Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Randi/Atkinson addendum

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 6:47:50 AM

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

In a recent post I speculated about the web source of quotations Randi had
from Mr. Atkinson, here is the source, you may have to drill down a bit
to find the specific posts:

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/messages/4266...

And in response to randi's most recent commentary Mr. Atkinson replies:

http://db.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/bbs.html

It is intresting in both examples Mr. Atkinson avoids the audio question
completely and dwells on keeping himself "above it all" on grounds of
getting all the rhetorical ducks in a row. Which of course avoids the
entire question of the audibility of "tweeky" items, which one might
predict will be the course taken as the consequences are far more then a
mere 1,000,000 dollars.
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 8:30:50 PM

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

On 11/27/04 10:47 PM, in article cobhp602i9i@news4.newsguy.com,
"outsor@city-net.com" <outsor@city-net.com> wrote:

> In a recent post I speculated about the web source of quotations Randi had
> from Mr. Atkinson, here is the source, you may have to drill down a bit
> to find the specific posts:
>
> http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/messages/4266...
>
> And in response to randi's most recent commentary Mr. Atkinson replies:
>
> http://db.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/bbs.html
>
> It is intresting in both examples Mr. Atkinson avoids the audio question
> completely and dwells on keeping himself "above it all" on grounds of
> getting all the rhetorical ducks in a row. Which of course avoids the
> entire question of the audibility of "tweeky" items, which one might
> predict will be the course taken as the consequences are far more then a
> mere 1,000,000 dollars.

Attacking the editor of a magazine is rather misplaced, I think. And when
under attack - Randi and his goons don't come around for a nice cup of tea -
is likely to get everyone very concerned about the exact words used, and
give as little infomration to them as possible because it can and will be
used against you if there is a mistype or misstep of some kind.

It is a shame.
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 9:49:59 PM

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

B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On 11/27/04 10:47 PM, in article cobhp602i9i@news4.newsguy.com,
> "outsor@city-net.com" <outsor@city-net.com> wrote:

> > In a recent post I speculated about the web source of quotations Randi had
> > from Mr. Atkinson, here is the source, you may have to drill down a bit
> > to find the specific posts:
> >
> > http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/messages/4266...
> >
> > And in response to randi's most recent commentary Mr. Atkinson replies:
> >
> > http://db.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/bbs.html
> >
> > It is intresting in both examples Mr. Atkinson avoids the audio question
> > completely and dwells on keeping himself "above it all" on grounds of
> > getting all the rhetorical ducks in a row. Which of course avoids the
> > entire question of the audibility of "tweeky" items, which one might
> > predict will be the course taken as the consequences are far more then a
> > mere 1,000,000 dollars.

> Attacking the editor of a magazine is rather misplaced, I think. And when
> under attack - Randi and his goons don't come around for a nice cup of tea -
> is likely to get everyone very concerned about the exact words used, and
> give as little infomration to them as possible because it can and will be
> used against you if there is a mistype or misstep of some kind.

> It is a shame.

The only real shame is that audiophile culture adopts scientific jargon when
it suits it, but avoids, and even militates against,
established scientific *methods* of reality-testing claims of audible difference.

That's called *pseudoscience* in case you didn't know. Stereophile is
an example of a practitioner of same. Measuring differences, yes: double
blind testing of audibility of differences, no.


--
-S
Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere.
Related resources
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 10:29:50 PM

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

"Attacking the editor of a magazine is rather misplaced, I think. And
when under attack - Randi and his goons don't come around for a nice cup
of tea - is likely to get everyone very concerned about the exact words
used, and give as little infomration to them as possible because it can
and will be used against you if there is a mistype or misstep of some
kind.
It is a shame."

The words are an excuse. The test, and it will never be done, is in the
main designed by the person claiming some ability, in this case ability to
hear tweeks. In fact, Randi is completely out of the loop in a real test
for the money, third parties of mutual agreement are in control.
Stereophile can silence all skeptics, win a million dollars, and have a
marketing boon that no amount of money can buy by simply demonstrating the
ability of those who do "auditions" in every issue and on which rests the
basis for which the mag is said to exist,ie. to provide a source of the
application of such ability to the benefit of the reader. Such ability
should be easy to establish.
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 4:19:33 AM

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

On 11/28/04 1:49 PM, in article cod6kn09e6@news1.newsguy.com, "Steven
Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote:

>> Attacking the editor of a magazine is rather misplaced, I think. And when
>> under attack - Randi and his goons don't come around for a nice cup of tea -
>> is likely to get everyone very concerned about the exact words used, and
>> give as little infomration to them as possible because it can and will be
>> used against you if there is a mistype or misstep of some kind.
>
>> It is a shame.
>
> The only real shame is that audiophile culture adopts scientific jargon when
> it suits it, but avoids, and even militates against,
> established scientific *methods* of reality-testing claims of audible
> difference.
>
> That's called *pseudoscience* in case you didn't know. Stereophile is
> an example of a practitioner of same. Measuring differences, yes: double
> blind testing of audibility of differences, no.

Sure - but why would attacking an editor of a magazine who clearly wants
little to do with Randi further Randi ends, except being a bully? And if
the editor who didn't ask for anything or really make any of the claims
Randi is trying desperately to attach to him, it is understandable to get a
bit defensive, and in no way validates anything other than the assertion
that he gets defensive when attacked.

It seems to me that there is more than one agenda at work here - self
aggrandizement it seems to me!
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 7:14:54 AM

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

"It seems to me that there is more than one agenda at work here - self
aggrandizement it seems to me!"

The answer is to ask who has the most to lose, Randi a million bucks or
Stereophile the entire subjective enterprise as valid. To make either
work requires tooting one's horn of validity.
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 7:11:19 PM

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

outsor@city-net.com wrote:



>"Attacking the editor of a magazine is rather misplaced, I think. And
>when under attack - Randi and his goons don't come around for a nice cup
>of tea - is likely to get everyone very concerned about the exact words
>used, and give as little infomration to them as possible because it can
>and will be used against you if there is a mistype or misstep of some
>kind.
>It is a shame."
>
>The words are an excuse. The test, and it will never be done, is in the
>main designed by the person claiming some ability, in this case ability to
>hear tweeks. In fact, Randi is completely out of the loop in a real test
>for the money, third parties of mutual agreement are in control.
>Stereophile can silence all skeptics, win a million dollars, and have a
>marketing boon that no amount of money can buy by simply demonstrating the
>ability of those who do "auditions" in every issue and on which rests the
>basis for which the mag is said to exist,ie. to provide a source of the
>application of such ability to the benefit of the reader. Such ability
>should be easy to establish.

You are exactly right. High-End magazine editors and contributors endorse and
help maintain audio mythology but none of them has ever submitted a replicable
experiment that shows they can actually "hear" the urban legends they claim are
present.

There is always some reason why they just can't do it "today' or that witnesses
provide "pressure" and they always have a 'reason' why the extant evidence
doesn't count.

Yet they cannot produce a replicable experiment or bias-controlled public
display that shows they are right.

John Atkinson is the high-end myth Champion. He did conduct several large scale
experiments in England that were intended to show that amplifier (and
capacitor) differences were indeed audible bit had not been shown to be such
because previous sample sizes had been too "small" as in 9 of 16 isn't
statistically significant but 90 of 160 would be.

Interestingly none of his experiments showed that his contention was true. Yet
he sometimes references his clearly null experiments as supporting his wishful
interpretation of same.

And, as you suggest, he clearly backs off the core of the issues claimimg that
he personally never endorsed ridiculous ideas such as Shakiti (sp?) Stones. Yet
he presumably edited the magazine and should be willing to stand behind every
opinion stated as fact in the publication.

But his contributors rush to complain that Stereophile is a publication based
on "opinion" which is apparently the case. But I just read the October 2004
Recommended Components List and the word "opinion" never appears in the
preamble. Of course, in the editors editorial that word does appear but with
the pull quote that "We HIGHLY recommend ALL components listed in "Recommended
Components."

So as far as I can see Mr Atkinson highly recommends tube damping rings, cable
cookers, Shakiti electromagnetic stabilizers, a variety of Power Line
Acessories and a variety of Stands, Spikes, Feet and Racks of which some are
described as being "Expensive but very effective according to J-10, WP and JA
who generally need them to support electronic components" without a description
of what 'effective' actually means given thqt the preamble tells us that "The
ratings given components in this listing are based entirely on performance---ie
accuracy of reproduction---...."

So do Black Diamond Racing Cones "effectively" improve accuracy of reproduction
or are they just an OK way to raise the component to the height you want? If
they DO improve the accuracy of reproduction what's with the dance? Why not
just prove it? And score a million while you are at it?

