Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The little magazines

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 5:43:22 AM

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

Bert Whyte used to contemptuously refer to Stereophile and TAS as the
little magazines. However most cognoscenti wpuld agree that they are
now the "largest" mags left for the serious audiophile. How is it that
stereophile alone absorbs all the flak about what is wrong in audio
publishing. TAS doessn't show on the radar screen at all. Why is this?
Is TAS no longer relevant to the bulk of contempary audio discussion?
Or is it that they are spot on in all their reviews, comments, focus
etc.,

ANyone care to comment?

More about : magazines

Anonymous
December 17, 2004 6:13:41 AM

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

On 16 Dec 2004 02:43:22 GMT, erigby@batelnet.bs wrote:

>Bert Whyte used to contemptuously refer to Stereophile and TAS as the
>little magazines. However most cognoscenti wpuld agree that they are
>now the "largest" mags left for the serious audiophile. How is it that
>stereophile alone absorbs all the flak about what is wrong in audio
>publishing. TAS doessn't show on the radar screen at all. Why is this?
>Is TAS no longer relevant to the bulk of contempary audio discussion?
>Or is it that they are spot on in all their reviews, comments, focus
>etc.,

It's because TAS always was a joke. Nobody takes seriously anything
said by that magazine or its 'tweako' reviewers, but people expect
something better of Stereophile, with its pseudoscientific inclusion
of measurements in most of its tests. There is of course nothing much
to choose between say Michael Fremer and the TAS gang.

It is however unfortunate that Stereophile's editor has proven to be
lacing in intestinal fortitude when it comes to backing up his
reviewers comments, I suspect that things would be different at TAS!
OTOH, it wouldn't even be worth asking the question at TAS vis-a-vis
blind testing. We had perhaps hoped that the measurement-biased
Stereophile would be more honest, but there y'go...............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 7:48:22 AM

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

erigby@batelnet.bs wrote:
> How is it that stereophile alone absorbs all the flak about
> what is wrong in audio publishing?

At least as far as the Newsgroups are concerned, I believe it
is due at least in part to the fact that I take to the time to
respond to Stereophile's critics. :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Related resources
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 7:51:53 AM

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

erigby@batelnet.bs wrote:
> Bert Whyte used to contemptuously refer to Stereophile and TAS as the
> little magazines. However most cognoscenti wpuld agree that they are
> now the "largest" mags left for the serious audiophile. How is it
that
> stereophile alone absorbs all the flak about what is wrong in audio
> publishing. TAS doessn't show on the radar screen at all. Why is
this?
> Is TAS no longer relevant to the bulk of contempary audio discussion?
> Or is it that they are spot on in all their reviews, comments, focus
> etc.,
>
> ANyone care to comment?

In the immediate case, Stereophile put itself in harm's way by allowing
one of its writers to take a rather crude potshot at a critic who would
have been better ignored. (I'm not sure why that critic focuses on
Stereophile rather than TAS, but I suspect it has to do with market
share. You get more attention attacking the biggest, and attention
seems to be a primary motivation in this case.)

The editor of Stereophile has exacerbated this by participating in
online discussions, here and elsewhere. That's to his credit, I
suppose, but it has kept the debate alive.

Finally, it should be noted that Stereophile, while a proponent of
high-end voodoo, is edited by someone with an engineering background
(whereas TAS is edited by a man who only impersonates an engineer). And
while promoting all that voodoo, Stereophile also presents its readers
with actual measurements and technical data regarding the non-voodoo
slice of the high-end world. Its refusal to subject the voodoo to the
same technical standards is pure hypocrisy, and nothing generates heat
like hypocrisy.

bob
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 7:52:20 AM

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

<erigby@batelnet.bs> wrote in message
news:cpqsoa02ic5@news4.newsguy.com...
> Bert Whyte used to contemptuously refer to Stereophile and TAS as
the
> little magazines. However most cognoscenti wpuld agree that they are
> now the "largest" mags left for the serious audiophile. How is it
that
> stereophile alone absorbs all the flak about what is wrong in audio
> publishing. TAS doessn't show on the radar screen at all. Why is
this?
> Is TAS no longer relevant to the bulk of contempary audio
discussion?
> Or is it that they are spot on in all their reviews, comments, focus
> etc.,
>
> ANyone care to comment?

