "Art Form", like poetry and sculpting, rather than a science.
This "belief system" is very convenient for its creators; the audio magazines and their 'reviewers'. It provides them with the ability (and the excuse) to find some "good", or some "justification" to purchase, within every single component that is reviewed by them. How?
Because, if their belief is true, each and every component, under the right conditions, can equally satisfy listeners as much as any other component, for either the money or in the absolute sense. It's just a matter of time, or luck, before you find the right "match".
In effect: this theory means that all component performance is "relative" and with no "absolutes"; only "possibilities" exist.
1. If true, in effect there has been no real progress in audio for the last 40 years or more, since any "improvements" are simply a "matter of taste", and that's all.
2. If true, there can never be any true, objective (or even "subjective") progress in audio reproduction in the future.
In theory, only "relative" progress can ever be made, depending only on the changing tastes and feelings of the listeners, and based on how they "relate" to the sound of the components.
3. If true, no component, let alone complete system, can ever be honestly described (or declared) to be closer to the sound of "The Reference" (the original recording, or "live music"), as any other component or system.
I am the first to admit that "priorities" and "tastes" are critical when choosing components, because nothing is "perfect". That being said, this is still very different from proclaiming that:
1. "Tastes" are all that matter, and
2. All components are the same or equal otherwise.
Those two statements are false, period.
Audio is not like wine or food tasting. It is a scientific and technical attempt to perfectly recreate a previous (musical) event. It is engineers and technicians that by and large design and build audio components, not Master Chefs.
Because it is still (and may always be) "imperfect", there will be unavoidable subjective elements within its pursuit, but there are existing objective and fundamental standards (the original recordings and "live music"), even though they are a moving and nebulous target. This can never be true with "wine and food tasting".
There is a huge difference between a subjective description of imperfect music reproduction and a subjective response to imperfect music reproduction. That vital distinction must never be blurred.
This "theory" is just one more pathetic attempt by the magazines and their 'reviewers' to compromise their prime responsibility to their readers:
Anyone who claims that there has been no true progress in home audio reproduction, and/or that virtually all components have an equal potential to reveal the reality and essence of "live music", subject only to "taste" and matching, is either highly misinformed, ignorant, a liar, a coward or an incompetent.
1. Never anger any protected audio industry entity, such as: A. An important current, or potential, advertiser; including manufacturers, distributors or retailers, or... B. Any other audio establishment which has a "personal relationship" with you.
2. Delay acknowledging any serious problems with a "protected" component until you
give another rave review to the "updated" model which replaces it and "corrects" the problems.
3. Avoid making any direct comparisons with a "protected" component, but if you have to, follow these "Solutions":
A. Compare the component only to older and/or obsolete models, especially from the same manufacturer. (See Rule #2 above).
B. If Solution "A" is not possible, compare the component to "competitors" costing either MUCH more or MUCH less.
C. If both Solutions "A" or "B" are not possible, "neglect" to mention the actual
names and model numbers of the rival components that you compare it to in the review. D. If Solutions "A", "B" or "C" are all not feasible, and you must compare the model to a current, similarly priced (and "protected") competitor that you must name, then you must be:
1. As ambiguous as possible, and you must also...
E. Problems or imperfections that aren't obvious (such as no bass below 40 Hz with small speakers), may be described as "serious" (easy to hear) only when using Solutions "A", "B" or "C".
However, any problems described when using Solution "D" must always be "subtle" and "difficult to hear", or even described as an "advancement" if possible.
4. You must never inform readers if an "audiophile" accessory or tweak is also available in a generic form at a fraction of the price that the "protected" manufacturer is charging (Blue Tac and RFI rings etc.).
5. Any and all "transactions" between you and any of the parties mentioned in Rule #1 must always be kept strictly Confidential. Accordingly... A. You must never divulge the actual price, if any, you paid to "purchase" your reference components or accessories, or any extra costs you paid, if any, to have those same components updated, modified, repaired, replaced etc.
B. You must never divulge any "gifts", "favors" or "perks" that you received from the "protected" audio entities, or those with whom you have a "personal relationship". 6. You must never mention the actual costs, even at retail prices, of the parts that are used to manufacture the component.
7. Further to Rules #4 & #6, you must never state, or even imply, that any component or accessory is "over-priced".
8. The more corrupt your magazine is, the more you shall proclaim your honesty.
9. Magazines shall never divulge the actual percentage of their advertising revenues to their total revenues.
10. OVERRIDE CLAUSE- Some of the preceding rules (#1, #2 & #3) may be ignored only in the event of either a serious (and apparently indefinite) breach of the "personal relationship" between the audio company and reviewer/magazine, and/or the termination, or non-payment, of their advertising contract.
2. Never describe any problem as "serious" (See Rule #3.E)
3. Never proclaim one model to be clearly superior to the other(s). In short...
4. Both (or all) of the components must be seen as equally desirable and of similar value.
1. Never anger any protected audio industry entity, such as:
A. An important current, or potential, advertiser; including manufacturers, distributors or retailers, or...
B. Any other audio establishment which has a "personal relationship" with you.
2. Delay acknowledging any serious problems with a "protected" component until you give another rave review to the "updated" model which replaces it and "corrects" the problems.
3. Avoid making any direct comparisons with a "protected" component, but if you have to, follow these "Solutions":
A. Compare the component only to older and/or obsolete models, especially from the same manufacturer. (See Rule #2 above).
B. If Solution "A" is not possible, compare the component to "competitors" costing either MUCH more or MUCH less.
C. If both Solutions "A" or "B" are not possible, "neglect" to mention the actual names and model numbers of the rival components that you compare it to in the review.
D. If Solutions "A", "B" or "C" are all not feasible, and you must compare the model to a current, similarly priced (and "protected") competitor that you must name, then you must be:
1. As ambiguous as possible, and you must also...
E. Problems or imperfections that aren't obvious (such as no bass below 40 Hz with small speakers), may be described as "serious" (easy to hear) only when using Solutions "A", "B" or "C".
However, any problems described when using Solution "D" must always be "subtle" and "difficult to hear", or even described as an "advancement" if possible.
