Congratulations Stereo Review! The fifth annual Cuckoo Clock award is yours. Never was an award more deserving. Perhaps a new editor will bring the magazine back to reality, huh? At least I hope he writes a monthly column, unlike the previous editor who in 11 years at the helm wrote less than 6 columns!

Sound Off
Joseph M. Cierniak
Editor and Publisher
1 Glen Circle
Glen Burnie, MD 21060 February 12, 1998

Stereo Review
Louise Boundas
Vice President, Editor in Chief
1633 Broadway
New York, NY 10019

Dear Ms. Boundas:

It is with the greatest pleasure that I inform you of Stereo Review winning Sound Off's fifth annual Cuckoo Clock award for the year 1997. This prestigious and highly coveted award is given for: "The article which best exemplifies progress in metaphysics, confirmation of magical audio properties, realizing the unimportance of measurements, correlating high-priced with superior, not letting any trace of humor diffuse the essence of the article, blowing smoke, and making claims so farfetched that even the term blazing stupidities seems hardly descriptive enough." The year of 1997 was truly a vintage year for blazing stupidities heaped upon the audiophile hobbyists by great audio magazines, and Stereo Revue was in the forefront.

The staff of Sound Off was unanimous in its choice of Stereo Review as the fifth recipient of the Cuckoo Clock award! My congratulations, heartfelt joy, and yes, bewilderment, at the way in which you have taken a mainstream, no nonsense, nuts and bolts audio magazine, to depths of lunacy not seen since twenty nine individuals wrapped themselves in large baggies, awaiting the arrival of a rocket-ship following (!) comet Halle- Bopp. Please bear with me as I detail Stereo Review's slide from consumer advocacy to contempt for the consumer's intelligence and financial means.

The January, 1997 issue of Stereo Review arrives and on the cover it is proudly proclaimed, "EXOTICS The High-End Quest for the Perfect Power Amplifier." The article is made even more exotic by having it written by Corey Greenberg. I became aware of the article's authorship-not by looking at the name of the author-but by the words used in the article. To wit: Stuff, buzz, love handles, cool, hot-dog buns, and gooses. I can live with a forty plus writer trying to be thirteen and cool; what I find hard to accept is Stereo Review publishing an article that mocks the intelligence and financial means of their readers. Since it's my award (as I've told other recipients), let's start with the mocking of your readers' intelligence.

The various manufacturer's quoted in the article (regarding their particular amplifier and its raisons d'être) are living proof that stupidities aren't confined to stupid people. The reasons given for the superiority of a particular amplifier range from innocuously mild stupidities to stupidities so blazing as to make the previously mentioned claim of a rocket ship behind comet Halle-Bopp seem a reality. Giving a scientific reasoned refutation to these stupidities (blazing and otherwise) is beyond the scope of this letter. More importantly, I don't wish to propagate and give credence to such trash by dignifying it with a reasoned reply. But why didn't the writer of the article ask at least one of these manufacturers about a double-blind or single-blind rest to confirm or reject their various claims?

Stereo Review lead the way in blind testing as a means to separate the "what is imagined to be heard" from "what is actually heard." Stereo Review used to be a bastion of science and reason against the weirdo beliefs and claims of the those with a vested interest in propagating such dribble. Alas, that noble stance has gone the way of other noble stances that weren't conducive to additional magazine ad revenue. Obviously an editorial decision was made not to challenge the manufacturers and their self-serving claims.

But you don't stop at insulting your readers' intelligence with voodoo claims-in the guise of scientific facts-made by the elite of the audio manufacturing world. Oh no, you add insult to injury by justifying-with a straight face-vulgarly expensive pricing for these amplifiers; a pricing based on nothing more than the manufacturers' idea of what they should charge for supposedly implementing their idiotic claims via electronic hardware.

The absolute height of contempt for the your readers financial means is exemplified in spades by none other than two Japanese 55 watt, tube, mono block amplifiers. The cost of $252,500 for two of these Japanese designed and manufactured vulgarities is the ultimate representation of sticker price shock! This Japanese manufacturer mocks the financial means of the of the Stereo Review readers and you sit idly by, not even uttering a mild disclaimer about this pricing. I quote the manager of the Japanese manufacturer's American operations as to justification for this pricing: " ‘Yes, it costs $252,500, but nearly every part is made from scratch....' " Realizing how absurd and limp this justification is the manager also utters something about each amplifier taking over a thousand hours to produce. Making something from scratch and taking a long time to do so justifies exorbitant pricing? The profit margin on these amplifiers makes $5,000 toilet seats seem like a bargain by comparison!

Assuming a median income of $50,000 for a reader of Stereo Review it would take said reader five years to pay for a pair of these nauseatingly overpriced monstrosities....and that's assuming he doesn't pay taxes, eat, entertain, travel, bathe, go to the doctor's, etc. And at the end of five years he would have for his troubles and sacrifices the World's Most Hideously Expensive Amplifier (Corey's cutesy words, not mine!); two 55 watt amplifiers, each with five watts less output power than a 60 watt light bulb! Said reader would also have to go another year without eating or paying taxes to purchase a spare set of tubes for this Oriental beauty! Just the type of amplifier your typical Stereo Review reader purchases with his hard earned and modest income.

The other manufacturers in the article shouldn't go unscathed when mentioning ridiculous and insulting pricing. Unlike the above mentioned Oriental beauties the other amplifiers described in the article are made in America. At prices ranging from $32,000 per pair to $14,000 per pair it is obvious that the American manufacturers have learned well from the Japanese.

In the past I have sent a rather expensive German Cuckoo Clock to the winner of the Cuckoo Clock award. One of the former recipients of the award (John Atkinson, Stereophile) requested that the money to be spent on the clock be sent to a charity. This use of the money for a good cause is now policy and unless you state a charity I will send the money to the American Cancer Society. The amount is only one thousandth of $250,000 but it's for a good cause.

I may have disagreements with the previous recipients of the Cuckoo Clock award but at least they all have a regular editorial section in which they express the editorial direction of their publication. Stereo Review under your editorial guidance has never had an editorial page. This absence of a monthly editorial statement could be tolerated (but not without puzzlement) while Stereo Review remained a mainstream audio publication. Now that Stereo Review has entered cuckoo land this complete absence of regular editorial comment is seen for what it really is; the ultimate expression of journalistic rudeness, conceit, and to hell with the reader. Sad, Ms. Louise, really sad.

Regards,

P.S. For such a large circulation publication-with unlimited resources and the leading intellectuals of the audio writing fraternity on your staff-you should be embarrassed to pawn off the abomination on AOL (STEREO REVIEW ONLINE) as a Web site. Accessing and navigating your Web site or a regular basis or getting shot at sunrise would make one eagerly await the dawning of a new day!