I know why. And you know why.
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 7:49:14 AM

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

"Nousaine" <nousaine@aol.com> wrote in message
news:cofhn702se7@news1.newsguy.com...
> outsor@city-net.com wrote:
>
>
>
>>"Attacking the editor of a magazine is rather misplaced, I think. And
>>when under attack - Randi and his goons don't come around for a nice cup
>>of tea - is likely to get everyone very concerned about the exact words
>>used, and give as little infomration to them as possible because it can
>>and will be used against you if there is a mistype or misstep of some
>>kind.
>>It is a shame."
>>
>>The words are an excuse. The test, and it will never be done, is in the
>>main designed by the person claiming some ability, in this case ability to
>>hear tweeks. In fact, Randi is completely out of the loop in a real test
>>for the money, third parties of mutual agreement are in control.
>>Stereophile can silence all skeptics, win a million dollars, and have a
>>marketing boon that no amount of money can buy by simply demonstrating the
>>ability of those who do "auditions" in every issue and on which rests the
>>basis for which the mag is said to exist,ie. to provide a source of the
>>application of such ability to the benefit of the reader. Such ability
>>should be easy to establish.
>
> You are exactly right. High-End magazine editors and contributors endorse
> and
> help maintain audio mythology but none of them has ever submitted a
> replicable
> experiment that shows they can actually "hear" the urban legends they
> claim are
> present.
>
> There is always some reason why they just can't do it "today' or that
> witnesses
> provide "pressure" and they always have a 'reason' why the extant evidence
> doesn't count.
>
> Yet they cannot produce a replicable experiment or bias-controlled public
> display that shows they are right.
>
> John Atkinson is the high-end myth Champion.

That is your OPINION.

But it is a FACT that you are trying to compete in his chosen line of
business. So everything you say about Mr. Atkinson and his business is
influenced by that. And anyone who reads your stuff needs to be keenly aware
of it. I think you have been less than forward about that little FACT all
along.

Margaret
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 7:50:32 AM

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

>From: Steven Sullivan ssully@panix.com
>Date: 11/28/2004 10:49 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cod6kn09e6@news1.newsguy.com>
>
>B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> On 11/27/04 10:47 PM, in article cobhp602i9i@news4.newsguy.com,
>> "outsor@city-net.com" <outsor@city-net.com> wrote:
>
>> > In a recent post I speculated about the web source of quotations Randi
>had
>> > from Mr. Atkinson, here is the source, you may have to drill down a bit
>> > to find the specific posts:
>> >
>> > http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/messages/4266...
>> >
>> > And in response to randi's most recent commentary Mr. Atkinson replies:
>> >
>> > http://db.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/bbs.html
>> >
>> > It is intresting in both examples Mr. Atkinson avoids the audio question
>> > completely and dwells on keeping himself "above it all" on grounds of
>> > getting all the rhetorical ducks in a row. Which of course avoids the
>> > entire question of the audibility of "tweeky" items, which one might
>> > predict will be the course taken as the consequences are far more then a
>> > mere 1,000,000 dollars.
>
>> Attacking the editor of a magazine is rather misplaced, I think. And when
>> under attack - Randi and his goons don't come around for a nice cup of tea
>-
>> is likely to get everyone very concerned about the exact words used, and
>> give as little infomration to them as possible because it can and will be
>> used against you if there is a mistype or misstep of some kind.
>
>> It is a shame.
>
>The only real shame is that audiophile culture adopts scientific jargon when
>it suits it, but avoids, and even militates against,
>established scientific *methods* of reality-testing claims of audible
>difference.
>
>That's called *pseudoscience* in case you didn't know.

No it's not.
Main Entry: pseu·do·sci·ence
Pronunciation: "sü-dO-'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Date: 1844
: a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as
scientific
- pseu·do·sci·en·tif·ic /-"sI-&n-'ti-fik/ adjective
- pseu·do·sci·en·tist /-'sI-&n-tist/ noun

When the writers of Stereophile claim that their reviews and opinions are
*scientific* then you can call it psuedoscience. You may as well call food
critics psuedoscientists.


Stereophile is
>an example of a practitioner of same.

No they are not.

Measuring differences, yes: double
>blind testing of audibility of differences, no.

That hardly makes the publication psuedoscientific. Not every opinion in this
world is or has to be supported by blind testing. They make no bones about
their procedures. They do not pretend to be scientific in their subjective
reviews. If you are worried about biases affecting the reviews then take that
into consideration when reading those reviews. But jeez, do you think about
this when speakers get reviewed? Can you cite any bias controlled listening
evaluations of any speakers in any audio journal? This is the one component
everybody agrees matters isn't it?
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 8:29:04 PM

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

Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt <deedees@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> "Nousaine" <nousaine@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:cofhn702se7@news1.newsguy.com...
> > outsor@city-net.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>"Attacking the editor of a magazine is rather misplaced, I think. And
> >>when under attack - Randi and his goons don't come around for a nice cup
> >>of tea - is likely to get everyone very concerned about the exact words
> >>used, and give as little infomration to them as possible because it can
> >>and will be used against you if there is a mistype or misstep of some
> >>kind.
> >>It is a shame."
> >>
> >>The words are an excuse. The test, and it will never be done, is in the
> >>main designed by the person claiming some ability, in this case ability to
> >>hear tweeks. In fact, Randi is completely out of the loop in a real test
> >>for the money, third parties of mutual agreement are in control.
> >>Stereophile can silence all skeptics, win a million dollars, and have a
> >>marketing boon that no amount of money can buy by simply demonstrating the
> >>ability of those who do "auditions" in every issue and on which rests the
> >>basis for which the mag is said to exist,ie. to provide a source of the
> >>application of such ability to the benefit of the reader. Such ability
> >>should be easy to establish.
> >
> > You are exactly right. High-End magazine editors and contributors endorse
> > and
> > help maintain audio mythology but none of them has ever submitted a
> > replicable
> > experiment that shows they can actually "hear" the urban legends they
> > claim are
> > present.
> >
> > There is always some reason why they just can't do it "today' or that
> > witnesses
> > provide "pressure" and they always have a 'reason' why the extant evidence
> > doesn't count.
> >
> > Yet they cannot produce a replicable experiment or bias-controlled public
> > display that shows they are right.
> >
> > John Atkinson is the high-end myth Champion.

> That is your OPINION.

> But it is a FACT that you are trying to compete in his chosen line of
> business. So everything you say about Mr. Atkinson and his business is
> influenced by that. And anyone who reads your stuff needs to be keenly aware
> of it. I think you have been less than forward about that little FACT all
> along.

> Margaret


I'm pretty sure most posters here know that Tom Nousaine is an audio journalist.


AFAIK that's his real name, btw -- is yours really 'Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt'?
'Cos if not, by the same logic that dismisses James Randi's arguments based on
him using a stage name, one should dismiss yours too.





--
-S
Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere.
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 9:13:55 PM

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

>
> That is your OPINION.
>
> But it is a FACT that you are trying to compete in his chosen line of
> business. So everything you say about Mr. Atkinson and his business is
> influenced by that. And anyone who reads your stuff needs to be keenly aware
> of it. I think you have been less than forward about that little FACT all
> along.
>
> Margaret


I have found one difference between Mr Nousainne's magazine and Mr.
Atkinson's.
Stereophile, in my not so humble opinion, is all for perpetuating an
industry.
They seem to me to have both the manufacturers and bricks and mortar
dealers
interests at heart. Mr. Noussaine's magazine, The Sensible Sound, is
geared more towards me being able to get the best quality of sound in
my home for my money.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 1:33:26 AM

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

craig.ellsworth@ericsson.com (Craig Ellsworth) wrote:



>
>>
>> That is your OPINION.
>>
>> But it is a FACT that you are trying to compete in his chosen line of
>> business. So everything you say about Mr. Atkinson and his business is
>> influenced by that. And anyone who reads your stuff needs to be keenly
>aware
>> of it. I think you have been less than forward about that little FACT all
>> along.
>>
>> Margaret
>
>
>I have found one difference between Mr Nousainne's magazine and Mr.
>Atkinson's.
>Stereophile, in my not so humble opinion, is all for perpetuating an
>industry.
>They seem to me to have both the manufacturers and bricks and mortar
>dealers
>interests at heart. Mr. Noussaine's magazine, The Sensible Sound, is
>geared more towards me being able to get the best quality of sound in
>my home for my money.

In the quest for disclosure my byline also currently appears in Sound & Vision,
Road and Tracks Road Gear (formerly Mobile Entertainment) and The Audio Critic.
In the quest for helping consumers obtain the best sound for a given set of
resources I also generally limit my coverage to loudspeakers and related
equipment.
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 3:55:18 AM

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

In article <cogu6o019q5@news1.newsguy.com>, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel)
wrote:

> They do not pretend to be scientific in their subjective
> reviews.

No, but they are pretending nevertheless.

> If you are worried about biases affecting the reviews then take that
> into consideration when reading those reviews. But jeez, do you think about
> this when speakers get reviewed? Can you cite any bias controlled listening
> evaluations of any speakers in any audio journal? This is the one component
> everybody agrees matters isn't it?