4. You must never inform readers if an "audiophile" accessory or tweak is also available in a generic form at a fraction of the price that the "protected" manufacturer is charging (Blue Tac and RFI rings etc.).
5. Any and all "transactions" between you and any of the parties mentioned in Rule #1 must always be kept strictly Confidential. Accordingly...
A. You must never divulge the actual price, if any, you paid to "purchase" your reference components or accessories, or any extra costs you paid, if any, to have those same components updated, modified, repaired, replaced etc.
B. You must never divulge any "gifts", "favors" or "perks" that you received from the "protected" audio entities, or those with whom you have a "personal relationship".
6. You must never mention the actual costs, even at retail prices, of the parts that are used to manufacture the component.
7. Further to Rules #4 & #6, you must never state, or even imply, that any component or accessory is "over-priced".
8. The more corrupt your magazine is, the more you shall proclaim your honesty.
9. Magazines shall never divulge the actual percentage of their advertising revenues to their total revenues.
10. OVERRIDE CLAUSE- Some of the preceding rules (#1, #2 & #3) may be ignored only in the event of either a serious (and apparently indefinite) breach of the "personal relationship" between the audio company and reviewer/magazine, and/or the termination, or non-payment, of their advertising contract.Top
A few magazines worth looking in to are; Bound for Sound, UHF from Canada, International Audio Review and one other specializing in tube amplification; Vacuum Tube Valley. There is also an Internet magazine that appears very interesting and informative, The Audio Perfectionist. One former print magazine, Positive Feedback, has been reincarnated on the web, but it is not quite the same (or as good), but may still be worthwhile.
The Sensible Sound (TSS) was dedicated to lower-priced equipment, which some audiophiles call "entry-level" or "mid-fi". It can also be described as "best bang for the buck". They used to have a lot of reviews and were the finest magazine I knew for this level of equipment. They stopped publishing in 2009.
Unfortunately, all the reviewers later felt that all amplifiers, cables and CD players sound basically the same. (Like The Audio Critic). Many of the reviewers also felt you should buy exclusively on wattage and speaker drivers per dollar. Also known as quantity over quality. Still, they will be greatly missed, since their budget speaker reviews, and their surveys, were the most trustworthy and thorough of any magazine of my acquaintance.
UHF is published in Quebec, a province of Canada. It has a good combination of reviews and technical articles. The editor, Gerard Rejskind, and his associates are open minded and are always on the lookout for good equipment, either with a new approach or using a different execution with an old approach. Their reviews are also slightly different, usually allowing all four listeners to each have his own say on the component being discussed.
The only ethical compromise of the magazine is that UHF also sells some accessories and software that it also reviews and recommends. Of course, that can also be a convenience for some Canadian readers who are far from any stores that sell those same products.
Bound for Sound has been around for more than 10 years now. Martin DeWulf is the Publisher/Editor and has slowly built up a reputation for honest and competent reporting. This magazine takes no advertising, which, according to DeWulf, actually frightens some of the manufacturers and distributors who are accustomed to having a "financial relationship" with the publishers. Consequently, you won't see any of the components from these "uncomfortable manufacturers" reviewed here.
Instead you will see innovative components from small, unknown start-up companies, willing to take the risk of a honest review. The magazine comes out monthly. It isn't very large, but the subscription price is reasonable and what is there is both generally competent and not adulterated by advertising.
International Audio Review is highly recommended if you don't mind interminable periods between issues and with each issue having an unpredictable focus. One important touch though; there's absolutely no advertising in IAR. CAVEATS: This magazine has been very supportive of Audio Research Corp. (ARC) in the past. Their website does have some very useful information that can not be found elsewhere, but be sceptical of their standard ARC "raves". Bottom Line- Despite the criticism, the single most valuable magazine for serious audiophiles.
Vacuum Tube Valley specializes in tube equipment, all types, and the tubes themselves. It is unbiased except for its obvious preference for tube equipment. It's an absolute must for tube lovers and the type of magazine you will always keep as a reference, just like the 1973 to 1983 The Absolute Sounds. It is more expensive than the other magazines, but it's worth it for the unique information you will find there and no where else. They also have a web site with "sample articles" to check out prior to subscribing. (See Links)
As for TAS itself, they have reorganized and so far it doesn't look good. I was sickened with something I read. The editor, then Harry Pearson, actually used the expression "In Awe!" to describe a component, on the front cover no less. Fortunately, there were some other signs of promise (meaning real criticisms) from a few of the other reviewers within that same issue, but this magazine now looks more like another Stereophile, in the worst sense, with every issue. Their once helpful website is now almost totally commercial and almost totally useless.
Stereophile (the print magazine) has only a few sections of any interest; Industry Update, because of its objective nature, and their personal columns, such as Analog Corner (but only if and when the writer's "buddies" or perceived "enemies" aren't involved). Surprisingly, I felt that Stereophile's sister publication, The Guide to Home Theater, was a pretty good magazine, at least when I was a subscriber a few years back.
Stereophile also has a commercial website with a large and growing number of articles that can be downloaded. While the opinions in the vast majority of their "reviews" are almost always totally worthless, if not actually fraudulent, they may contain important descriptive information of the components. Many of the posted articles are objective in nature, and the personal columns are also here. In short- The Stereophile website is highly recommended, though the "opinions" of the reviewers, almost all of it undeserved industry "cheerleading", are to be mainly ignored.
An important exception to the above is Art Dudley, who appears to me as being the least "commercial", and most independent, writer on the staff. I read him myself whenever I get the chance.
Finally, and to end on a positive note, it is important to recognize that the editor, John Atkinson, will provide measurements of reviewed components even when they completely contradict the reviewer's observations. As far as I'm concerned, these are Atkinson's "finest hours".
