Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

James Randi on Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused"

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
November 27, 2004 8:41:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

As he mentioned was forthcoming, Randi has taken up the discussion with
Mr. Atkinson of Stereophile, making clear his challenge to doing a test
for the audibility of "stones" etc. in a test. He mentions once again
that he will pay 1,000,000 Us dollars if such can be demonstrated in a
double blind test, in which the mag gets to have a big hand in designing
the test to their best advantage. Has Mr. Atkinson presented his side of
the nov. issue here and the broadside that was made against Randi? Will
he discuss his objections to doing this test and what continuing same
could remain after this latest installment in the discussion? Were the
quotes from Mr. Atkinson made here or elsewhere, has this matter also been
addressed other places on the net?

"The Audio World Is Aroused"

http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 4:45:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<outsor@city-net.com> wrote in message news:coae8b0uu@news1.newsguy.com...
> As he mentioned was forthcoming, Randi has taken up the discussion with
> Mr. Atkinson of Stereophile, making clear his challenge to doing a test
> for the audibility of "stones" etc. in a test. He mentions once again
> that he will pay 1,000,000 Us dollars if such can be demonstrated in a
> double blind test, in which the mag gets to have a big hand in designing
> the test to their best advantage. Has Mr. Atkinson presented his side of
> the nov. issue here and the broadside that was made against Randi? Will
> he discuss his objections to doing this test and what continuing same
> could remain after this latest installment in the discussion? Were the
> quotes from Mr. Atkinson made here or elsewhere, has this matter also been
> addressed other places on the net?
>
> "The Audio World Is Aroused"
>
> http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4

What the hell is this about? Mr. Atkinson is under no obligation to test
or defend Shakti stones or any other piece of audio exotica. As far as I
recall, Mr. Atkinson has never made or supported a claim for Shakti stones.
Why don't we talk about high-end audio topics here that might help people,
rather than huffing and puffing at straw-men?
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 4:46:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <coae8b0uu@news1.newsguy.com>, outsor@city-net.com wrote:

> As he mentioned was forthcoming, Randi has taken up the discussion with
> Mr. Atkinson of Stereophile, making clear his challenge to doing a test
> for the audibility of "stones" etc. in a test. He mentions once again
> that he will pay 1,000,000 Us dollars if such can be demonstrated in a
> double blind test, in which the mag gets to have a big hand in designing
> the test to their best advantage. Has Mr. Atkinson presented his side of
> the nov. issue here and the broadside that was made against Randi? Will
> he discuss his objections to doing this test and what continuing same
> could remain after this latest installment in the discussion? Were the
> quotes from Mr. Atkinson made here or elsewhere, has this matter also been
> addressed other places on the net?
>
> "The Audio World Is Aroused"
>
> http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4

Try the Audio Asylum Critic's Corner.

Stephen
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 4:47:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

See www.audioasylum.com for his responses.

Kal

On 27 Nov 2004 17:41:31 GMT, outsor@city-net.com wrote:

>As he mentioned was forthcoming, Randi has taken up the discussion with
>Mr. Atkinson of Stereophile, making clear his challenge to doing a test
>for the audibility of "stones" etc. in a test. He mentions once again
>that he will pay 1,000,000 Us dollars if such can be demonstrated in a
>double blind test, in which the mag gets to have a big hand in designing
>the test to their best advantage. Has Mr. Atkinson presented his side of
>the nov. issue here and the broadside that was made against Randi? Will
>he discuss his objections to doing this test and what continuing same
>could remain after this latest installment in the discussion? Were the
>quotes from Mr. Atkinson made here or elsewhere, has this matter also been
>addressed other places on the net?
>
>"The Audio World Is Aroused"
>
>http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 4:48:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Are they? As an audio consumer (albeit don't give a toss about the stones,
etc.) I don't feel particularly aroused by this "challenge." For him to
declare as such makes me think he is as much publicity hound as anything
else...