Speakers are an area where there is no disagreement that audible
differences exist. So if a reviewer says "more air" and "breathtaking
midrange" about a speaker, it's at least plausible. Although if that same
reviewer has exclaimed breathlessly on speaker cables, what should we think
about his speaker reviews?
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 3:55:41 AM

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

In article <cogu4a019ms@news1.newsguy.com>,
"Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" <deedees@satx.rr.com> wrote:

> > You are exactly right. High-End magazine editors and contributors endorse
> > and
> > help maintain audio mythology but none of them has ever submitted a
> > replicable
> > experiment that shows they can actually "hear" the urban legends they
> > claim are
> > present.
> >
> > There is always some reason why they just can't do it "today' or that
> > witnesses
> > provide "pressure" and they always have a 'reason' why the extant evidence
> > doesn't count.
> >
> > Yet they cannot produce a replicable experiment or bias-controlled public
> > display that shows they are right.
> >
> > John Atkinson is the high-end myth Champion.
>
> That is your OPINION.
>
> But it is a FACT that you are trying to compete in his chosen line of
> business. So everything you say about Mr. Atkinson and his business is
> influenced by that. And anyone who reads your stuff needs to be keenly aware
> of it. I think you have been less than forward about that little FACT all
> along.

Hilarious. Yeah it's a big secret that Nousaine is an audio journalist with
views at odds with Atkinson's. zzzzzzzzzzzz..........
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 6:39:39 AM

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

On 12/1/04 7:55 PM, in article colp5m0b3m@news2.newsguy.com, "Billy Shears"
<w.ramey@comcast.net> wrote:

> In article <cogu6o019q5@news1.newsguy.com>, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel)
> wrote:
>
>> They do not pretend to be scientific in their subjective
>> reviews.
>
> No, but they are pretending nevertheless.

I do not understand what you are saying - what are they pretending? To be
scientific? They generally don't - so I am not sure what the point is?
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 3:55:41 AM

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

In article <com2pr02toq@news3.newsguy.com>, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

> On 12/1/04 7:55 PM, in article colp5m0b3m@news2.newsguy.com, "Billy Shears"
> <w.ramey@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <cogu6o019q5@news1.newsguy.com>, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel)
> > wrote:
> >
> >> They do not pretend to be scientific in their subjective
> >> reviews.
> >
> > No, but they are pretending nevertheless.
>
> I do not understand what you are saying - what are they pretending? To be
> scientific? They generally don't - so I am not sure what the point is?

Well take a look at

http://www.stereophile.com/accessoryreviews/1004siltech...,

which was mentioned by outsor earlier. Some spectacular claims and some
spectacular money on the line - on a type of component that is, to say the
least, controversial. Let's assume the reviewer has made no attempt to
scientifically validate whether even an audible difference between this
$4000/2m pair speaker cable (or other high-end speaker cable in this
stratospheric price range) and ordinary lampcord exists. Then I would say
the reviewer is pretending when he writes that these cables are "open,
extended, and smooth ... The midrange was voluptuous and rounded, with
superior detail retrieval. The Siltechs' top end was beautifully extended
(after some break-in), and they had a particularly engaging holographic
quality."
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 3:59:41 AM

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

"Billy Shears" <w.ramey@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:colp5m0b3m@news2.newsguy.com...
> In article <cogu6o019q5@news1.newsguy.com>, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel)
> wrote:
>
> > They do not pretend to be scientific in their subjective
> > reviews.
>
> No, but they are pretending nevertheless.
>
> > If you are worried about biases affecting the reviews then take that
> > into consideration when reading those reviews. But jeez, do you think
about
> > this when speakers get reviewed? Can you cite any bias controlled
listening
> > evaluations of any speakers in any audio journal? This is the one
component
> > everybody agrees matters isn't it?
>
> Speakers are an area where there is no disagreement that audible
> differences exist. So if a reviewer says "more air" and "breathtaking
> midrange" about a speaker, it's at least plausible. Although if that same
> reviewer has exclaimed breathlessly on speaker cables, what should we
think
> about his speaker reviews?

I really wonder if you folks actually read the publications you criticize.
It has been a long, long time since I have read in Stereophile or TAS a
review that was "breathless" over speaker cables or anything else, for that
matter. Usually the reviewer does his best to describe the differences he
does hear in context, and words like "subtle" or "only upon repeat
listening" or "only on direct comparison" are used. In the latest two-part
survey of interconnects that TAS ran (I believe it was TAS, if not my
apologies Mr. Atkinson) the authors talked about how difficult it was to
discern differences, mentioned that a great many of the cables could not be
differentiated, and discussed the differences of those that they felt could
be as subtle. They described the fatigue and strain of trying to determine
the differences. This is hardly "exclaiming breathlessly".

My feeling is that a lot of strawmen are being burned here by people with
preconceived notions of subjective reviewing from the very early days of
Stereophile and TAS when the "subjective review" magazines were in their
infancy. If I am right, the critics are hardly being objective or
scientific. And to the degree that the critics simply disagree with the
right of a magazine to feature subjective reviews, show me one that doesn't
rely on same, including Mr. Nousaine's "Sound and Vision" (not even done
well) and "Sensible Sound". The fact that you think everything these days
short of speakers and cartridges pretty much sounds the same and should not
be reviewed, reviewed only on features, or reviewed only via blind
comparison testing is your personal bias....it is a view that flies in the
face of the ordinary experience of the ordinary audiophile and is a minority
position. The mainstream audio review magazines are crafted to serve the
interests and needs of the audiophile community and they succeed on that
basis quite nicely, judging by their current circulations. It is a hobby,
after all, and these magazines do not need to duplicate the Journal of the
AES.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 1:38:06 AM

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

In article <coodpt0f43@news2.newsguy.com>,
"Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:

> "Billy Shears" <w.ramey@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:colp5m0b3m@news2.newsguy.com...
> > In article <cogu6o019q5@news1.newsguy.com>, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel)
> > wrote:
> >
> > > They do not pretend to be scientific in their subjective
> > > reviews.
> >
> > No, but they are pretending nevertheless.
> >
> > > If you are worried about biases affecting the reviews then take that
> > > into consideration when reading those reviews. But jeez, do you think
> about
> > > this when speakers get reviewed? Can you cite any bias controlled
> listening
> > > evaluations of any speakers in any audio journal? This is the one
> component
> > > everybody agrees matters isn't it?
> >
> > Speakers are an area where there is no disagreement that audible
> > differences exist. So if a reviewer says "more air" and "breathtaking
> > midrange" about a speaker, it's at least plausible. Although if that same
> > reviewer has exclaimed breathlessly on speaker cables, what should we
> think
> > about his speaker reviews?
>
> I really wonder if you folks actually read the publications you criticize.
> It has been a long, long time since I have read in Stereophile or TAS a
> review that was "breathless" over speaker cables or anything else, for that
> matter. Usually the reviewer does his best to describe the differences he
> does hear in context, and words like "subtle" or "only upon repeat
> listening" or "only on direct comparison" are used. In the latest two-part
> survey of interconnects that TAS ran (I believe it was TAS, if not my
> apologies Mr. Atkinson) the authors talked about how difficult it was to
> discern differences, mentioned that a great many of the cables could not be
> differentiated, and discussed the differences of those that they felt could
> be as subtle. They described the fatigue and strain of trying to determine
> the differences. This is hardly "exclaiming breathlessly".

Read the Stereophile review of the Siltech G5 Classic speaker cable at

http://www.stereophile.com/accessoryreviews/1004siltech....

This is from Oct. 2004. There you'll read "open, extended, and smooth ...
The midrange was voluptuous and rounded, with superior detail retrieval.
The Siltechs' top end was beautifully extended (after some break-in), and
they had a particularly engaging holographic quality."
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 1:43:19 AM

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

<outsor@city-net.com> wrote in message news:coe7nu01iql@news1.newsguy.com...
> "It seems to me that there is more than one agenda at work here - self
> aggrandizement it seems to me!"
>
> The answer is to ask who has the most to lose, Randi a million bucks or
> Stereophile the entire subjective enterprise as valid. To make either
> work requires tooting one's horn of validity.

Randi won't lose a million bucks for 2, possibly 3 reasons. The money is in
escrow and he can't touch it. He can't lose the challenges he's made
because the things he's talking about make no difference that anyone can
hear. Probably nobody that he's challenged will take him up on the
comparisons. You can speculate on the reasons why.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 1:44:30 AM

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

"Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:coodpt0f43@news2.newsguy.com...
> "Billy Shears" <w.ramey@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:colp5m0b3m@news2.newsguy.com...
>> In article <cogu6o019q5@news1.newsguy.com>, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel)
>> wrote:
>>
>> > They do not pretend to be scientific in their subjective
>> > reviews.
>>
>> No, but they are pretending nevertheless.
>>
>> > If you are worried about biases affecting the reviews then take that
>> > into consideration when reading those reviews. But jeez, do you think
> about
>> > this when speakers get reviewed? Can you cite any bias controlled
> listening
>> > evaluations of any speakers in any audio journal? This is the one
> component
>> > everybody agrees matters isn't it?
>>
>> Speakers are an area where there is no disagreement that audible
>> differences exist. So if a reviewer says "more air" and "breathtaking
>> midrange" about a speaker, it's at least plausible. Although if that same
>> reviewer has exclaimed breathlessly on speaker cables, what should we
> think
>> about his speaker reviews?
>
> I really wonder if you folks actually read the publications you criticize.
> It has been a long, long time since I have read in Stereophile or TAS a
> review that was "breathless" over speaker cables or anything else, for
> that
> matter.

One would guess that the reason they don't is because they have been
hammered hard about such nonsense.