In my case, Stereophile is cheaper and has more information in it. I
regard that as a good reason to buy the one and not the other. It
also happens to be that I have a higher regard for John Atkinson than
I do for the fella at Absolute Sound. Both magazines have their
collection of kooks*, but that seems to be all there is at TAS, where
none of the BS is leavened by actual measurements.

*I use the word "kooks" as a term of mild endearment.

Norm Strong
December 18, 2004 12:30:10 AM

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

> On 16 Dec 2004 02:43:22 GMT, erigby@batelnet.bs wrote:
>
>
>>Bert Whyte used to contemptuously refer to Stereophile and TAS as the
>>little magazines. However most cognoscenti wpuld agree that they are
>>now the "largest" mags left for the serious audiophile. How is it that
>>stereophile alone absorbs all the flak about what is wrong in audio
>>publishing. TAS doessn't show on the radar screen at all. Why is this?
>>Is TAS no longer relevant to the bulk of contempary audio discussion?


I think when TAS first came out there was some reason to read it. Back
in those days there WERE some really bad components. Also, everything
was electro-mechanical and a potential source of "difference" in the
sound department.

But, as Hunter Thompson once remarked, "when things turn weird the weird
turn pro," and soon TAS turned really weird. I remember reading a
reviewer named Enid Lumley (sp?) once. She was doing all kinds of
bizarre things to her listening room in order to damp out mysterious
entities unknown to anyone. I thought it was Harry with a sense of
humor writing under a pseudonym and making fun of his own style in a
kind of parody. But I was told that this was meant to be "serious"
reviewing. From that point on I pretty much stopped reading the
magazine. Perhaps I was told wrong?

Every now and then I encounter a copy at a local newsstand; I may
browse. On a positive note I can report that TAS sometimes contains
pretty pictures of gear I'd never buy.

michael
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 12:32:52 AM

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

<Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:cptoem018h9@news3.newsguy.com...
> erigby@batelnet.bs wrote:
> > How is it that stereophile alone absorbs all the flak about
> > what is wrong in audio publishing?
>
> At least as far as the Newsgroups are concerned, I believe it
> is due at least in part to the fact that I take to the time to
> respond to Stereophile's critics. :-)
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

Not only that, John, but you also have a critic in Nousaine who periodically
fans the flames. Harry Pearson used to occasionally lurk here (may be still
does) but does not participate, and since most objectivists here dismiss the
magazine (their mistake, despite some egregious errors of judgment from time
to time) there is no controversy .... it is one hand clapping in the
wilderness.

My hat is off to you for taking the time to confront and stand your ground.
From one who does the same, I know you can learn from the exchanges and only
hope that those with differing positions can also learn from them (although
in my despairing moments I doubt it. It is difficult to do when you are
convinced you have a lock on "the truth".)
December 18, 2004 6:00:26 AM

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

"normanstrong" <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote in
message news:cptom4018ms@news3.newsguy.com...
<snip>
> In my case, Stereophile is cheaper and has more
> information in it. I
> regard that as a good reason to buy the one and not
> the other. It
> also happens to be that I have a higher regard for
> John Atkinson than
> I do for the fella at Absolute Sound. Both
> magazines have their
> collection of kooks*, but that seems to be all there
> is at TAS, where
> none of the BS is leavened by actual measurements.
>
> *I use the word "kooks" as a term of mild endearment.