On 11/27/04 12:41 PM, in article coae8b0uu@news1.newsguy.com,
"outsor@city-net.com" <outsor@city-net.com> wrote:

> As he mentioned was forthcoming, Randi has taken up the discussion with
> Mr. Atkinson of Stereophile, making clear his challenge to doing a test
> for the audibility of "stones" etc. in a test. He mentions once again
> that he will pay 1,000,000 Us dollars if such can be demonstrated in a
> double blind test, in which the mag gets to have a big hand in designing
> the test to their best advantage. Has Mr. Atkinson presented his side of
> the nov. issue here and the broadside that was made against Randi? Will
> he discuss his objections to doing this test and what continuing same
> could remain after this latest installment in the discussion? Were the
> quotes from Mr. Atkinson made here or elsewhere, has this matter also been
> addressed other places on the net?
>
> "The Audio World Is Aroused"
>
> http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 8:31:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

outsor@city-net.com wrote in message news:<coae8b0uu@news1.newsguy.com>...
> Has Mr. Atkinson presented his side of the nov. issue here and the
> broadside that was made against Randi?

You will be able to read Art Dudley's comments tomorrow on the Amazing
Randi's "Million-Dollar Challenge" in the free on-line archives at
www.stereophile.com.

> Will he discuss his objections to doing this test...

As I have never auditioned, nor written about the Shakti Stones, nor,
to the best of my knowledge, has Art Dudley, I am mystified about a)
why the Amazing R. has issued his challenge to the two of us and b)
why anyone feels we should take part.

> Were the quotes from Mr. Atkinson made here or elsewhere?

As I have pointed put to Mr. Randi, other than the first text quoted,
which was taken from a posting I made on www.audioasylum.com, every
other quote he attributes to me at http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4
was _not_ written by me. I have also pointed out to Randi that, contrary to
the assertions he has made on his website at various times, I have not
written about the Shakti Stones, nor have I recommended the Tice Clock.
His e-mailed response consisted of "It's hard to sort out the nuts..."
followed by "Oh, grow up. If you can..."

Oh well...

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
November 28, 2004 8:33:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote in message news:<cobaje02c84@news4.newsguy.com>...
>
> Mr. Atkinson is under no obligation to test
> or defend Shakti stones or any other piece of audio exotica.

Maybe things are different in US, but here in Europe editor
of a magazine is responsible for everything that is written
in the magazine. In my opinion it is therefore quite natural
to address Mr. Atkinson about the questionable content:

"Used intelligently and in the right places, the SHAKTI offers
a worthwhile and cost effective boost in sound quality."
- Stereophile, February 1996, Vol. 19 No. 2

"From the midrange on up, everything sounded cleaner, that
cool-breeze-after-a-hard-rain kind of cleaner.
....
I repeated the experiment with "Revolution" and "Someday Soon"
(and with plenty of other music since) and found that the effect
was repeatable and verifiable."
- Stereophile, April 1996, Vol. 19 No 4

So, the effect is said to be repeatable and verifiable, but no
one has time to collect a million dollars. It happens.

Lasse Ukkonen
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 9:38:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 28 Nov 2004 17:33:02 GMT, lasse_ukkonen@hotmail.com (Lasse) wrote:

>"Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote in message news:<cobaje02c84@news4.newsguy.com>...
>>
>> Mr. Atkinson is under no obligation to test
>> or defend Shakti stones or any other piece of audio exotica.
>
>Maybe things are different in US, but here in Europe editor
>of a magazine is responsible for everything that is written
>in the magazine. In my opinion it is therefore quite natural
>to address Mr. Atkinson about the questionable content:

Even in a journal of opinion? Don't the Europeans tolerate a range of
opinions? ;-)

In Stereophile, all reviews bear a byline of the writer and the
opinions expressed are those of the writer and not the magazine, its
editors or publishers.

Kal
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 10:40:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"What the hell is this about? Mr. Atkinson is under no obligation to test
or defend Shakti stones or any other piece of audio exotica. As far as I
recall, Mr. Atkinson has never made or supported a claim for Shakti
stones. Why don't we talk about high-end audio topics here that might help
people, rather than huffing and puffing at straw-men?"


