Is "The Audio Critic" magazine still around?

What are your opinions regarding that publication?
I hope not! enough said.
It's as around as it ever was. Just spoke to Mrs. Aczel last week, who assures me that a new issue will be out "soon." It's what she always says, and sometimes she's right. Apparently the new corporate partnership has not solved the basic problem, which is that Aczel can't get his act together to do anything on time.

That said, it's still the only magazine that does objective listening tests. If that matters to you (it should, but it probably doesn't), you gotta read it, even if a 4-issue sub lasts you half a decade.
the only copy i ever read of that magazine was poor at best. the writer stated that their is no sonic difference between one 500 watt ss amp and another 500 watt ss amp. he was reviewing a mc-500 mac. if that was true this website and this hobby would not exist. i still have that copy if anyone wants some info out of it.
"Objective" and Peter Aczel in the same sentence ??? Try telling that one to someone that buys ocean-front property in Kansas. Two words: Fourier Loudspeakers. Sean
Is there still "a sucker born every minute"? Mr. Aczel does P.T. Barnum proud.
The truth resides closer in what the audio Critc says than what is written in stereopile.
That means I dont agree with waht he says but at least he is not bought and paid for like the twits who write for stereopile.
Sean is referring to a very old issue, that Aczel started a speaker company and then wrote an article about his speakers for the magazine. This story has taken on a good deal of embellishment over the years--alleging that he did not reveal his interest in the speaker and passed the article off as an objective review. Neither of those allegations is true.

Aczel is the worst kind of sinner: a former true believer who renounced the faith. No wonder he engenders so much animosity. You either love him or you hate him.
Bomarc, have you ever seen the actual articles or how he carefully worded his statements regarding those speakers ? What he said in his review ? The follow up comments that he made trying to "back-peddle" ? No embellishment needed as he did a fine job of tooting his own horn and trying to hide his affiliation. It was only after he was cornered did he own up. I have a few articles of that era where they quote him word for word and then tear him apart using his own words.

On top of that, the first version of those speakers had a dome midrange as Aczel had stated many times over that no cone midrange could ever be "accurate". After many criticized the midrange of that speaker, he switched over to a cone driver and obtained better performance. So much for his previous comments and having to eat his own words.

Aczel was not a "true believer" that fell from grace of his own accord. He is a "blow hard" that got run out of the high end camp for good reason. As such, he's bitter and tries to tear down his detractors as best he can while trying to elevate his own opinion and importance. He may not be nearly as crooked as some of the other current crop of reviewers out there right now, but then again, they don't have a proven track record from WAY back like he does either. As such, they can afford to get away with the stuff that they do until they get caught red handed like Aczel did. Then they'll end up like him, living in denial and trying to get back the ones that robbed them of their glory and fame. Seam

Let the buyer beware,
wise audiophile prepare,
and listen to Peter Aczel if you dare.
A tin ear and an opinionated, self annointed prophet, if there ever was one, even before the above mentioned scandal, sadly lacking the intelligence and wit of most of the peers he had at the time and at which he loved to lash out in no uncertain terms. May he enjoy his pension in peace and leave us ours!!
Sean: Like you, I have seen only excerpts, which suggested that he was basically upfront about his interest in the speaker. Only a complete original would settle this question, and it's too old to be worth settling.

If you are right, I would agree that it was a gross breach of ethics. But while I don't mean to excuse anything, he has also been responsible for some solid audio journalism in the intervening years. He's also a guy who's been willing to change his mind in the face of countervailing evidence, something you don't always see.

So despite his flaws, I think he does have something to offer, and would recommend that any audiophile at least look at a few back issues. After all, ideas can't hurt you. (Detlof: Breathe, buddy!)