Usually the reviewer does his best to describe the differences he
> does hear in context, and words like "subtle" or "only upon repeat
> listening" or "only on direct comparison" are used. In the latest
> two-part
> survey of interconnects that TAS ran (I believe it was TAS, if not my
> apologies Mr. Atkinson) the authors talked about how difficult it was to
> discern differences, mentioned that a great many of the cables could not
> be
> differentiated, and discussed the differences of those that they felt
> could
> be as subtle.

ONe would suspect that the reason is because they have been hammered hard
about such nonsense.

They described the fatigue and strain of trying to determine
> the differences. This is hardly "exclaiming breathlessly".
>
> My feeling is that a lot of strawmen are being burned here by people with
> preconceived notions of subjective reviewing from the very early days of
> Stereophile and TAS when the "subjective review" magazines were in their
> infancy. If I am right, the critics are hardly being objective or
> scientific. And to the degree that the critics simply disagree with the
> right of a magazine to feature subjective reviews,

Nobody I know of says they don't have the right to publish those kind of
reviews, they simply disagree over their usefullness.

show me one that doesn't
> rely on same, including Mr. Nousaine's "Sound and Vision" (not even done
> well) and "Sensible Sound". The fact that you think everything these
> days
> short of speakers and cartridges pretty much sounds the same and should
> not
> be reviewed, reviewed only on features, or reviewed only via blind
> comparison testing is your personal bias...

It is however a bias built on a foundation of reason. Subjective
comparisons without the ability to compare to a level matched, bias
controlled entity have been demonstrated to be unreliable and discerning
differences other than very gross ones.

..it is a view that flies in the
> face of the ordinary experience of the ordinary audiophile and is a
> minority
> position.

Which is pretty sad. Why wouldn't an audiophile want the most reliable
comparisons made?

The mainstream audio review magazines are crafted to serve the
> interests and needs of the audiophile community and they succeed on that
> basis quite nicely, judging by their current circulations.

My suspiscion is, that most readers know enough about what they are reading
to discern the meat from the b.s.

It is a hobby,
> after all, and these magazines do not need to duplicate the Journal of the
> AES.

They only need to serve their readership, but that doesn't mean they
shouldn't offer the most reliable information they possibly can.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 1:46:18 AM

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

"Craig Ellsworth" <craig.ellsworth@ericsson.com> wrote in message
news:coid9301371@news2.newsguy.com...
>>
>> That is your OPINION.
>>
>> But it is a FACT that you are trying to compete in his chosen line of
>> business. So everything you say about Mr. Atkinson and his business is
>> influenced by that. And anyone who reads your stuff needs to be keenly
>> aware
>> of it. I think you have been less than forward about that little FACT all
>> along.
>>
>> Margaret
>
>
> I have found one difference between Mr Nousainne's magazine and Mr.
> Atkinson's.
> Stereophile, in my not so humble opinion, is all for perpetuating an
> industry.
> They seem to me to have both the manufacturers and bricks and mortar
> dealers
> interests at heart. Mr. Noussaine's magazine, The Sensible Sound, is
> geared more towards me being able to get the best quality of sound in
> my home for my money.


Speaking for myself, I want an advocate for my wallet and my pleasure that I
derive from high quality audio. If something that costs $10,000.00 doesn't
sound different than something that costs $1000.00, I most definitely want
to know that. I want it to be determined in the most reliable way possible.
If I choose the more expensive device for other reasons than sound quality,
that's up to me.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 1:50:50 AM

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

On 3 Dec 2004 00:55:41 GMT, Billy Shears wrote:

> Well take a look at

> http://www.stereophile.com/accessoryreviews/1004siltech...,

> which was mentioned by outsor earlier. Some spectacular claims and some
> spectacular money on the line - on a type of component that is, to say the
> least, controversial. Let's assume the reviewer has made no attempt to
> scientifically validate whether even an audible difference between this
> $4000/2m pair speaker cable (or other high-end speaker cable in this
> stratospheric price range) and ordinary lampcord exists. Then I would say
> the reviewer is pretending when he writes that these cables are "open,
> extended, and smooth ... The midrange was voluptuous and rounded, with
> superior detail retrieval. The Siltechs' top end was beautifully extended
> (after some break-in), and they had a particularly engaging holographic
> quality."

Was footnote 1 there when you looked before? Quoting the page:

''Siltech's website makes much of their "zero crossing recognition
theory" and how their cables are engineered to implement it: "Signal
conductance requires a minimum amount of energy expenditure. The
distortion this expenditure causes is small but in fact occurs a few
thousand times per second, deteriorating the authenticity of the
musical signal. Siltech has succeeded in reducing this micro-level
distortion by a ten-fold minimum." (footnote 1)''

again quoting the page:

''Footnote 1: It is fair to point out that if this effect exists, the
distortion it introduces in conventional cables is below the
resolution of my test equipment to measure.--John Atkinson''

-alan

--
Alan Hoyle - alanh@unc.edu - http://www.alanhoyle.com/
"I don't want the world, I just want your half." -TMBG
Get Horizontal, Play Ultimate.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 5:49:16 AM

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

"Billy Shears" <w.ramey@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:coqpse0166@news4.newsguy.com...
> In article <coodpt0f43@news2.newsguy.com>,
> "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:
>
> > "Billy Shears" <w.ramey@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:colp5m0b3m@news2.newsguy.com...
> > > In article <cogu6o019q5@news1.newsguy.com>, s888wheel@aol.com
(S888Wheel)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > They do not pretend to be scientific in their subjective
> > > > reviews.
> > >
> > > No, but they are pretending nevertheless.
> > >
> > > > If you are worried about biases affecting the reviews then take that
> > > > into consideration when reading those reviews. But jeez, do you
think
> > about
> > > > this when speakers get reviewed? Can you cite any bias controlled
> > listening
> > > > evaluations of any speakers in any audio journal? This is the one
> > component
> > > > everybody agrees matters isn't it?
> > >
> > > Speakers are an area where there is no disagreement that audible
> > > differences exist. So if a reviewer says "more air" and "breathtaking
> > > midrange" about a speaker, it's at least plausible. Although if that
same
> > > reviewer has exclaimed breathlessly on speaker cables, what should we
> > think
> > > about his speaker reviews?
> >
> > I really wonder if you folks actually read the publications you
criticize.
> > It has been a long, long time since I have read in Stereophile or TAS a
> > review that was "breathless" over speaker cables or anything else, for
that
> > matter. Usually the reviewer does his best to describe the differences
he
> > does hear in context, and words like "subtle" or "only upon repeat
> > listening" or "only on direct comparison" are used. In the latest
two-part
> > survey of interconnects that TAS ran (I believe it was TAS, if not my
> > apologies Mr. Atkinson) the authors talked about how difficult it was to
> > discern differences, mentioned that a great many of the cables could not
be
> > differentiated, and discussed the differences of those that they felt
could
> > be as subtle. They described the fatigue and strain of trying to
determine
> > the differences. This is hardly "exclaiming breathlessly".
>
> Read the Stereophile review of the Siltech G5 Classic speaker cable at
>
> http://www.stereophile.com/accessoryreviews/1004siltech....
>
> This is from Oct. 2004. There you'll read "open, extended, and smooth ...
> The midrange was voluptuous and rounded, with superior detail retrieval.
> The Siltechs' top end was beautifully extended (after some break-in), and
> they had a particularly engaging holographic quality."

Have you ever heard differences in high-end equipment in their ability to
create/pass a "holographic image". I have, and it is one of the attributes
that I look for in audio equipment (it is also one of the characteristics
that seems to disappear in A-B comparative test, a function, I suspect, of
left brain rationality overcoming right-brain perception). If I were in the
market for cables, I would definitely want to audition the Siltechs in my
system. Would I compare them to my existing cables and to Radio Shack
speaker zip cord (which I also use in places)..I sure would. Without going
back and reading this particular review (which I did not since I have no
current interest in adding speaker cables to my system) I wouldn't say the
prose is outlandish...the reviewer is giving a subjective impression which
he likes, which can then be looked for and either confirmed/denied by
audiophiles who rate similar characteristics high in their pantheon of sound
values.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 5:49:34 AM

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

"Michael McKelvy" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:coqqbq0juv@news2.newsguy.com...
> "Craig Ellsworth" <craig.ellsworth@ericsson.com> wrote in message
> news:coid9301371@news2.newsguy.com...
> >>
> >> That is your OPINION.
> >>
> >> But it is a FACT that you are trying to compete in his chosen line of
> >> business. So everything you say about Mr. Atkinson and his business is
> >> influenced by that. And anyone who reads your stuff needs to be keenly
> >> aware
> >> of it. I think you have been less than forward about that little FACT
all
> >> along.
> >>
> >> Margaret
> >
> >
> > I have found one difference between Mr Nousainne's magazine and Mr.
> > Atkinson's.
> > Stereophile, in my not so humble opinion, is all for perpetuating an
> > industry.
> > They seem to me to have both the manufacturers and bricks and mortar
> > dealers
> > interests at heart. Mr. Noussaine's magazine, The Sensible Sound, is
> > geared more towards me being able to get the best quality of sound in
> > my home for my money.
>
>
> Speaking for myself, I want an advocate for my wallet and my pleasure that
I
> derive from high quality audio. If something that costs $10,000.00
doesn't
> sound different than something that costs $1000.00, I most definitely want
> to know that. I want it to be determined in the most reliable way
possible.
> If I choose the more expensive device for other reasons than sound
quality,
> that's up to me.