"Stones" are not the core issue, the subjective enterprise which creates
them is and is the basis for much of the reason for Stereophile to exist.
It is very on topic, how to devide the myth from the reality for
audiophiles, whatever their purchasing etc. objectives.
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 7:18:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Lasse" <lasse_ukkonen@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cod24e02fp5@news3.newsguy.com...
> "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:<cobaje02c84@news4.newsguy.com>...
> >
> > Mr. Atkinson is under no obligation to test
> > or defend Shakti stones or any other piece of audio exotica.
>
> Maybe things are different in US, but here in Europe editor
> of a magazine is responsible for everything that is written
> in the magazine. In my opinion it is therefore quite natural
> to address Mr. Atkinson about the questionable content:
>
> "Used intelligently and in the right places, the SHAKTI offers
> a worthwhile and cost effective boost in sound quality."
> - Stereophile, February 1996, Vol. 19 No. 2
>
> "From the midrange on up, everything sounded cleaner, that
> cool-breeze-after-a-hard-rain kind of cleaner.
> ...
> I repeated the experiment with "Revolution" and "Someday Soon"
> (and with plenty of other music since) and found that the effect
> was repeatable and verifiable."
> - Stereophile, April 1996, Vol. 19 No 4
>
> So, the effect is said to be repeatable and verifiable, but no
> one has time to collect a million dollars. It happens.
>
> Lasse Ukkonen


I find it interesting that you fail to mention the author of the review
articles. To the best of my knowledge, it is the writer and researcher's
opinion that is presented in a review....other than outright censorship, the
only legitimate thing an editor can do is add a dessenting endnote or blurb
if he feels the article contains outright error and he can support that
opposing view.
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 7:07:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <cod24e02fp5@news3.newsguy.com>,
lasse_ukkonen@hotmail.com (Lasse) wrote:

> > Mr. Atkinson is under no obligation to test
> > or defend Shakti stones or any other piece of audio exotica.
>
> Maybe things are different in US, but here in Europe editor
> of a magazine is responsible for everything that is written
> in the magazine. In my opinion it is therefore quite natural
> to address Mr. Atkinson about the questionable content:
>
> "Used intelligently and in the right places, the SHAKTI offers
> a worthwhile and cost effective boost in sound quality."
> - Stereophile, February 1996, Vol. 19 No. 2
>
> "From the midrange on up, everything sounded cleaner, that
> cool-breeze-after-a-hard-rain kind of cleaner.
> ...
> I repeated the experiment with "Revolution" and "Someday Soon"
> (and with plenty of other music since) and found that the effect
> was repeatable and verifiable."
> - Stereophile, April 1996, Vol. 19 No 4
>
> So, the effect is said to be repeatable and verifiable, but no
> one has time to collect a million dollars. It happens.

Well, Atkinson must certainly bear some responsibility for the claims made
by reviewers in Stereophile. On the other hand, Randi is behaving like a
nincompoop. In addition to being an abysmal writer, he appears incapable of
upholding even minimal journalistic standards such as getting his quotes
straight. This is a perfect situation for lots of sound and fury signifying
nothing. Randi could rectify the situation by coming clean and admitting
the quotes he misattributed to J.A.
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 7:11:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Kalman Rubinson kr4@nyu.ed wrote:
>On 28 Nov 2004 17:33:02 GMT, lasse_ukkonen@hotmail.com (Lasse) wrote:
>
>>"Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote in message
>news:<cobaje02c84@news4.newsguy.com>...
>>>
>>> Mr. Atkinson is under no obligation to test
>>> or defend Shakti stones or any other piece of audio exotica.
>>
>>Maybe things are different in US, but here in Europe editor
>>of a magazine is responsible for everything that is written
>>in the magazine. In my opinion it is therefore quite natural
>>to address Mr. Atkinson about the questionable content:
>
>Even in a journal of opinion? Don't the Europeans tolerate a range of
>opinions? ;-)
>
>In Stereophile, all reviews bear a byline of the writer and the
>opinions expressed are those of the writer and not the magazine, its
>editors or publishers.
>
>Kal

So you are not subject to fact-checking and editorial review? The Editor just
takes what you send in without comment other than syntax and typography?
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 8:58:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"I find it interesting that you fail to mention the author of the review
articles. To the best of my knowledge, it is the writer and researcher's
opinion that is presented in a review....other than outright censorship,
the only legitimate thing an editor can do is add a dessenting endnote or
blurb if he feels the article contains outright error and he can support
that opposing view."