A little bio on two of the "non-kooks" who regularly
write for TAS:

_Robert E. Greene_: Professor of Mathematics at UCLA,
also teaches an honors course in acoustics and
psychoacoustics. Violin instructor (taught Russell
Crowe for the movie Master and Commander).

_Anthony H. Cordesman_: Professor of National Security
Studies at Georgetown University. Served as Assistant
for National Security to Senator John McCain, and in
senior positions in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, the State Department, the Department of
Energy, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency. And is known to a wider audience as Tony
Cordesman, military analyst for ABC News (been seeing a
lot of him lately ;^).

Regards,
Tip
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 6:03:11 AM

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

michael <pm279@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On 16 Dec 2004 02:43:22 GMT, erigby@batelnet.bs wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Bert Whyte used to contemptuously refer to Stereophile and TAS as the
> >>little magazines. However most cognoscenti wpuld agree that they are
> >>now the "largest" mags left for the serious audiophile. How is it that
> >>stereophile alone absorbs all the flak about what is wrong in audio
> >>publishing. TAS doessn't show on the radar screen at all. Why is this?
> >>Is TAS no longer relevant to the bulk of contempary audio discussion?


> I think when TAS first came out there was some reason to read it. Back
> in those days there WERE some really bad components. Also, everything
> was electro-mechanical and a potential source of "difference" in the
> sound department.

> But, as Hunter Thompson once remarked, "when things turn weird the weird
> turn pro," and soon TAS turned really weird. I remember reading a
> reviewer named Enid Lumley (sp?) once. She was doing all kinds of
> bizarre things to her listening room in order to damp out mysterious
> entities unknown to anyone. I thought it was Harry with a sense of
> humor writing under a pseudonym and making fun of his own style in a
> kind of parody. But I was told that this was meant to be "serious"
> reviewing. From that point on I pretty much stopped reading the
> magazine. Perhaps I was told wrong?

If Enid is the lady who advised the removal of any and all metal
objects from the listening room and their replacement, if necessary,
with wood, then I do recall that it was meant in
all seriousness.

TAS is still *seriously* off the reality-scale.
I had forgotten just how wacky its alternate world is
until I delved into their current issue.
The one bright light of sanity there was a roundtable discussion where
Dave Wilson of WATT speaker fame made mincemeat of the bizarre
beliefs of fellow participant Ivor whatsisname of Linn (who
came off as a pompous, ignorant ass, IMO), and
trashed Mark Levinson's patently ridiculous claim about
the physiological danger of PCM.



--
-S
Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere.
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 6:59:34 PM

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

On 17 Dec 2004 21:32:52 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:

><Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:cptoem018h9@news3.newsguy.com...
>> erigby@batelnet.bs wrote:
>> > How is it that stereophile alone absorbs all the flak about
>> > what is wrong in audio publishing?
>>
>> At least as far as the Newsgroups are concerned, I believe it
>> is due at least in part to the fact that I take to the time to
>> respond to Stereophile's critics. :-)
>> John Atkinson
>> Editor, Stereophile
>
>Not only that, John, but you also have a critic in Nousaine who periodically
>fans the flames. Harry Pearson used to occasionally lurk here (may be still
>does) but does not participate, and since most objectivists here dismiss the
>magazine (their mistake, despite some egregious errors of judgment from time
>to time) there is no controversy .... it is one hand clapping in the
>wilderness.
>
>My hat is off to you for taking the time to confront and stand your ground.
>From one who does the same, I know you can learn from the exchanges and only
>hope that those with differing positions can also learn from them (although
>in my despairing moments I doubt it. It is difficult to do when you are
>convinced you have a lock on "the truth".)

Trouble is that he doesn't seem to have a lock on *anything*, and will
not make *any* statement regarding the audibility of items promoted
vigorously in the Stereophile RCL, adide from a stream of eenials that
it's anything to do with him, he's only the editor(!). You call that
'standing your ground', I call it avoiding your responsibility.