Positive Feedback was also very informative and non-biased, and with a wider degree of interests than VTV. It focused on triode designs and high-efficiency speakers. It's now a web magazine, with no print equivalent. It joined up with Audio Musings.(See "Links")
It still has some of those highly informative articles, but their reviews are all very suspect, despite their policy of multiple reviewers and comparisons, which I strongly believe in. What's the problem? Carefully read the beginning of the final paragraph of their new reviewing policy:
"If we work hard, but cannot find the "magic," then the gear is returned without review. This has happened on a number of occasions. It does not mean that the equipment is "bad," simply that we could not find a combination that did anything for us. Other settings might well yield excellent results. We wish to tell our readers where the gold is, not where it ain?t... (My underlines for emphasis.)
As one reader pointed out, this looks like another case of "audio relativism". (See above) The reader has a good point, but I see it also as a typical case of "audio cowardice" and "audio opportunism". The publishers simply want to be absolutely certain that a steady supply of components will come in on loan.
With a "heads you win, tails doesn't count" policy, they are guaranteed to be successful.
Further- Since writing the above, I received an e-mail from their senior assistant editor. He felt that I was being too hard on them and informed me that this new venture will still be "balancing the good with the bad...As is life". I really hope so, but only time will tell.
The Audio Perfectionist, which has absolutely no advertising, appears to be worth the small risk and investment for an on-line subscription. The editor has even more "in-home" experience than I do, plus he demonstrates a strong independent streak and doesn't pull his punches. He concentrates on the basics, which most magazines avoid and/or are ignorant of. This is very important information for everyone to know, especially beginners. (See "Links")
Important Note- Publishing ended in 2009, but old issues are still available as PDF files.
Much of the above criticism has no true perspective without acknowledging what audio reviews are actually supposed to achieve. What is their purpose, and what is required to achieve that purpose?
Their primary purpose is to inform the reader whether or not the component being reviewed is one he or she should be interested in purchasing, now or in the future. There are many factors that must be taken into consideration before making an audio investment, and they should all be addressed in the review. This cannot be done unless:
Since every reviewer was once an audio consumer, this shouldn't be that difficult, especially at the beginning of the reviewer's career. The sad, but unescapable fact that this perspective is now rare is a damning indictment of the current audio press, and the main reason why this section of the web site exists.
Now, to become specific: The first requirement (and duty!) of all audio reviewers is simple...
If this essential duty is not accomplished, the remainder of the review is meaningless or, worse, misleading and even dangerous. Everything else, while still potentially important, is always secondary. This is because learning about the weaknesses of an audio component is ultimately more important than learning anything else about it, and that even includes its strengths.
The second element of an audio review is almost equally obvious; a description of the component's overall sound, and how it effects music reproduction. This is admittedly difficult, because the sound of the component must now be isolated within a system that is highly imperfect, and with software that is also flawed. However, with extensive experience, any audiophile should be able to hear what the component does within their system, and later verify it in other systems if necessary. (Any reader who feels this is beyond their capabilities, shouldn't be involved with this hobby.)
In many, if not most, cases, a second opinion can be invaluable, especially if the reviewer is having difficulty with a particular aspect of the component, either its sonics or compatibility. The ability to describe the particular characteristics of the component, in a manner which other audiophiles can understand, is another required talent.
The next requirement of the reviewer is to make comparisons of the component under review with other, competing models, and if relevant, to some sort of "reference(s)", new and/or used. The most important comparisons are with models within the same general price point. The competing models should normally be the current, established "standard(s)" within that price point, and not "the also-rans". Discontinued models, which provided superior performance to even the current models, may also be used as standards.
Comparisons with units costing far more or far less are mostly useless. The rare exception would be if the component's performance was so phenomenal that it required some comparisons with more formidable units, just for the sake of sonic perspective. The comparisons should be thorough, and when finished;
The reader should also be made aware of what it would cost to make the next significant leap in performance, and the exact nature of the improvements. This could be very important to the reader who still hasn't made up his mind concerning his ultimate price-point and wants to know all of his options beforehand.
All the reviewer's sonic descriptions and opinions are worthless unless he/she has real credibility. This takes time of course. The reviewer, at a minimum, must pull no punches and be open and honest as to his own sonic preferences. Then he must demonstrate consistency with those preferences and have continuity from review to review. The end result of all this will be an evolving learning curve and a description of continual audible enhancements that can be shared with his readers.
'Reviewers' who are all over the place (transistor & tube, dynamic & dipole), are totally useless. In effect, they are starting from scratch every month, making everything they wrote in the past irrelevant. At best, such 'reviewers' are confused, indecisive and immature. In reality, they are usually afraid of making a commitment in public print because they will upset someone in the audio business, so they avoid the tough choices at all costs.
All the real audiophiles I know eventually choose a certain direction and don't keep backtracking, because it's too impractical and also inconsistent with their past choices, inclinations and basic nature.
The reviewer also has other responsibilities. The reader must be informed of any incompatibility problems, either for the present or future, and whether the unit is well made or not for the price, including the quality of the parts, especially those that may wear out.
For most readers, the bottom line is whether or not the component offers true and honest value, not only in sound, but in build quality and intelligent design. In an ever changing audio world, this is the best guarantee in the long run for listening satisfaction and receiving a fair price when it's time to trade up.
For years now, I have been hearing about another audio manufacturer, magazine or retail store in financial trouble if not going into bankruptcy. I can't help but think that the long-term effects of the problems described above are finally coming to fruition.
You can create an artificial demand for mediocre products (in any business) for only so long. The real tragedy is that some of the creators of the more exceptional components (like Counterpoint) have been caught up in the financial carnage, since no real distinctions of true quality were ever made.
When everything is "highly recommended", and dozens of products are "the best", then there isn't a true "best" any more. Just as vulgar, four-letter words lose their impact when used repeatedly, so do words such as "great" and "awesome" etc. What happens then is inevitable; the truly exceptional components aren't recognized as such and the mediocre are elevated. There is no longer any incentive to create something truly special other than personal satisfaction. Most creative people need more than that, and I'm not just talking about making money.
The audio customer has also become disenchanted. Because of his lack of trust, he no longer has any true standards to aim for and feel really passionate about, even if he can't afford them at the time.