So he is a victom of content over which he has no control? If he remains
silent he at least is supporting the exercise of subjective abilities to
discern such objects, that is the real question about which he evokes this
as a narrow rhetorical self imposed constraint. Perhaps what he needs to
do is like those infomercials about which tv/radio say at the beginning,
"this program should not be seen as an endorsement ...", and has no
reality beyond the testament of the writer and has no external
confirmation.
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 2:01:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 29 Nov 2004 16:11:41 GMT, nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote:

>So you are not subject to fact-checking and editorial review? The Editor just
>takes what you send in without comment other than syntax and typography?

Fact-checking, yes, even expressed disagreement but no excision of
opinion.

Kal
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 2:02:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

<outsor@city-net.com> wrote in message news:cofnv8018sb@news4.newsguy.com...
> "I find it interesting that you fail to mention the author of the review
> articles. To the best of my knowledge, it is the writer and researcher's
> opinion that is presented in a review....other than outright censorship,
> the only legitimate thing an editor can do is add a dessenting endnote or
> blurb if he feels the article contains outright error and he can support
> that opposing view."
>
> So he is a victom of content over which he has no control? If he remains
> silent he at least is supporting the exercise of subjective abilities to
> discern such objects, that is the real question about which he evokes this
> as a narrow rhetorical self imposed constraint. Perhaps what he needs to
> do is like those infomercials about which tv/radio say at the beginning,
> "this program should not be seen as an endorsement ...", and has no
> reality beyond the testament of the writer and has no external
> confirmation.

I am sorry but I wrote for The Abso!ute Sound for its first few issues. I
can assure you that their is no way the editor can test, blind or not, every
item written about in the issue. Nor should he. That is what he has
reviewers for.
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 7:42:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

>Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused"
>From: Kalman Rubinson kr4@nyu.edu
>Date: 11/28/2004 10:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cod5vj08qk@news1.newsguy.com>
>
>On 28 Nov 2004 17:33:02 GMT, lasse_ukkonen@hotmail.com (Lasse) wrote:
>
>>"Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote in message
>news:<cobaje02c84@news4.newsguy.com>...
>>>
>>> Mr. Atkinson is under no obligation to test
>>> or defend Shakti stones or any other piece of audio exotica.
>>
>>Maybe things are different in US, but here in Europe editor
>>of a magazine is responsible for everything that is written
>>in the magazine. In my opinion it is therefore quite natural
>>to address Mr. Atkinson about the questionable content:
>
>Even in a journal of opinion? Don't the Europeans tolerate a range of
>opinions? ;-)
>
>In Stereophile, all reviews bear a byline of the writer and the
>opinions expressed are those of the writer and not the magazine, its
>editors or publishers.
>
Thank you for pointing out what should be the obvious. It baffles me that some
people cannot grasp this idea much less embrace it. The idea that the editor of
a subjectiv e review magazine has to repeat the audition proccess of every
review of every piece of equipment and concur with the conclusions is absurd.
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 7:50:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

>Perhaps what he needs
to
> do is like those infomercials about which tv/radio say at the beginning,
> "this program should not be seen as an endorsement ...", and has no
> reality beyond the testament of the writer and has no external
> confirmation.

"I am sorry but I wrote for The Abso!ute Sound for its first few issues.
I
can assure you that their is no way the editor can test, blind or not,
every
item written about in the issue. Nor should he. That is what he has
reviewers for."