Of course, JA does have a lock on the truth - obviously, he *knows*
that all that garbage in the RCL about cables and power amps is utter
nonsense, but no way will he say so in a public forum. Hence, he's
reduced to ducking the issue, and there's no way anyone is ever going
to get him to stand up and try to *prove* his magazine's case -
because he already knows that the result would be the public
humiliation of his 'Golden Ear' reviewers.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 6:56:07 PM

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

Harry Lavo wrote:

><Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:cptoem018h9@news3.newsguy.com...
>
>
>>erigby@batelnet.bs wrote:
>>
>>
>>>How is it that stereophile alone absorbs all the flak about
>>>what is wrong in audio publishing?
>>>
>>>
>>At least as far as the Newsgroups are concerned, I believe it
>>is due at least in part to the fact that I take to the time to
>>respond to Stereophile's critics. :-)
>>John Atkinson
>>Editor, Stereophile
>>
>>
>
>Not only that, John, but you also have a critic in Nousaine who periodically
>fans the flames. Harry Pearson used to occasionally lurk here (may be still
>does) but does not participate, and since most objectivists here dismiss the
>magazine (their mistake, despite some egregious errors of judgment from time
>to time) there is no controversy .... it is one hand clapping in the
>wilderness.

Ya know... asking someone to stand behind their claims in the media with
REAL Facts and data (after all, these magazines DO indeed present their
OPINIONS in the various venues as FACTUAL, rather than OPINION,
notwithstanding the waterfall plots and other pseudo-testing presented
ad nauseum to somehow validate their "expertise") is not really asking
too much... if Stereophile and TAS (among others) want to be reduced to
the level of Nicolodeon magazine and PC Gamer, that's great.. that's
about the level of entertainment I get from them when I buy them once a
year on vacation for toilet reading.

>My hat is off to you for taking the time to confront and stand your ground.
>From one who does the same, I know you can learn from the exchanges and only
>hope that those with differing positions can also learn from them (although
>in my despairing moments I doubt it. It is difficult to do when you are
>convinced you have a lock on "the truth".)

I don't think the "objectivists", which you and others so pejoratively
disdain, proclaim any such "truth"; au contraire, they merely insist on
independent, unbiased validation of wild claims of the supernatural,
paranormal "golden ear" cause/effect phenomena bantied about as the holy
grail (and justification for ridiculous pricing structures) so
prevalent in the "high end" of audio. It's curious that, more often than
not, ad hominen attacks originate from the "believers" aginst the
"objectivists. Of course, should "Stereophile Editor" proclaim such a
position, his advertising revenue would dry up. Simple economics is the
answer.

John L.
Auplater
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 8:45:48 PM

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

On 12/19/04 10:56 AM, in article cq48an020de@news2.newsguy.com, "John A.
Lichtenberger" <auplater@alltel.net> wrote:

> Harry Lavo wrote:
>
>> <Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
>> news:cptoem018h9@news3.newsguy.com...
>>
>>
>>> erigby@batelnet.bs wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> How is it that stereophile alone absorbs all the flak about
>>>> what is wrong in audio publishing?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> At least as far as the Newsgroups are concerned, I believe it
>>> is due at least in part to the fact that I take to the time to
>>> respond to Stereophile's critics. :-)
>>> John Atkinson
>>> Editor, Stereophile
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Not only that, John, but you also have a critic in Nousaine who periodically
>> fans the flames. Harry Pearson used to occasionally lurk here (may be still
>> does) but does not participate, and since most objectivists here dismiss the
>> magazine (their mistake, despite some egregious errors of judgment from time
>> to time) there is no controversy .... it is one hand clapping in the
>> wilderness.
>
> Ya know... asking someone to stand behind their claims in the media with
> REAL Facts and data (after all, these magazines DO indeed present their
> OPINIONS in the various venues as FACTUAL, rather than OPINION,

In the same way I might say: "I ate at Carl's Jr. and the hamburgers tasted
bad." I am stating it as a fact - even though you might like them just
fine. I have neither betrayed journalistic trust, nor have I been deceptive
in the least.