Magazines have been an absolutely indispensable part of the audio world, which also includes the manufacturers, distributors, retailers and consumers. They're supposed to be in the middle, as honest communicators and arbiters. Instead, they have routinely abused the trust they earned from the past by turning into "common cheerleaders", and cynically exploiting their readers' innocence, ignorance and laziness.
Readers and consumers must not be left "off the hook" either, because it is the readers themselves that have allowed all of the above to happen. How? As long as the readers keep subscribing to the magazines that follow "The Rules", and purchase the components they "recommend", the magazines will have no incentive to change. The bottom line is simple:
It was the readers' own insecurities and lack of personal effort to even verify what was written, which created both the power vacuum and the subsequent environment that the magazines could (and still can) not resist exploiting. Ironically;
The main "underground press", at present, is failing in its fundamental obligations.
When didn't it? What are my own standards?
Just read Stereophile, pre John Atkinson; or
The Absolute Sound, pre The Perfect Vision; or
The Audio Critic, pre Fourier speakers.
If I had to condense all that I have written above into just one thought which would describe and explain what has occurred in the last 25 years, this would be it:
Audiophiles and music lovers are still the idealistic, trusting and optimistic people they have always been, but most audio magazines have slowly evolved into serious businesses, where only profit, preferential treatment and influence matter. In short- The magazines have been "commercialized" and can no longer be trusted.
The magazines have been "commercialized" and can no longer be trusted.
I received no pleasure in writing this essay. It's unpleasant to burst balloons and to inform fellow audiophiles that our common passion now plays by the same commercial rules as everything else. However, we must both acknowledge this painful reality and then use this new technology to bypass all those who would exploit and unfairly profit from our passion and quest for perfection.
Recent Updates
Reference Components
Supreme Recordings
Reviewing the Reviewers
My Audio Philosophy
My Audio System
Home Page
External Links
If you have a question, or want audio advice and/or consultation:
Important Notice- As of October 1, 2012, there is a minimum fee of $ 10 for me to answer a simple enquiry, which means any question that I can answer quickly without research. Anything else will cost more and I will accordingly provide quotes for approval. PayPal is being used for its convenience, universality and security. If interested, click on "Ask Arthur".
There are two exemptions to the payment fees. 1. Those readers who have provided an important service (usually information that was posted) to this website over the years. 2. Those situations where I feel that I overlooked something important and/or was obscure in my post, and thus some necessary clarification is required on my part. That will always be gratis. I don't believe in being unfair or petty, especially to my own readers.
Telephone Conversations- If a reader feels it is necessary to actually talk to me directly, this can be arranged if I also feel it is appropriate. There will be a minimum fee of $ 50. Ask for the details before paying the fee.
Finally, a veteran reader wrote that I "should also have a link for (generic) donations to keep the website going". I replied that the Donation button can also be used by appreciative readers for that purpose. Needless to say, any unsolicited donation from a generous reader receives my sincerest thanks and gratitude.
To contact me for any other reason:


text:
A friend of mine hired someone to build him a website for his company. The person ended up quitting on him and leaving him with the files. He asked me if I could help him so I said yes. Anyway the website has a css sheet with it that I know a little about but by no means am I an expert.
Well Im near the end of the website and Im experiencing a problem. Im not sure how to fix it. On smaller screen the website will show up fine but on the larger screen it will show up with a large white area under the footer of the page. Basically on my laptop it looks good but on my 24 inch monitor is looks like crap. The picture is attached in link, you might need to save the picture to view it correctly.
Thanks in advanced!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Pure 7 Studios sent this beach beauty our way and we were dazzled at first glance. It's a bright, happy, shiny, cabana striped heaven full of summer yellows and gorgeous florals crafted by Events by Nouveau Flowers. With the ocean as a backdrop you really can't go wrong but with the stylings of Carillon Weddings by Victoria, they got it so, so right. And now we're left dreaming of warm, sunny weather and seaside affairs. See more of the day right here.
Click here for the FULL wedding!
From the bride... Since the day John and I got engaged, he pretty much gave me free rein over everything once we found our venue, Carillon Beach. Although both of us are from the Washington, D.C. area, a destination wedding fit us as a couple perfectly. This beach community, nestled along Florida's Emerald Coast, was inviting, beautiful and layered with notes of authentic beach-like charm. It was the easiest decision we could make, and it set just the right tone for our wedding weekend. Once the setting was decided, capturing the "feeling" was a combination of taking the snapshots I was collecting in my head and listening to the expertise of the area vendors I was lucky enough to work with. A few things for me were sure: I wanted the day to be elegant without stuffy, stylish without "over the top," more modern than traditional and full of special touches. All that said, creating a concept that reflected that in a setting that already sold itself, was a bit challenging. Luckily, our wedding planner, Victoria of Carillon Weddings by Victoria, expertly guided us. We soon met with Christina at Events by Nouveau Flowers who refreshingly organized my thoughts, reeling in my inspiration.
We kept the ceremony simple. Both John and I knew we wanted to get married with sand between our toes, so it was a given that the ceremony would be on the beach. I had always envisioned this for us, and I knew I wanted to keep the scene organic. Let the beauty of the backdrop speak for itself and make this moment all about "us." The crepe myrtle trees with light fabric canopy were natural and breezy, framing the spot we would exchange our vows. This, coupled with the whitewashed benches and lone yellow tulips lining the aisle, painted the perfect picture. There was something so intimate about how it all came together with the waves crashing in the background. To this day, this setting is my most fond memory.
For our reception, playing off a yellow/gray color scheme, Christina helped to bring the vision to life arranging solids, stripes and patterns, monochromatic floral displays and an array of textural contrasts. I loved the three signature glass and steel chandeliers hung from our clear top tent set amongst the dome shade lamps, just one of the many unique touches throughout the space. Outside the tent, we offered our guests lounge areas, where textures from burlap and rope to linen and glass gave the modern space a vintage undertone. Everything else was all about the details. Those special touches I sometimes obsessed over. This was really a wedding weekend to us, so from the welcome totes filled with homemade Florida Key lime and pistachio cookies and postcards for home, to monogrammed throw pillows, flip flops for dancing, framed photos, after-dinner cigars for the guys and all the paper details, every part of the weekend was considered. I made an Etsy discovery with 2BSquared, whom I worked with to design all the paper details like itineraries, escort cards we pinned as tags on hanging vintage frames from nearby trees, signage (for our gelato station — yum!), fan programs and menu cards. Even my bridesmaids wore custom-made yellow and gray statement necklaces.