Which begs the core question and turns it on it's head, are the abilities
assumed for the reviewers to have, a product of perception process in the
brain alone or does it have reality in the signal as it enters the ear.
In some things both are no doubt the answer, while in "stones" etc. most
likely a brain product alone. The middle ground is assumed uncritically
to be an analog of the real world in the subjective enterprise, and as you
note, must be by definition a product of a series of testimonial
based experiences with no benchmark in reality.
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 6:42:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 30 Nov 2004 04:42:31 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:

>>Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused"
>>From: Kalman Rubinson kr4@nyu.edu
>>Date: 11/28/2004 10:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <cod5vj08qk@news1.newsguy.com>
>>
>>On 28 Nov 2004 17:33:02 GMT, lasse_ukkonen@hotmail.com (Lasse) wrote:
>>
>>>"Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote in message
>>news:<cobaje02c84@news4.newsguy.com>...
>>>>
>>>> Mr. Atkinson is under no obligation to test
>>>> or defend Shakti stones or any other piece of audio exotica.
>>>
>>>Maybe things are different in US, but here in Europe editor
>>>of a magazine is responsible for everything that is written
>>>in the magazine. In my opinion it is therefore quite natural
>>>to address Mr. Atkinson about the questionable content:
>>
>>Even in a journal of opinion? Don't the Europeans tolerate a range of
>>opinions? ;-)
>>
>>In Stereophile, all reviews bear a byline of the writer and the
>>opinions expressed are those of the writer and not the magazine, its
>>editors or publishers.
>>
>Thank you for pointing out what should be the obvious. It baffles me that some
>people cannot grasp this idea much less embrace it. The idea that the editor of
>a subjectiv e review magazine has to repeat the audition proccess of every
>review of every piece of equipment and concur with the conclusions is absurd.

However, isn't it interesting that when asked to stand behind his
reviewers, he backs off at light speed? In this country (UK) at least,
editors are definitely seen to be responsible for what appears in
their publications - vide Boris Johnston and the mawkish Scousers.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 6:45:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote in message news:<coe7u601j8f@news1.newsguy.com>...
>
> I find it interesting that you fail to mention the author of the review
> articles. To the best of my knowledge, it is the writer and researcher's
> opinion that is presented in a review....other than outright censorship, the
> only legitimate thing an editor can do is add a dessenting endnote or blurb
> if he feels the article contains outright error and he can support that
> opposing view.

Well, the other thing he can do is refuse to run the piece. That's not
"censorship." That's editorial discretion. I've edited a couple of
political magazines and I've run opinion pieces I disagreed with many
times. I've also refused to run opinion pieces because I thought the
writer failed to make a cogent argument.

I'd argue that someone who endorses Shakti Stones or any other
scientifically implausible tweak solely on the basis of sighted
listening is not making a cogent argument. And an editor with any
respect for science wouldn't run it.

It's not as if Stereophile were an open forum. There are many opinions
that are not permitted in its editorial pages (letters to the editor
excepted). Who decides not to run articles about ABX testing of
tweaks? Who decides not to run side-by-side blind comparisons of
components? John Atkinson does. He may not share every opinion that
appears in his magazine, but he is responsible for whatever
pseudoscientific garbage appears in its pages, precisely because he
makes those choices.

bob
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 8:28:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bob Marcus <nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote in message news:<coe7u601j8f@news1.newsguy.com>...
> >
> > I find it interesting that you fail to mention the author of the review
> > articles. To the best of my knowledge, it is the writer and researcher's
> > opinion that is presented in a review....other than outright censorship, the
> > only legitimate thing an editor can do is add a dessenting endnote or blurb
> > if he feels the article contains outright error and he can support that
> > opposing view.

> Well, the other thing he can do is refuse to run the piece. That's not
> "censorship." That's editorial discretion. I've edited a couple of
> political magazines and I've run opinion pieces I disagreed with many
> times. I've also refused to run opinion pieces because I thought the
> writer failed to make a cogent argument.

> I'd argue that someone who endorses Shakti Stones or any other
> scientifically implausible tweak solely on the basis of sighted
> listening is not making a cogent argument. And an editor with any
> respect for science wouldn't run it.