Fine, that's what Sensible Sound is there for. Why belabor Stereophile
because they have a different editorial philosophy.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 7:55:52 PM

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

"Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:cor8ju017t7@news2.newsguy.com...
> "Michael McKelvy" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:coqqbq0juv@news2.newsguy.com...
>> "Craig Ellsworth" <craig.ellsworth@ericsson.com> wrote in message
>> news:coid9301371@news2.newsguy.com...
>> >>
>> >> That is your OPINION.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > They seem to me to have both the manufacturers and bricks and mortar
>> > dealers
>> > interests at heart. Mr. Noussaine's magazine, The Sensible Sound, is
>> > geared more towards me being able to get the best quality of sound in
>> > my home for my money.
>>
>>
>> Speaking for myself, I want an advocate for my wallet and my pleasure
>> that
> I
>> derive from high quality audio. If something that costs $10,000.00
> doesn't
>> sound different than something that costs $1000.00, I most definitely
>> want
>> to know that. I want it to be determined in the most reliable way
> possible.
>> If I choose the more expensive device for other reasons than sound
> quality,
>> that's up to me.
>
> Fine, that's what Sensible Sound is there for. Why belabor Stereophile
> because they have a different editorial philosophy.

Because they promote snake oil. Because allowing reviews like the one on
Shakti Stones to pass without technical oversight, and putting them on the
RCL is just plain old fashioned B.S.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 7:56:28 PM

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

"Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:cor8jc017sg@news2.newsguy.com...
> "Billy Shears" <w.ramey@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:coqpse0166@news4.newsguy.com...
>> In article <coodpt0f43@news2.newsguy.com>,
>> "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "Billy Shears" <w.ramey@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> > news:colp5m0b3m@news2.newsguy.com...
>> > > In article <cogu6o019q5@news1.newsguy.com>, s888wheel@aol.com
> (S888Wheel)
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > They do not pretend to be scientific in their subjective
>> > > > reviews.
>> > >
>> > > No, but they are pretending nevertheless.
>> > >
>> > > > If you are worried about biases affecting the reviews then take
>> > > > that
>> > > > into consideration when reading those reviews. But jeez, do you
> think
>> > about
>> > > > this when speakers get reviewed? Can you cite any bias controlled
>> > listening
>> > > > evaluations of any speakers in any audio journal? This is the one
>> > component
>> > > > everybody agrees matters isn't it?
>> > >
>> > > Speakers are an area where there is no disagreement that audible
>> > > differences exist. So if a reviewer says "more air" and "breathtaking
>> > > midrange" about a speaker, it's at least plausible. Although if that
> same
>> > > reviewer has exclaimed breathlessly on speaker cables, what should we
>> > think
>> > > about his speaker reviews?
>> >
>> > I really wonder if you folks actually read the publications you
> criticize.
>> > It has been a long, long time since I have read in Stereophile or TAS a
>> > review that was "breathless" over speaker cables or anything else, for
> that
>> > matter. Usually the reviewer does his best to describe the differences
> he
>> > does hear in context, and words like "subtle" or "only upon repeat
>> > listening" or "only on direct comparison" are used. In the latest
> two-part
>> > survey of interconnects that TAS ran (I believe it was TAS, if not my
>> > apologies Mr. Atkinson) the authors talked about how difficult it was
>> > to
>> > discern differences, mentioned that a great many of the cables could
>> > not
> be
>> > differentiated, and discussed the differences of those that they felt
> could
>> > be as subtle. They described the fatigue and strain of trying to
> determine
>> > the differences. This is hardly "exclaiming breathlessly".
>>
>> Read the Stereophile review of the Siltech G5 Classic speaker cable at
>>
>> http://www.stereophile.com/accessoryreviews/1004siltech....
>>
>> This is from Oct. 2004. There you'll read "open, extended, and smooth ...
>> The midrange was voluptuous and rounded, with superior detail retrieval.
>> The Siltechs' top end was beautifully extended (after some break-in), and
>> they had a particularly engaging holographic quality."
>
> Have you ever heard differences in high-end equipment in their ability to
> create/pass a "holographic image".

Only from speakers. You're changing the subject. A Shakti Stone is not
high end equipment.

I have, and it is one of the attributes
> that I look for in audio equipment (it is also one of the characteristics
> that seems to disappear in A-B comparative test, a function, I suspect, of
> left brain rationality overcoming right-brain perception).

Unfortunately there is ample evidence that your suspicion is groundless.

If I were in the
> market for cables, I would definitely want to audition the Siltechs in my
> system.

Having some backround in electronics, I know that wire is wire.

Would I compare them to my existing cables and to Radio Shack
> speaker zip cord (which I also use in places)..I sure would. Without
> going
> back and reading this particular review (which I did not since I have no
> current interest in adding speaker cables to my system) I wouldn't say the
> prose is outlandish...

Of course it is since wire can't have that effect.

the reviewer is giving a subjective impression which
> he likes, which can then be looked for and either confirmed/denied by
> audiophiles who rate similar characteristics high in their pantheon of
> sound
> values.

The reviewer is giving an opinion on something which can't happen.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 7:59:02 PM

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

"Have you ever heard differences in high-end equipment in their ability to
create/pass a "holographic image". I have, and it is one of the
attributes that I look for in audio equipment (it is also one of the
characteristics that seems to disappear in A-B comparative test, a
function, I suspect, of left brain rationality overcoming right-brain
perception).

snip

the reviewer
is giving a subjective impression which he likes, which can then be looked
for and either confirmed/denied by audiophiles who rate similar
characteristics high in their pantheon of sound values."


Here we have in one example two of the most oft repeated notions of the
subjective enterprise. "I hear it, I really really do, don't you believe
me, don't you hear it too?" While confirming no difference when which
active gear is unknown, the usual "testing destroys what is there by (fill
in favorite speculation). A test suggestion, while changing nothing but
wire, for 4 weeks randomly change the wire a week at a time, at the end of
each week a report is made if the holographical perception was present
that week or not. If the poor brain finds a week too stressing, do a
month at a time. Then we slide into the assumed, but as of yet not
demonstrated reality, of applying the ability of revviewers to "hear" and
others to confirm, which of course is begging the question. Why not use
taro cards, can anyone prove it doesn't work and if it doesn't it is
because it stresses the brain and obscures reality?
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 10:44:02 PM

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

"Billy Shears" <w.ramey@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:coqpse0166@news4.newsguy.com...
> In article <coodpt0f43@news2.newsguy.com>,
> "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:
>
> > "Billy Shears" <w.ramey@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:colp5m0b3m@news2.newsguy.com...
> > > In article <cogu6o019q5@news1.newsguy.com>, s888wheel@aol.com
(S888Wheel)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > They do not pretend to be scientific in their subjective
> > > > reviews.
> > >
> > > No, but they are pretending nevertheless.
> > >
> > > > If you are worried about biases affecting the reviews then
take that
> > > > into consideration when reading those reviews. But jeez, do
you think
> > about
> > > > this when speakers get reviewed? Can you cite any bias
controlled
> > listening
> > > > evaluations of any speakers in any audio journal? This is the
one
> > component
> > > > everybody agrees matters isn't it?
> > >
> > > Speakers are an area where there is no disagreement that audible
> > > differences exist. So if a reviewer says "more air" and
"breathtaking
> > > midrange" about a speaker, it's at least plausible. Although if
that same
> > > reviewer has exclaimed breathlessly on speaker cables, what
should we
> > think
> > > about his speaker reviews?
> >
> > I really wonder if you folks actually read the publications you
criticize.
> > It has been a long, long time since I have read in Stereophile or
TAS a
> > review that was "breathless" over speaker cables or anything else,
for that
> > matter. Usually the reviewer does his best to describe the
differences he
> > does hear in context, and words like "subtle" or "only upon repeat
> > listening" or "only on direct comparison" are used. In the latest
two-part
> > survey of interconnects that TAS ran (I believe it was TAS, if not
my
> > apologies Mr. Atkinson) the authors talked about how difficult it
was to
> > discern differences, mentioned that a great many of the cables
could not be
> > differentiated, and discussed the differences of those that they
felt could
> > be as subtle. They described the fatigue and strain of trying to
determine
> > the differences. This is hardly "exclaiming breathlessly".
>
> Read the Stereophile review of the Siltech G5 Classic speaker cable
at
>
> http://www.stereophile.com/accessoryreviews/1004siltech....
>
> This is from Oct. 2004. There you'll read "open, extended, and
smooth ...
> The midrange was voluptuous and rounded, with superior detail
retrieval.
> The Siltechs' top end was beautifully extended (after some
break-in), and
> they had a particularly engaging holographic quality."

I notice that Atkinson includes a disclaimer about "microlevel
distortion", which he's never been able to measure. Apparently, even
John Atkinson has an bullshit overload point (about time, wouldn't you
say.)