Wedding Photography: Pure 7 Studios / Wedding Cake: Confections on the Coast / Flowers: Events by Nouveau Flowers / Catering: Townsend Catering / Event Planning: Carillon Weddings by Victoria / Ceremony: Meeting House in Carillon Beach, Florida / Reception: The Village Green in Carillon Beach, Florida / Wedding Paper Goods: 2BSquared / Wedding Dress: Romona Keveza / Bridesmaid Dresses: B2 by Jasmine Bridal / Groom + Groomsmen Suits: Ralph Lauren / Hair + Makeup: Solace Salon (Now Called Vivo Spa Salon) / Reception Music: Jones and Company


text:
Zombie Mayhem
In 2050, the military was testing out a new experiment on a monkey when the experiment suddenly went wrong. Then monkey escaped and spread viruses that he contained. It turned out that the viruses had started to turn people into zombies. Now here's where my story starts. I was sitting at home watching a movie when my neighbour came knocking on my door, asking if he could come visit. So I said alright and we watched movies and ate take-out. Later on he fell asleep on my couch, so I decided to leave him there and went to my bedroon colapsing against the pellows, falling asleep.
When I woke up in the morning he was standing at the end of my bed with blood dripping down his chin and staining his clothes. I went running out my bedroom door and he chased me though my house and I grabbed a chair to beat him down with it. Then I opened up the front door to run out the house but there were zombies that were trying to get in. So I closed the door and then ran to the back door where my car was parked. Looking out, I saw that there were no zombies so I ran back in the house and grabbed my car keys. Then I ran out the back door and started my car.
The zombies heard my car start and they came running to the back. I put my car in reverse and sped down the alley. Then my car made a loud beeping sound. I didn't know what it meant so I started to slow down. Then I realised that I was really low on fuel. So I found the nearest gas station and filled up with fuel. Some zombies came running up and I hopped in my car as fast as I could I drove away. I saw a big tank rolling down the street and pulled to the side of the rood and they must have realised I was human because they stopped too. The top of the tank opened and the soldier inside said "Follow us where there are no zombies."
So I followed them and they lead me to a big mountain that we drove up on. When we got to the top there was a big metal wall that opened when the soldier yelled some kind of command. When we were driving past the wall I realised that the wall was 2 metres thick. There were lots of people that weren't infected by the virus. They gave me a small house that had all the things we needed. Like a stove and other necessisary needs.
It was late at night when we heard a big siren go off. Then there was a loud explosion and a couple soldiers came knocking on my door and said that the explosion meant that they wiped out all the zombies. The loud siren went off again, this time the siren meant that the big metal gate was opening. All that we saw was a whole bunch of dust and there was no grass or any thing on the ground. so every one who didn't have a car got to leave first, then the people that did have cars went and started them up and left behind the people that were walking to go to their houses. When I got to where my house was standing, there was nothing left but the floor. my whole house was wiped right out. Same with everyone else's. We all started all over again. We all helped each other out in food wise and all the other thing's like clothing. The military also helped out with finding materials like wood to build houses again.


text:
UnNews:Uncyclopedia.org held for ransom by Wikia pirates
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Uncyclopedia.org held for ransom by Wikia pirates
Truth doesn't "live here" — It's just camping out
Thursday, March 22, 2018, 14:37:59 (UTC)
• Newsroom • Audio (staff) • Foolitzer Prize
• Indexes • Random story
24 October 2008
Internet: The National Uncyclopedia (NU) director Sannse was spotted at a hotel in Kabul and would not out right deny that a ransom payment had been made. Uncyclopedia's spy chief on Sunday reacted ambiguously to foreign news reports alleging that Uncyclopedia had paid a hefty ransom to Wikia in exchange for the release of Uncyclopedia's domain.
"I can say that foreign media speculation about a ransom trade (involving Wikia) is wrong," said Sannse, instead of giving an outright denial.
The NU would later issue a press release hailing Sannse for helping release the hostage. "We always knew Wikia were a bunch a terrorists", says a supporter of Sannse.
Recently Uncyclopedia sold it's domain to Wikia for a "fair sum" which was a box of candy and some tissue. Many users have criticized the move and described it as Uncyclopedia "selling it's soul to the devil himself". The Uncyclopedian Staff tried to reassure the public that this would be a beneficial move because there would have been "advertisements" and "money trains".
No comment has been reached by the Staff about how incredibly wrong they were.


text:
Contact us at the Appeal if you would like some sent to you for your next event. Allow two weeks for delivery.
'Dial a Devil' - We have a fabulous life-size mummy-devil-with-bubs coin collection sculpture that you can use at your next fundraiser. It will make a great addition to your display and show your support for the Appeal.
Contact us at the Appeal to arrange a booking for your event.
Box size: 13cm x 10cm x 7cm
Great on counter tops, desks and tables.
Great for people wanting to mail their donation direct, or for inserting into a satchel or show bag at your conference, meeting or special event.
Any format you need to help promote your fundraiser - use it on clothing, posters, flyers and more.
A4 sheets of 25 peel-off stickers. Kids adore them.
DL size foldup document explaining the devil's predicament and how we can help. Great as a give-away at events.
Click the pic to see a sample of the full brochure.
Threatened Species Day A2 size on heavy stock
OVERSUPPLY from 2010: we'd love to see these posters not go to waste. Our suggestion is to cut off the bottom half and use the top half as a promotional poster for your event.
Threatened Species Day (undated) A4 on heavy stock.
Use for your Threatened Species Day fundraiser in any year.
Ideal for sending to friends or to hand out at an event.
Try a combination of the pull up banner, donation envelopes in satchels and coin collection boxes around the venue, particularly at the barista bar! Many event organisers donate the coffee to their delegates and ask for a gold coin donation to the Save the Tasmanian Devil Appeal instead.