Bingo. This is the fundamental flaw of much audio reportage.
The existence of perceptual bias is undeniable -- yet the audio
world essentially ignores it. Little wonder that it's left to
the James Randis of the world to tilt against it -- most
scientists , seeing such an obvious, unaddressed source of error
in a method, wouldn't waste more time with results based on it.
December 2, 2004 3:47:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote in message news:<cogtnn019ad@news1.newsguy.com>...
>
> The idea that the editor of
> a subjectiv e review magazine has to repeat the audition
> proccess of every review of every piece of equipment and
> concur with the conclusions is absurd.

Maybe I should try to clarify my point through a comparison:
CEO is held more or less responsible for the company. No one
expects that the CEO knows everything that is going on in the
company, no one expects that the CEO personally aproves every
decision that his/her subordinates do. However, when serious
questions arise about the company, then the CEO must take action.

An oil tanker runs aground, the CEO didn't personally cause it,
he didn't personally approve the course taken by the captain,
but nevertheless he/she is held responsible for cleaning up
the mess. In Europe the editor is expected to do the same, just
substitute the tanker with a magazine.

Lasse Ukkonen
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 1:47:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:coe7u601j8f@news1.newsguy.com...
> "Lasse" <lasse_ukkonen@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cod24e02fp5@news3.newsguy.com...
>> "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:<cobaje02c84@news4.newsguy.com>...
>> >
>> > Mr. Atkinson is under no obligation to test
>> > or defend Shakti stones or any other piece of audio exotica.
>>
>> Maybe things are different in US, but here in Europe editor
>> of a magazine is responsible for everything that is written
>> in the magazine. In my opinion it is therefore quite natural
>> to address Mr. Atkinson about the questionable content:
>>
>> "Used intelligently and in the right places, the SHAKTI offers
>> a worthwhile and cost effective boost in sound quality."
>> - Stereophile, February 1996, Vol. 19 No. 2
>>
>> "From the midrange on up, everything sounded cleaner, that
>> cool-breeze-after-a-hard-rain kind of cleaner.
>> ...
>> I repeated the experiment with "Revolution" and "Someday Soon"
>> (and with plenty of other music since) and found that the effect
>> was repeatable and verifiable."
>> - Stereophile, April 1996, Vol. 19 No 4
>>
>> So, the effect is said to be repeatable and verifiable, but no
>> one has time to collect a million dollars. It happens.
>>
>> Lasse Ukkonen
>
>
> I find it interesting that you fail to mention the author of the review
> articles. To the best of my knowledge, it is the writer and researcher's
> opinion that is presented in a review....other than outright censorship,
> the
> only legitimate thing an editor can do is add a dessenting endnote or
> blurb
> if he feels the article contains outright error and he can support that
> opposing view.

I think in the case of things like Shakti Stones and the claims made for
them I would choose to listen myself, if I were the editor. Partly out of
curiosity, since I like to be able to improve things and partly because the
claims seem outrageous on their face.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 10:45:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

>Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused"
>From: lasse_ukkonen@hotmail.com (Lasse)
>Date: 12/1/2004 4:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <colong095t@news2.newsguy.com>
>
>s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote in message
>news:<cogtnn019ad@news1.newsguy.com>...
>>
>> The idea that the editor of
>> a subjectiv e review magazine has to repeat the audition
>> proccess of every review of every piece of equipment and
>> concur with the conclusions is absurd.
>
>Maybe I should try to clarify my point through a comparison:
>CEO is held more or less responsible for the company. No one
>expects that the CEO knows everything that is going on in the
>company, no one expects that the CEO personally aproves every
>decision that his/her subordinates do. However, when serious
>questions arise about the company, then the CEO must take action.
>
>An oil tanker runs aground, the CEO didn't personally cause it,
>he didn't personally approve the course taken by the captain,
>but nevertheless he/she is held responsible for cleaning up
>the mess.

No, the company is. The CEO odoes not pay for it out of his or her pocket. But
what is your point?

In Europe the editor is expected to do the same, just
>substitute the tanker with a magazine.

So? How does this conflict with what I said?
!