Norm Strong
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 10:46:12 PM

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

>From: Billy Shears w.ramey@comcast.net
>Date: 12/1/2004 4:55 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <colp5m0b3m@news2.newsguy.com>
>
>In article <cogu6o019q5@news1.newsguy.com>, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel)
>wrote:
>
>> They do not pretend to be scientific in their subjective
>> reviews.
>
>No, but they are pretending nevertheless.

Oh? Did they tell you so? Or are you reading thier minds?


>
>> If you are worried about biases affecting the reviews then take that
>> into consideration when reading those reviews. But jeez, do you think about
>> this when speakers get reviewed? Can you cite any bias controlled listening
>> evaluations of any speakers in any audio journal? This is the one component
>> everybody agrees matters isn't it?
>
>Speakers are an area where there is no disagreement that audible
>differences exist.

Irrelevant. they are every bit as much subject to the effects of sighted bias.

So if a reviewer says "more air" and "breathtaking
>midrange" about a speaker, it's at least plausible.

It is no less likely to be true.

Although if that same
>reviewer has exclaimed breathlessly on speaker cables, what should we think
>about his speaker reviews?

What ever you choose. That is the point. That is the nature of subjective
review. If you want to get something from it you need to better understand the
reviewers and their biases.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 10:46:41 PM

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

>From: Billy Shears w.ramey@comcast.net
>Date: 12/2/2004 4:55 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <coodid0ern@news2.newsguy.com>
>
>In article <com2pr02toq@news3.newsguy.com>, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On 12/1/04 7:55 PM, in article colp5m0b3m@news2.newsguy.com, "Billy Shears"
>> <w.ramey@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <cogu6o019q5@news1.newsguy.com>, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel)
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> They do not pretend to be scientific in their subjective
>> >> reviews.
>> >
>> > No, but they are pretending nevertheless.
>>
>> I do not understand what you are saying - what are they pretending? To be
>> scientific? They generally don't - so I am not sure what the point is?
>
>Well take a look at
>
>http://www.stereophile.com/accessoryreviews/1004siltech...,
>
>which was mentioned by outsor earlier. Some spectacular claims and some
>spectacular money on the line - on a type of component that is, to say the
>least, controversial. Let's assume the reviewer has made no attempt to
>scientifically validate whether even an audible difference between this
>$4000/2m pair speaker cable (or other high-end speaker cable in this
>stratospheric price range) and ordinary lampcord exists. Then I would say
>the reviewer is pretending when he writes that these cables are "open,
>extended, and smooth ... The midrange was voluptuous and rounded, with
>superior detail retrieval. The Siltechs' top end was beautifully extended
>(after some break-in), and they had a particularly engaging holographic
>quality."
>
>
>
>
>
>

This possibility exists with every subjective review. If you don't like
subjective review ignore it and move on.
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 2:55:57 AM

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

On 12/4/04 2:44 PM, in article cot42202pn5@news1.newsguy.com, "normanstrong"
<normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote:

> I notice that Atkinson includes a disclaimer about "microlevel
> distortion", which he's never been able to measure. Apparently, even
> John Atkinson has an b******t[sic] overload point (about time, wouldn't you
> say.)

Even people publishing subjective reviews won't agree with everything else
written. JA seems to me to be much more balanced that many would give him
credit. As an editor of a major hobby magazine he is a rather conspicuous
target, I would say.
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 3:21:30 AM

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

"normanstrong" normanstrong@comcast.net wrote:
>"Billy Shears" <w.ramey@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:coqpse0166@news4.newsguy.com...
>> In article <coodpt0f43@news2.newsguy.com>,
>> "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "Billy Shears" <w.ramey@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> > news:colp5m0b3m@news2.newsguy.com...
>> > > In article <cogu6o019q5@news1.newsguy.com>, s888wheel@aol.com
>(S888Wheel)
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > They do not pretend to be scientific in their subjective
>> > > > reviews.
>> > >
>> > > No, but they are pretending nevertheless.
>> > >
>> > > > If you are worried about biases affecting the reviews then
>take that
>> > > > into consideration when reading those reviews. But jeez, do
>you think
>> > about
>> > > > this when speakers get reviewed? Can you cite any bias
>controlled
>> > listening
>> > > > evaluations of any speakers in any audio journal? This is the
>one
>> > component
>> > > > everybody agrees matters isn't it?
>> > >
>> > > Speakers are an area where there is no disagreement that audible
>> > > differences exist. So if a reviewer says "more air" and
>"breathtaking
>> > > midrange" about a speaker, it's at least plausible. Although if
>that same
>> > > reviewer has exclaimed breathlessly on speaker cables, what
>should we
>> > think
>> > > about his speaker reviews?
>> >
>> > I really wonder if you folks actually read the publications you
>criticize.
>> > It has been a long, long time since I have read in Stereophile or
>TAS a
>> > review that was "breathless" over speaker cables or anything else,
>for that
>> > matter. Usually the reviewer does his best to describe the
>differences he
>> > does hear in context, and words like "subtle" or "only upon repeat
>> > listening" or "only on direct comparison" are used. In the latest
>two-part
>> > survey of interconnects that TAS ran (I believe it was TAS, if not
>my
>> > apologies Mr. Atkinson) the authors talked about how difficult it
>was to
>> > discern differences, mentioned that a great many of the cables
>could not be
>> > differentiated, and discussed the differences of those that they
>felt could
>> > be as subtle. They described the fatigue and strain of trying to
>determine
>> > the differences. This is hardly "exclaiming breathlessly".
>>
>> Read the Stereophile review of the Siltech G5 Classic speaker cable
>at
>>
>> http://www.stereophile.com/accessoryreviews/1004siltech....
>>
>> This is from Oct. 2004. There you'll read "open, extended, and
>smooth ...
>> The midrange was voluptuous and rounded, with superior detail
>retrieval.
>> The Siltechs' top end was beautifully extended (after some
>break-in), and
>> they had a particularly engaging holographic quality."
>
>I notice that Atkinson includes a disclaimer about "microlevel
>distortion", which he's never been able to measure. Apparently, even
>John Atkinson has an bullshit overload point (about time, wouldn't you
>say.)
>
>Norm Strong

I think if you read carefully Mr Atkinson ONLY expresses a skeptical attitude
about the REASON given for the sound quality improvements. He still apparently
endoreses the idea that they DO sound different and better because the Siltech
products appear in the Recomended Components List in the same issue.

As others have suggested this is a clever technique that helps him walk both
sides of the street. First, he is not addressing the reviewers opinion that
these cables have special sound qualities, only expressing a critical attitude
about the Manufacturer's "reason" for these differences.

When questioned his MO may run like this: first he never 'personally'
recommended these cables and even expressed skepicism about the manufacturers
claims. But, when pushed, will likely then argue that he remains 'agnostic'
about the performance differences.

I'll say this, its brilliant high-end marketing from the editorial side. It
encourages the full page ad on p20, promotes the myth of cable sound, suggests
that sound quality differences can't be "measured", defends his reviewer, seems
to display a critical attitude toward the manufacturer and adds 2 new products
on the RCL. The only thing missing is a letter from the manufacturer thanking
them for the review and further defending their claims.

But, it doesn't really do anything that furthers the quest for improved sound
quality. Indeed it effectively promotes the urban legends of cable sound and
break-in neither of which have never been shown to affect performance one whit.


You might argue that I have a bias in this issue because of my magazine
associations (quite possibly) but on the other hand I have spent my personal
energy chasing cable and accessory sound most of the time on my own nickel. I
wasn't interested in arguing about the sound of things, not content to accept
opinion about sound quality perfromance without acceptable evidence about same
....remaining agnostic seemed to me resource dangerous and because bias
controlled listening was so easy to conduct it seemed unacceptable NOT to test
wire/cable/accessory sound if I were truly interested in improving or
optimizing sound quality of reproduced music in my home.
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 3:22:01 AM

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

"Michael McKelvy" deskst49@peoplepc.com wrote:



>
><outsor@city-net.com> wrote in message news:coe7nu01iql@news1.newsguy.com...
>> "It seems to me that there is more than one agenda at work here - self
>> aggrandizement it seems to me!"
>>
>> The answer is to ask who has the most to lose, Randi a million bucks or
>> Stereophile the entire subjective enterprise as valid. To make either
>> work requires tooting one's horn of validity.
>
>Randi won't lose a million bucks for 2, possibly 3 reasons. The money is in
>escrow and he can't touch it. He can't lose the challenges he's made
>because the things he's talking about make no difference that anyone can
>hear. Probably nobody that he's challenged will take him up on the
>comparisons. You can speculate on the reasons why.

I believe the same reasons apply to Richard Clark's $10,000 amplifier
challenge.. It should be so easy. Yet, no takers? IMO it's because no one is
confident enough (or already has tried it themselves or otherwise knows the
truth) and to take the challenge would break that particular urban legend
bubble.