So what, if you haven't figured out it is an opinion, then I have an
excellent beachfront property opportunity in Arizona for you to consider.

> notwithstanding the waterfall plots and other pseudo-testing presented
> ad nauseum to somehow validate their "expertise") is not really asking
> too much... if Stereophile and TAS (among others) want to be reduced to
> the level of Nicolodeon magazine and PC Gamer, that's great.. that's
> about the level of entertainment I get from them when I buy them once a
> year on vacation for toilet reading.

TAS does not perform measurements on the equipment they review - part of
their charter is to be nearly 100% subjective in the reviews.

Stereophile performs some measurements on the equipment in addition to a
subjective review.

Again - so what? If you feel that their methodology is in error to the
point of leading someone astray if they are trying to figure out if a piece
of gear - you should feel free to get a piece of that gear into a testing
laboratory and perform tests to your hearts content and write your own
reviews in a magazine.

>> My hat is off to you for taking the time to confront and stand your ground.
>> From one who does the same, I know you can learn from the exchanges and only
>> hope that those with differing positions can also learn from them (although
>> in my despairing moments I doubt it. It is difficult to do when you are
>> convinced you have a lock on "the truth".)
>
> I don't think the "objectivists", which you and others so pejoratively
> disdain, proclaim any such "truth"; au contraire, they merely insist on
> independent, unbiased validation of wild claims of the supernatural,
> paranormal "golden ear" cause/effect phenomena bantied about as the holy
> grail (and justification for ridiculous pricing structures) so
> prevalent in the "high end" of audio. It's curious that, more often than
> not, ad hominen attacks originate from the "believers" aginst the
> "objectivists. Of course, should "Stereophile Editor" proclaim such a
> position, his advertising revenue would dry up. Simple economics is the
> answer.

Ah, but there is so much more than that here - it isn't a mere and humble
quest for truth. They aren't nearly as objective on this NG as their
philosophy states.

While they claim that so-called "subjectivists" are biased to "hear"
differences where there are none, there is no admission that there seems to
be a bias to NOT hear a difference where one might exist. The ABX and DBT
might be able to proof against the former bias, but won't help one bit with
the latter.

There ain't a fountain of truth at the disposal of either warring camps,
folks.
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 3:23:02 AM

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

B&D wrote:
>
> While they claim that so-called "subjectivists" are biased to "hear"
> differences where there are none, there is no admission that there
seems to
> be a bias to NOT hear a difference where one might exist.

Poppycock. There is published experimental data that shows that all
people (not just "subjectivists") are biased toward hearing
differences. See any psychoacoustics textbook. Where is your evidence
that a bias in the opposite direction exists? (And do you understand
yet what "bias" in this context means? See my previous response to
you.)

> The ABX and DBT
> might be able to proof against the former bias, but won't help one
bit with
> the latter.
>
> There ain't a fountain of truth at the disposal of either warring
camps,
> folks.

Spoken like a pot to a kettle. See above.