'Dial-a-devil' and the pull up banner for the venue, and on the day hand out hi-5 devil postcards and stickers to competitors as part of their participation packs. Brochures can also be left around the venue.
We can supply a range of other fundraising resources including:
Contact us at the Appeal to place your order, or for more information.
Radio Ad - Features 'Make it Feel So Right' by the Appeal's Ambassador Dewayne Everettsmith.
TV Ad - Features 'Make it Feel So Right' by Appeal Ambassador Dewayne Everettsmith. Download the file for your own use or watch it below.
Save the Tasmanian devil TV advertisement.
This page was last published on 30/06/2010
You are directed to the Disclaimer and Copyright Notice and a Personal Information Protection statement governing the information provided.
This site is maintained by the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment.
Questions concerning content can be sent to email@example.com or by calling .
The Save the Tasmanian Devil Appeal is the Program's official fundraising entity. The University of Tasmania Foundation administers all funding associated with the Appeal.
All donations over $2 are tax deductible in Australia. ABN: ABN 73 744 631 571. Find out how to support the Appeal.


text:
Biking in Charlotte, NC
Gave the Trek Fuel 70 a good cleaning yesterday.
For a 6 year old bike, it's still holding up pretty good. With a bio-degradable degreaser and a tooth brush, I cleaned up all the built up grime on the drive train. Gave the frame a good washing, and shined up the tires with Armour All.
Couldn't wait to take it for a spin today, but had to wait for the trails to dry since it had rained overnight. I wasn't about to get it all muddy after having spent two hours making it all shiny and looking like a new bike.
The bike rode great, shifting a whole lot better than before. Did a somewhat casual ride today, I'll pick up the speed tomorrow. Easy does it as I get back in shape.
MTB: distance 19.38 miles, average speed 13.1 mph.


text:
"Scientists have developed three new robots that walk a lot like humans do. The androids, unveiled yesterday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C., are extremely efficient, using about the same amount of energy as a person out for a stroll does."
"The inspiration for the robots' novel designs came from simple toys that have been around for centuries." Full Story [2] on Scientific American.com.


text:
- This article is about the 61st Dragon Ball Z episode. For the attack used by Gohan, see Hidden Potential.
Hidden Power (迫る超決戦! ギニュー特戦隊只今参上!! Semaru Chokessen! Ginyuu Tokusentai Tadaima Sanjou!!, lit. "The Great Battle Approaches! The Ginyu Special Squad Takes the Stage!!") is the twenty-sixth episode of the Namek Saga and the sixty-first overall episode in the uncut Dragon Ball Z series. The episode first aired on September 12, 1990. Its original American airdate was September 28, 2005.
Gohan and Krillin continue to fly towards Grand Elder Guru's house. Krillin says that when Gohan's latent power is released, he may not even be able to challenge Vegeta, but he should be able to buy Goku more time to arrive. In space, Goku finishes his training and returns the gravity to normal. Even he is impressed with how far he has come. He takes a bath, drinks a sports drink (instead of the beer in the fridge), and rests for the final leg of his voyage to Namek. As Goku lay resting in his bed, even he does not know that he has crossed the threshold of power that any Saiyan has attained. On Namek, Gohan and Krillin finally near Guru's home, but before they get there, they sense Vegeta's energy a very short distance away from them. Krillin stays behind and tells Gohan to go on to Guru's.
When Gohan arrives at Grand Elder Guru's house, the Grand Elder gives Gohan more power. Vegeta then senses the energy and finds out Krillin was stalling him. Krillin tells Vegeta not to go, but Vegeta flies to the Grand Elder's house while Krillin hurries and follows. When Vegeta arrives at the place, he feels the energy in the house thinking it is Goku. Vegeta tells him to come out and fight him, and Nail comes out of the house, ready to battle with Vegeta. When Gohan comes out, Vegeta is shocked that it was not Goku and realizes that Gohan's power has increased. Krillin is laughing and thinks that Vegeta is scared. Vegeta begins laughing, which shocks Gohan and Krillin. Vegeta then tells Gohan that he can not beat him because he is not as powerful as him.
In the house, Grand Elder Guru tells Dende that he feels a lot of strong energies coming towards Namek. Dende alerts everyone outside of the news, and Krillin and Gohan get excited, thinking that it should be Goku, while Vegeta looks into the sky. Nail then tells them that there is more than one power. Vegeta counts five powers in space and correctly guess that Frieza has called the Ginyu Force to come to Planet Namek. Vegeta rushes to Gohan, telling him to give him the last Dragon Ball. He then tells them about the threat and promises not to hurt them. Krillin accepts his deal and teams up with him to use the Dragon Balls after being told by Nail that the Namekian Dragon Balls grant three wishes rather than just one.
At Bulma's location, Krillin tells her that he needs the Dragon Ball. When they leave her, Bulma gets angry and then realizes that Vegeta was with them. Meanwhile, the Ginyu force arrives on Namek. They come out of their pods, fly up in front of Frieza, and do their poses while calling out their names. The tall humanoid with red hair is Recoome, the blue alien with red eyes is Burter, the showy white-haired red mutant is Jeice, the little green alien with four eyes is Guldo, and the purple mutant with horns is Captain Ginyu (the leader of the Ginyu Force). Then, embarrassed by their poses, Frieza tells them it was great and gives them the plan to bring the seven Dragon Balls back to him.
Major Events
- Krillin and Gohan align with Vegeta as the Ginyu Force approach.
- The Ginyu Force finally land on Namek.
- Scouter
- Battle Armor
- Capsule Corporation Spaceship
- Gravity Machine
- Namekian Dragon Ball
- Frieza's Spaceship
Differences from the manga
- Goku choosing a Sports Drink over a Beer from the fridge is exclusive to the anime.
- In the anime, when Krillin shows up to get the Dragon Ball from Bulma, the ball is tied to her leg with rope so that the ball does not roll away again. In the manga however the ball was never tied up because it never got away to begin with.