High-end and Tweak products are the equivalent of those motorcycles known as
cafe racers. They look great sitting outside the coffee house but don't ever
for a minute think the owners are interested in actually racing or testing
actual performance.
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 3:26:22 AM

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

In article <cor8jc017sg@news2.newsguy.com>,
"Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:

> "Billy Shears" <w.ramey@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:coqpse0166@news4.newsguy.com...
> > In article <coodpt0f43@news2.newsguy.com>,
> > "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Billy Shears" <w.ramey@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > > news:colp5m0b3m@news2.newsguy.com...
> > > > In article <cogu6o019q5@news1.newsguy.com>, s888wheel@aol.com
> (S888Wheel)
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > They do not pretend to be scientific in their subjective
> > > > > reviews.
> > > >
> > > > No, but they are pretending nevertheless.
> > > >
> > > > > If you are worried about biases affecting the reviews then take that
> > > > > into consideration when reading those reviews. But jeez, do you
> think
> > > about
> > > > > this when speakers get reviewed? Can you cite any bias controlled
> > > listening
> > > > > evaluations of any speakers in any audio journal? This is the one
> > > component
> > > > > everybody agrees matters isn't it?
> > > >
> > > > Speakers are an area where there is no disagreement that audible
> > > > differences exist. So if a reviewer says "more air" and "breathtaking
> > > > midrange" about a speaker, it's at least plausible. Although if that
> same
> > > > reviewer has exclaimed breathlessly on speaker cables, what should we
> > > think
> > > > about his speaker reviews?
> > >
> > > I really wonder if you folks actually read the publications you
> criticize.
> > > It has been a long, long time since I have read in Stereophile or TAS a
> > > review that was "breathless" over speaker cables or anything else, for
> that
> > > matter. Usually the reviewer does his best to describe the differences
> he
> > > does hear in context, and words like "subtle" or "only upon repeat
> > > listening" or "only on direct comparison" are used. In the latest
> two-part
> > > survey of interconnects that TAS ran (I believe it was TAS, if not my
> > > apologies Mr. Atkinson) the authors talked about how difficult it was to
> > > discern differences, mentioned that a great many of the cables could not
> be
> > > differentiated, and discussed the differences of those that they felt
> could
> > > be as subtle. They described the fatigue and strain of trying to
> determine
> > > the differences. This is hardly "exclaiming breathlessly".
> >
> > Read the Stereophile review of the Siltech G5 Classic speaker cable at
> >
> > http://www.stereophile.com/accessoryreviews/1004siltech....
> >
> > This is from Oct. 2004. There you'll read "open, extended, and smooth ...
> > The midrange was voluptuous and rounded, with superior detail retrieval.
> > The Siltechs' top end was beautifully extended (after some break-in), and
> > they had a particularly engaging holographic quality."
>
> Have you ever heard differences in high-end equipment in their ability to
> create/pass a "holographic image". I have, and it is one of the attributes
> that I look for in audio equipment (it is also one of the characteristics
> that seems to disappear in A-B comparative test, a function, I suspect, of
> left brain rationality overcoming right-brain perception). If I were in the
> market for cables, I would definitely want to audition the Siltechs in my
> system. Would I compare them to my existing cables and to Radio Shack
> speaker zip cord (which I also use in places)..I sure would. Without going
> back and reading this particular review (which I did not since I have no
> current interest in adding speaker cables to my system) I wouldn't say the
> prose is outlandish...the reviewer is giving a subjective impression which
> he likes, which can then be looked for and either confirmed/denied by
> audiophiles who rate similar characteristics high in their pantheon of sound
> values.

Well first I wanted to show that the language in a recent Stereophile
review of speaker cable indicated more than "subtle" or "only upon repeat
listening" or "only on direct comparison". I think that review is getting
close to "breathless".

As to A/B comparisons: So you think the openness and smoothness, the
voluptuousness and roundedness, the superior detail retrieval, the
beautifully extended top end, and the particularly engaging holographic
quality of the Siltechs - all of these could disappear in an A/B with zip
cord? I can't imagine such a thing.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 4:34:06 AM

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

"Nousaine" <nousaine@aol.com> wrote in message
news:cp08n901sqp@news2.newsguy.com...
> "Michael McKelvy" deskst49@peoplepc.com wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>><outsor@city-net.com> wrote in message
>>news:coe7nu01iql@news1.newsguy.com...
>>> "It seems to me that there is more than one agenda at work here - self
>>> aggrandizement it seems to me!"
>>>
>>> The answer is to ask who has the most to lose, Randi a million bucks or
>>> Stereophile the entire subjective enterprise as valid. To make either
>>> work requires tooting one's horn of validity.
>>
>>Randi won't lose a million bucks for 2, possibly 3 reasons. The money is
>>in
>>escrow and he can't touch it. He can't lose the challenges he's made
>>because the things he's talking about make no difference that anyone can
>>hear. Probably nobody that he's challenged will take him up on the
>>comparisons. You can speculate on the reasons why.
>
> I believe the same reasons apply to Richard Clark's $10,000 amplifier
> challenge.. It should be so easy. Yet, no takers? IMO it's because no one
> is
> confident enough (or already have tried it themselves or otherwise know
> the
> truth) and to take the challenge would break that particular urban legend
> bubble.
>
I suspect that is indeed the case. I think the ego of someone with the
ability to actually hear what these people cliam, would cause them to jump
at the chance to prove it. The $10K might not be a big incentive for some
of these folks but one million?


> High-end and Tweak products are the equivalent of those motorcycles known
> as
> cafe racers. They look great sitting outside the coffee house but don't
> ever
> for a minute think the owners are interested in actually racing or testing
> actual performance.

Shakti Stones and such are to Audio, what Copper bracelets are to Arthritis
treatment.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 7:25:26 AM

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

Michael McKelvy wrote:

> Shakti Stones and such are to Audio, what Copper bracelets are to Arthritis
> treatment.

Well, arthritis is a debilitating illness, but audio is just a
hobby. There's a difference!


Mike Prager
North Carolina, USA
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 3:47:43 AM

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

In article <cp31ae02ral@news3.newsguy.com>,
"Michael McKelvy" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> I suspect that is indeed the case. I think the ego of someone with the
> ability to actually hear what these people cliam, would cause them to jump
> at the chance to prove it. The $10K might not be a big incentive for some
> of these folks but one million?

I lean towards the objectivist camp but Randi comports himself so poorly
that I think anyone could be forgiven for not wanting anything to do with
him. Nothing IMHO can be deduced from lack of participation in his fabulous
"million-dollar" challenge.
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 3:51:05 AM

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

"Mike Prager" <hifi@ec.rr.com> wrote in message
news:cp3bbm0ao2@news4.newsguy.com...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>
>> Shakti Stones and such are to Audio, what Copper bracelets are to
>> Arthritis
>> treatment.
>
> Well, arthritis is a debilitating illness, but audio is just a
> hobby. There's a difference!
>
>
I'm involved with both and they have one thing in common, pseudo-science.
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 6:33:15 AM

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

On 12/7/04 7:47 PM, in article cp5ivf02f71@news2.newsguy.com, "Billy Shears"
<w.ramey@comcast.net> wrote:

> In article <cp31ae02ral@news3.newsguy.com>,
> "Michael McKelvy" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>> I suspect that is indeed the case. I think the ego of someone with the
>> ability to actually hear what these people cliam, would cause them to jump
>> at the chance to prove it. The $10K might not be a big incentive for some
>> of these folks but one million?
>
> I lean towards the objectivist camp but Randi comports himself so poorly
> that I think anyone could be forgiven for not wanting anything to do with
> him. Nothing IMHO can be deduced from lack of participation in his fabulous
> "million-dollar" challenge.

Logically, you are 100% correct. Nothing except that no one taking Randi up
on it.

But, seriously, Randi's "value" is only as large as the amount and number of
people he can get and keep the attention of.

He does not appear to have any real interest in scientific truth, just its
less capable cousin "debunking."
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 6:07:01 AM

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

"Billy Shears" <w.ramey@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cp5ivf02f71@news2.newsguy.com...
> In article <cp31ae02ral@news3.newsguy.com>,
> "Michael McKelvy" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>> I suspect that is indeed the case. I think the ego of someone with the
>> ability to actually hear what these people cliam, would cause them to
>> jump
>> at the chance to prove it. The $10K might not be a big incentive for
>> some
>> of these folks but one million?
>
> I lean towards the objectivist camp but Randi comports himself so poorly
> that I think anyone could be forgiven for not wanting anything to do with
> him. Nothing IMHO can be deduced from lack of participation in his
> fabulous
> "million-dollar" challenge.

Perhaps Randi's poor comportment is due to the fact that he had the prize
money waiting to be claimed for years and nobody has been able to win it.
Be that as it may, I sense no one from the Atkinson/Subjectivist camp will
ever participate in any bias controlled listening for any amount of money.
The entire subjectivist empire would collapse and they all know it,
regardless of how much they dance or how many excuses and rationalizations
they come up with.
December 9, 2004 6:10:40 AM

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

B&D wrote:
> On 12/7/04 7:47 PM, in article cp5ivf02f71@news2.newsguy.com, "Billy
> Shears" <w.ramey@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <cp31ae02ral@news3.newsguy.com>,
>> "Michael McKelvy" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I suspect that is indeed the case. I think the ego of someone with
>>> the ability to actually hear what these people cliam, would cause
>>> them to jump at the chance to prove it. The $10K might not be a
>>> big incentive for some of these folks but one million?
>>
>> I lean towards the objectivist camp but Randi comports himself so
>> poorly that I think anyone could be forgiven for not wanting
>> anything to do with him. Nothing IMHO can be deduced from lack of
>> participation in his fabulous "million-dollar" challenge.
>
> Logically, you are 100% correct. Nothing except that no one taking
> Randi up on it.
>
> But, seriously, Randi's "value" is only as large as the amount and
> number of people he can get and keep the attention of.
>
> He does not appear to have any real interest in scientific truth,
> just its less capable cousin "debunking."