bob
December 20, 2004 3:31:37 AM

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

B&D wrote:
> On 12/19/04 10:56 AM, in article cq48an020de@news2.newsguy.com, "John A.
> Lichtenberger" <auplater@alltel.net> wrote:
>
>> Harry Lavo wrote:
>>
>>> <Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
>>> news:cptoem018h9@news3.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>> erigby@batelnet.bs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> How is it that stereophile alone absorbs all the flak about
>>>>> what is wrong in audio publishing?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> At least as far as the Newsgroups are concerned, I believe it
>>>> is due at least in part to the fact that I take to the time to
>>>> respond to Stereophile's critics. :-)
>>>> John Atkinson
>>>> Editor, Stereophile
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not only that, John, but you also have a critic in Nousaine who periodically
>>> fans the flames. Harry Pearson used to occasionally lurk here (may be still
>>> does) but does not participate, and since most objectivists here dismiss the
>>> magazine (their mistake, despite some egregious errors of judgment from time
>>> to time) there is no controversy .... it is one hand clapping in the
>>> wilderness.
>>
>> Ya know... asking someone to stand behind their claims in the media with
>> REAL Facts and data (after all, these magazines DO indeed present their
>> OPINIONS in the various venues as FACTUAL, rather than OPINION,
>
> In the same way I might say: "I ate at Carl's Jr. and the hamburgers tasted
> bad." I am stating it as a fact - even though you might like them just
> fine. I have neither betrayed journalistic trust, nor have I been deceptive
> in the least.

Would any restaurant review magazine publish that opinion of yours?
Would any editior of such magazines stand by your claim?

You truly don't see the difference? Amazing.

>
> So what, if you haven't figured out it is an opinion, then I have an
> excellent beachfront property opportunity in Arizona for you to consider.

More amazement, if you can't see the difference. Also, you just insulted
Stereophile by implying that their reviewers are con artists.

(snip)

>> answer.
>
> Ah, but there is so much more than that here - it isn't a mere and humble
> quest for truth. They aren't nearly as objective on this NG as their
> philosophy states.
>
> While they claim that so-called "subjectivists" are biased to "hear"
> differences where there are none, there is no admission that there seems to
> be a bias to NOT hear a difference where one might exist. The ABX and DBT
> might be able to proof against the former bias, but won't help one bit with
> the latter.

You still seem to be missing the point. That's why the so-called
"objectivists" always ask the subjectivists and the believers to take
the DBT's, since there would be no bias to NOT hear the difference! Hey,
some of us even put up our own money to motivate them.
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 3:35:45 AM

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

B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On 12/19/04 10:56 AM, in article cq48an020de@news2.newsguy.com, "John A.

> While they claim that so-called "subjectivists" are biased to "hear"
> differences where there are none, there is no admission that there seems to
> be a bias to NOT hear a difference where one might exist. The ABX and DBT
> might be able to proof against the former bias, but won't help one bit with
> the latter.


First, it isn;t just 'subjectivbists' who are biased to hear differecnce;
it's humans, period.

Seocnd, are you seriously suggesting that when self-proclaimed
*audiophiles* who *already claim to hear the difference -- the population
from which the *great majority* of published
blind testees has been drawn (most recent example: he power cord
DBT conducted by Secrets -- are subjected to controlled comparisons,
that the result is
due to bias *not* to hear difference?



--

-S
If you're a nut and knock on enough doors, eventually someone will open one,
look at you and say, Messiah, we have waited for your arrival.
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 3:36:32 AM

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

"While they claim that so-called "subjectivists" are biased to "hear"
differences where there are none, there is no admission that there seems
to
be a bias to NOT hear a difference where one might exist. The ABX and DBT
might be able to proof against the former bias, but won't help one bit
with
the latter.

There ain't a fountain of truth at the disposal of either warring camps,
folks."

Testing shows that people are biased to percieve difference when given the
same stimulus, such as a sound event. Bias here only means potential and
not an unfounded opinion as in common language. "Truth" in the example of
using listening testing alone to detect differences is relative to the
established benchmark. In science we never get absolute "truth" such as
in philosophy, we hold some conclusion as valid until demonstrated false.
In that case the "truth" statement is irrelevant unless meaning that both
the conclusions of the subjective enterprise and the benchmark based
enterprise both are confronted by loads of evidence showing both to be
false. Only the benchmark view has evidence that is repeatable under
controled settings in which such evidence can be produced. Considering
that the subjective entrprise refuses to participate in evidence gathering
their conclusions are neither repeatable nor can we establish evidence by
which to refute them; which is of course the point.
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 6:55:39 AM