text:
Originally posted on Fox Sports North | Last updated 10/12/12
EDEN PRAIRIE, Minn. Minnesota Vikings defensive end Everson Griffen returned to the practice field Friday, two days after his mother had passed away, and said he felt "safe" being around the team. Griffen's mother, Sabrina Scott, died Wednesday at Griffen's Chaska, Minn., home while he was at Winter Park for team meetings. Griffen received the tragic news from Eden Prairie police after being called to coach Leslie Frazier's office. "Just shocking," Griffen said Friday, recalling the moment he was told. "My mom was 100 percent healthy. We'll find out soon what the cause was, and we've just got to, I know she's watching over us right now. So, whatever I can do on the field for her. She loved watching me play. That's why I'm back here, to show her that I'm doing this for her. Not just for her, but for me, too, to grow into the man I'm becoming and just working hard right now." Griffen, the team's fourth-round pick out of USC in 2010, missed practice Thursday, and Frazier said he was excused from the team and given as much time as he needed. Griffen was back with the Vikings on Friday and will travel with them as they head to Washington for a Sunday afternoon game. "My mom, she would have wanted me to come back," Griffen said. "Becoming a man, I've got a family on the way, just got engaged, so it's not about me no more. It's about my family, soon to be, and my family I've got right now, my brother, my dad, my stepdad, just keeping them strong again; keeping them going. That's why my mom made me so strong, to help the rest of the family." Scott had been visiting Griffen, 24, and was staying at his home. No cause of death has been released. The death was "completely unexpected" according to Frazier on Thursday. Griffen, who plays the game with a lot of emotion, was stood strong while talking to reporters Friday but had to pause for a moment while describing his mom. "Very, very hard for my family," Griffen said. "But my momma, she was a very strong person. She would just want us to stay strong and keep our paths that we're going on. None of this would be possible without her. She's in a better place now, and I just want to say, Momma, I love you.' It's going to be a fight, and we just got to keep fighting." Griffen, a backup defensive end who's become a pass-rushing specialist, has been one of the key members of a defense that has turned itself around in the past three wins. He's tied with Jared Allen for the team lead with three sacks this season, just one off Griffen's career-high set last season as he progressed into a hybrid defensive linelinebacker role in passing situations. Later Wednesday evening, Griffen was joined at his home by Frazier and many of his teammates, who offered support. "This is the only reason I'm here, because I feel safe here," Griffen said. "If I didn't feel safe, my mom, she would tell me. I feel safe here and, at home, so it's always good to have that security and knowing that other people got your back and love. It kind of eases the pain a little bit, but it's still tremendous and deep burning inside and you know you just got to keep on the same path and keep moving on." Griffen is from Avondale, Ariz., where he was the Scout.com player of the year for the state and a consensus All-American at Agua Fria High School. Follow Brian Hall on Twitter.
PLAYERS: Everson Griffen, Leslie Frazier, Jared Allen
TEAMS: Minnesota Vikings
TEAMS: Minnesota Vikings
Vikings News
Delivered to your inbox
You'll also receive Yardbarker's daily Top 10, featuring the best sports stories from around the web. Customize your newsletter to get articles on your favorite sports and teams. And the best part? It's free!
Follow us on Twitter
|Best of Yardbarker
|NFL News
|MLB News
|NBA News
|NHL News
For Publishers
Company Info
Follow Yardbarker
|© 2018 YB Media, LLC. All rights reserved. Use of this website (including any and all parts and components) constitutes your acceptance of these Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.


text:
Oct 31 7:00 PM - Murder Mystery Dinner in the Tri C. Come in costume (of your choice) and bring a dish to pass.
November 21, 8:00 PM - Breaking Bread Story Slam. In the Tri C.
More to come.
2012-2013 season:
"Grimm Brothers' Spectaculathon"
appearances from Yore Welcome
individual and group performances at "Venite Café's Open Mic Night"
"Open Mic Chapel Service: Why God Loves Me..."
2011-2012 season:
"A Watersdown Affair" Mystery Theatre Event,
quarterly appearances from Yore Welcome (including at the LPTS Fall coffee house),
"Revelation" Chapel Service
many ladies of Agape appeared in "The Vagina Monologues"
2009-2010 season:
"Student Original One Act Festival"
"Original Works" at the Festival of Theology,
"Vignettes" for the Holocaust Day of Remembrance,
"The Midwives Tale",
"Spoon River Anthology",
"Judges the Chapel Service",
various "Yore Welcome" performances (Agape Improv Troupe)


text:
Alton Luther Cox, 50, of Hendersonville died Tuesday, July 19, 2005, in Mission Hospital in Asheville after a lengthy illness.
He was a native and lifelong resident of Henderson County, the son of Luther Cox and Joan Gebe Cox of Hendersonville. He was a cabinetmaker and served on the board of directors of the Apple Country Antique Engine and Tractor Association. He was a member of Fruitland United Methodist Church.
In addition to his parents, he is survived by a son, Randall Edward Cox of Simpsonville, S.C.; a daughter, Christy Cox of Horse Shoe; a brother, James Tyler Cox of Marion; a sister, Linda Randall of Hampton, Tenn.; a grandson, Ryan Timothy Skeens of Horse Shoe; and several aunts, uncles and cousins.
A funeral will be held at 11 a.m. Friday at Fruitland United Methodist Church. Pastors Jerry Warren, Richard Ritter and Mary Stevens will officiate. Burial will follow at Liberty Baptist Church cemetery. The family will receive friends from 6:30 to 8 p.m. Thursday at Shuler Funeral Home.
Shuler Funeral Home is in charge of the arrangements.


text:
FINDLAY - Although Monday's flooding was not nearly as severe as the last two times the Blanchard River overflowed its banks, Mayor Tony Iriti last night asked City Council to establish a disaster relief fund to help residents whose property is damaged by high water.
The mayor said he hopes such a fund could cover "the gaps" in assistance available to people in such emergencies.
In many cases, he said, the affected residents are renters who don't have renters' insurance but need help replacing damaged household items, like mattresses and box springs.