Debunking is really what has to be done. Years of propaganda of myths in so
called high-end mags have conditioned the minds of people interested in
authentic sound reproduction, so that almost everybody has adopted one or
the other (myth) into his belief system.
The same has been done by the priests and politicians and this is what
enables crusades, terrorism and other atrocities around the world.
We need a fresh and uncluttered approach to audio. I am very happy that the
majority of this group seems to have started anew on this way. Scepticism, a
clear mind and a relaxed attitude will benefit gathering personal
experiences, which do not rely on somebody elses preachings. The intentions
of these preachers might not be what they pretend to convey.
It is not that only those poor in spirit or intelligence fall into the many
pits set up by fake prophets, but also educated and well trained engineers,
as can be seen in our group.
The example given on Randis site have really changed my attitude about
Stereophile and I now regard the whole mag as controlled by the industy and
not by an enquiring spirit about music reproduction. Mr. Atkinsons
unsensible replies have done the rest.
Even if Randi himself has constraints to observe, I fully support his
broadside attack against Stereophile.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 6:21:42 AM

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

"But, seriously, Randi's "value" is only as large as the amount and number
of
people he can get and keep the attention of.

He does not appear to have any real interest in scientific truth, just its
less capable cousin "debunking.""

The first above can have substituted hi fi mags for randi. There is one
school in the philosophy that says we don't "prove" anything because the
next instance might be the theory breaker. Instead in science we hold a
theory as long as we fail to disprove it. Which puts "debunk" as the
center piece of science. Those who care about audio hold that wire etc.
can make a difference as long as we fail to disprove it by example, but in
the main the research to jeopardize the notion is avoided like the hiv
virus.
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 6:27:14 AM

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

Billy Shears w.ramey@comcast.net wrote:
>In article <cp31ae02ral@news3.newsguy.com>,
> "Michael McKelvy" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>> I suspect that is indeed the case. I think the ego of someone with the
>> ability to actually hear what these people cliam, would cause them to jump
>> at the chance to prove it. The $10K might not be a big incentive for some
>> of these folks but one million?
>
>I lean towards the objectivist camp but Randi comports himself so poorly
>that I think anyone could be forgiven for not wanting anything to do with
>him. Nothing IMHO can be deduced from lack of participation in his fabulous
>"million-dollar" challenge.

What puzzles me is why such a challenge would even be possible. IMO IF the
differences in question WERE real why haven't the proponents ALREADY produced
replicable experiments showing that they are? Many of these so-called
differences have been postulated for years, its not as though its something new
here.

IMO the reason that nobody is willing to take such a challenge is because the
ones who have made a good faith effort to verify them have already discovered
the truth and all the rest are either fully aware that imagined sound cannot be
replicated without bias or are just not sure enough of themselves to put it on
the line because it is safer to debate them.
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 4:00:39 AM

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

"Michael McKelvy" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:cp8fgl08db@news2.newsguy.com...
> "Billy Shears" <w.ramey@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:cp5ivf02f71@news2.newsguy.com...
> > In article <cp31ae02ral@news3.newsguy.com>,
> > "Michael McKelvy" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I suspect that is indeed the case. I think the ego of someone with the
> >> ability to actually hear what these people cliam, would cause them to
> >> jump
> >> at the chance to prove it. The $10K might not be a big incentive for
> >> some
> >> of these folks but one million?
> >
> > I lean towards the objectivist camp but Randi comports himself so poorly
> > that I think anyone could be forgiven for not wanting anything to do
with
> > him. Nothing IMHO can be deduced from lack of participation in his
> > fabulous
> > "million-dollar" challenge.
>
> Perhaps Randi's poor comportment is due to the fact that he had the prize
> money waiting to be claimed for years and nobody has been able to win it.
> Be that as it may, I sense no one from the Atkinson/Subjectivist camp will
> ever participate in any bias controlled listening for any amount of money.
> The entire subjectivist empire would collapse and they all know it,
> regardless of how much they dance or how many excuses and rationalizations
> they come up with.
>

Hey Chung, you don't think this is a bit contemptuous of those of us in the
hobby who might be classified as subjectivists (even though we have made our
own judgements not to use green pens, shakti stones, or whatever; and to
instead use room treatments; and reasonably priced cables....all based on
our own subjective listening.)
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 4:10:49 AM

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

On 12/8/04 10:10 PM, in article cp8fng08le@news2.newsguy.com, "Ban"
<bansuri@web.de> wrote:

> Debunking is really what has to be done. Years of propaganda of myths in so
> called high-end mags have conditioned the minds of people interested in
> authentic sound reproduction, so that almost everybody has adopted one or
> the other (myth) into his belief system.

While I would agree that real debunking is sometimes a good thing - I also
think that the ability to admit when someone has got something wrong, or
didn't get the facts quite right is part of it. I haven't seen any evidence
that he does this....
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 5:02:03 AM

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

Harry Lavo <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:

> Hey Chung, you don't think this is a bit contemptuous of those of us in the
> hobby who might be classified as subjectivists (even though we have made our
> own judgements not to use green pens, shakti stones, or whatever; and to
> instead use room treatments; and reasonably priced cables....all based on
> our own subjective listening.)

To be a critic is to be an enemy?

That's no less contemptuous, if either is.
December 10, 2004 7:17:02 AM

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

Harry Lavo wrote:
> "Michael McKelvy" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:cp8fgl08db@news2.newsguy.com...
>> "Billy Shears" <w.ramey@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:cp5ivf02f71@news2.newsguy.com...
>> > In article <cp31ae02ral@news3.newsguy.com>,
>> > "Michael McKelvy" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I suspect that is indeed the case. I think the ego of someone with the
>> >> ability to actually hear what these people cliam, would cause them to
>> >> jump
>> >> at the chance to prove it. The $10K might not be a big incentive for
>> >> some
>> >> of these folks but one million?
>> >
>> > I lean towards the objectivist camp but Randi comports himself so poorly
>> > that I think anyone could be forgiven for not wanting anything to do
> with
>> > him. Nothing IMHO can be deduced from lack of participation in his
>> > fabulous
>> > "million-dollar" challenge.
>>
>> Perhaps Randi's poor comportment is due to the fact that he had the prize
>> money waiting to be claimed for years and nobody has been able to win it.
>> Be that as it may, I sense no one from the Atkinson/Subjectivist camp will
>> ever participate in any bias controlled listening for any amount of money.
>> The entire subjectivist empire would collapse and they all know it,
>> regardless of how much they dance or how many excuses and rationalizations
>> they come up with.
>>
>
> Hey Chung, you don't think this is a bit contemptuous of those of us in the
> hobby who might be classified as subjectivists (even though we have made our
> own judgements not to use green pens, shakti stones, or whatever; and to
> instead use room treatments; and reasonably priced cables....all based on
> our own subjective listening.)

Not really, although I was not the one you should respond to:) . I use
Self's definition of subjectivist, and I would guess that Mr. McKelvy
does, too.
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 7:37:20 PM

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

B&D bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>On 12/8/04 10:10 PM, in article cp8fng08le@news2.newsguy.com, "Ban"
><bansuri@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Debunking is really what has to be done. Years of propaganda of myths in so
>> called high-end mags have conditioned the minds of people interested in
>> authentic sound reproduction, so that almost everybody has adopted one or
>> the other (myth) into his belief system.
>
>While I would agree that real debunking is sometimes a good thing - I also
>think that the ability to admit when someone has got something wrong, or
>didn't get the facts quite right is part of it. I haven't seen any evidence
>that he does this....

And exactly where has any high-end advocate EVER admitted they were wrong about
any claim? All they ever do is reject suggestions of experiments to show the
claims are even audible and then argue forever about how everybody is
mindlessly discounting their reports.

There's a word for that, of which, I'm sure you all know. The rest of us simply
restrain ourselves to acoustically verifyable differences.
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 3:46:22 AM

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

Nousaine <nousaine@aol.com> wrote:
> B&D bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> >On 12/8/04 10:10 PM, in article cp8fng08le@news2.newsguy.com, "Ban"
> ><bansuri@web.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Debunking is really what has to be done. Years of propaganda of myths in so
> >> called high-end mags have conditioned the minds of people interested in
> >> authentic sound reproduction, so that almost everybody has adopted one or
> >> the other (myth) into his belief system.
> >
> >While I would agree that real debunking is sometimes a good thing - I also
> >think that the ability to admit when someone has got something wrong, or
> >didn't get the facts quite right is part of it. I haven't seen any evidence
> >that he does this....

> And exactly where has any high-end advocate EVER admitted they were wrong about
> any claim?

Tellig and Armor-All -- but I think there, the admission was that
the stuff would damage your CDs; not sure he ever said it didn't
improve the sound.

I note that now he's touting an off-the-shelf Sony discman as having
amazing sound, like he did the Radio Shack portable years ago.
</me shakes head>



--
-S
Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere.
!