"We know there are folks out there that need some help. We're going to try to come up with a way to help them," the mayor said, adding that council will have to determine what is "reasonable and necessary."
The idea was referred to the appropriations committee, which meets later this month.
The mayor also announced the formation of a task force that he has asked to develop a long-term plan for eliminating the kind of flooding that has been increasingly common.
"I am looking at flood mitigation in this community not as a project that starts at a certain date and ends or that costs a certain amount of money. I'm looking at how much can we put toward flood mitigation every year until we get the required results," he said.
Findlay was hit with high water Dec. 2 and Jan. 6. Residents along the river and two creeks that feed into it were preparing for a third flood Monday but got an unexpected break.
About 3 a.m. yesterday, the Blanchard River crested at 12.7 feet - not quite two feet above flood stage of 11 feet.
While many streets were closed by high water, no one had to be evacuated and no one spent the night at a shelter the American Red Cross has set up, said Garry Valentine, director of the Hancock County Emergency Management Agency.
Martin Thompson, a hydrometeorological technician with the National Weather Service in Cleveland, said the Blanchard was expected to dip below flood stage by last night.
Guidelines: Please keep your comments smart and civil. Don't attack other readers personally, and keep your language decent. Comments that violate these standards, or our privacy statement or visitor's agreement, are subject to being removed and commenters are subject to being banned. To post comments, you must be a registered user on toledoblade.com. To find out more, please visit the FAQ.


text:
Wat Chom Thong, Wat Ram Poeng and Wat Doi Suthep are the three well-known temples offering intensive meditation retreats in the style of Ajarn Thong, a student of who could be called the founder of the modern vipassana movement, Mahasi Sayadaw. They are all situated in or near to Chiang Mai in Northern Thailand.
The temples all offer 10-day courses in insight meditation and longer courses, sometimes 21 days and sometimes 26 days. The precise meditation technique varies according to the teacher. Wat Chom Tong and Wat Ram Poeng teach students to practice 'touching points' around the body as they observe the rising and falling of the breath at the stomach, as well as the arising and falling of mental phenomena. When I was there seven years ago, Ajarn Noah Yutidhammo skipped the touching points and asked students to focus on the breath, or whatever they felt most comfortable with. Ajarn Noah is no longer the teacher at Wat Doi Suthep however. The courses involve very intensive meditation practice, sometimes encouraging up to 16 hours a day. There is often a focus on accepting unpleasant sensations – 'pain is your friend,' as I was once told. There are many drop-outs. The longer courses end with a 'determination' in which students are asked to stay in their rooms for three days, without bathing or sleeping. People who return to do a 'review' course will also be asked to do a determination.
In the end, as far as the meditation goes, these three centres are basically the same. Perhaps it is not very Buddhisty to 'review' these different temples which give meditation instruction for free, but I understand how it's nice to have as much information as you can before committing. So, here I will answer the somewhat un-Buddhist question: Which one is the best one for ME?
Wat Ram Poeng
Ajarn Samphan is now quite famous in local circles as a meditation teacher of very high spiritual attainment. The small city temple is packed with monks and lay people from all over the world. Many Chinese monks are finding their way there in particular. Guest yogis are given simple accommodation in concrete huts with electricity and cold water. I haven't been there in almost ten years, but at that time the food was not pleasant.
Wat Doi Suthep
This is one of Thailand's most famous tourist temples. It is built on a high mountain from which you can see the flattened sprawl of Chiang Mai blend into miles of misty green rice fields. When I stayed there seven years ago, the meditation centre was located about the salvageable corners of a derelict school. That building has since been abandoned and the meditation centre has sprouted into a large complex of shiny white concrete buildings. It is also now very popular. While I can no longer speak for the teachings, the surroundings are ideal. Tourists never venture into the meditation centre grounds, but you can venture into the temple complex at night and have it all to yourself. It is cool at night, even in the hot season. A meditation retreat here is a nice memory to give yourself. Looking back, it seems as though my time at the meditation centre was spent in a floating city, above the world, above the years, above my own self.
Wat Chom Thong
The international meditation center at Wat Chom Thong is, technically speaking, not part of Wat Chom Thong. It is run separately and meditation is taught by laypeople rather than monks. The twice daily meals are served at the temple itself however and yogis are taken along to the temple celebrations, such as the weekly Holy Day (wan phra) proceedings. You have a chance to witness or even to meet Ajarn Thong himself, who will be 90 this year and is rumoured to be an Arahant.
This is the cushiest meditation centre I have ever been to. Yogis get hot showers, their own amply-sized room. If you want creature-comforts and wish to stay as much as possible away from the 'religious' side of Buddhism, then this is centre is certainly recommended. The teacher are very professional regarding meditation instruction. They always tell students to be not so 'serious'. If you wish to stay on and learn how to be a meditation teacher, this is also possible.


text: On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 04:08:27PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: > > Sorry, here is a dmesg from exactly the machine type in question (with > ethernet addresses trimmed). This build has some fixes for newer wm > From current pulled into it. it looks like your drives are connected to a mpt device, while mine are connected to a mfi. Other than that they look the same. -- Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost> NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference --


text:
D&D has grown far beyond the confines of the blue box it came in once upon a time. New tabletop board games, online and offline digital games, novels, and treasure chests full of loot bring the D&D experience to life wherever you are.
Sort by:
Explore a wealth of new rules options for both players and Dungeon Masters in this supplement for the world's greatest roleplaying game.
Learn More
By Wizards RPG Team
Price: $49.95
Release Date:
29 May, 2018
See Details
Release Date:
21 November, 2017
Price: $24.99
Release Date:
23 January, 2018
D&D Miniatures
By WizKids
Price: $79.99
Release Date:
07 December, 2017
Deckbuilder Game
By Catalyst Game Labs
Price: $59.99
Release Date:
15 November, 2017
Our Storyteller Issue
Price: $0.00
Release Date:
31 October, 2017
Dungeons & Dragons Accessory
By Wizards D&D Team
Price: $24.95
Release Date:
24 October, 2017
Board Game/Adventure System
Release Date:
18 October, 2017
See More Products