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

On 12/19/04 7:31 PM, in article cq56h9013ls@news1.newsguy.com, "Chung"
<chunglau@covad.net> wrote:

>>> Ya know... asking someone to stand behind their claims in the media with
>>> REAL Facts and data (after all, these magazines DO indeed present their
>>> OPINIONS in the various venues as FACTUAL, rather than OPINION,
>>
>> In the same way I might say: "I ate at Carl's Jr. and the hamburgers tasted
>> bad." I am stating it as a fact - even though you might like them just
>> fine. I have neither betrayed journalistic trust, nor have I been deceptive
>> in the least.
>
> Would any restaurant review magazine publish that opinion of yours?
> Would any editior of such magazines stand by your claim?
>
> You truly don't see the difference? Amazing.

If I had gone to review the restaurant and had more to write 10 words,
absolutely.

There is no basic difference. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 3:43:58 AM

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

>From: Chung chunglau@covad.net
>Date: 12/19/2004 4:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cq56h9013ls@news1.newsguy.com>
>
>B&D wrote:
>> On 12/19/04 10:56 AM, in article cq48an020de@news2.newsguy.com, "John A.
>> Lichtenberger" <auplater@alltel.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Harry Lavo wrote:
>>>
>>>> <Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:cptoem018h9@news3.newsguy.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> erigby@batelnet.bs wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> How is it that stereophile alone absorbs all the flak about
>>>>>> what is wrong in audio publishing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> At least as far as the Newsgroups are concerned, I believe it
>>>>> is due at least in part to the fact that I take to the time to
>>>>> respond to Stereophile's critics. :-)
>>>>> John Atkinson
>>>>> Editor, Stereophile
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not only that, John, but you also have a critic in Nousaine who
>periodically
>>>> fans the flames. Harry Pearson used to occasionally lurk here (may be
>still
>>>> does) but does not participate, and since most objectivists here dismiss
>the
>>>> magazine (their mistake, despite some egregious errors of judgment from
>time
>>>> to time) there is no controversy .... it is one hand clapping in the
>>>> wilderness.
>>>
>>> Ya know... asking someone to stand behind their claims in the media with
>>> REAL Facts and data (after all, these magazines DO indeed present their
>>> OPINIONS in the various venues as FACTUAL, rather than OPINION,
>>
>> In the same way I might say: "I ate at Carl's Jr. and the hamburgers
>tasted
>> bad." I am stating it as a fact - even though you might like them just
>> fine. I have neither betrayed journalistic trust, nor have I been
>deceptive
>> in the least.
>
>Would any restaurant review magazine publish that opinion of yours?

If the writing were more entertaining and he were an established food critic I
would think so.


>Would any editior of such magazines stand by your claim?

Not themselves unless they ate said hamburgers and agreed. They would stand
behind him that his opinion is as stated though.


>
>You truly don't see the difference? Amazing.
>
>>
>> So what, if you haven't figured out it is an opinion, then I have an
>> excellent beachfront property opportunity in Arizona for you to consider.
>
>More amazement, if you can't see the difference. Also, you just insulted
>Stereophile by implying that their reviewers are con artists.
>
>(snip)
>
>>> answer.
>>
>> Ah, but there is so much more than that here - it isn't a mere and humble
>> quest for truth. They aren't nearly as objective on this NG as their
>> philosophy states.
>>
>> While they claim that so-called "subjectivists" are biased to "hear"
>> differences where there are none, there is no admission that there seems to
>> be a bias to NOT hear a difference where one might exist. The ABX and DBT
>> might be able to proof against the former bias, but won't help one bit with
>> the latter.
>
>You still seem to be missing the point. That's why the so-called
>"objectivists" always ask the subjectivists and the believers to take
>the DBT's, since there would be no bias to NOT hear the difference! Hey,
>some of us even put up our own money to motivate them.
>

Yeah, I'm still waiting for Tom's proposal on test protocols for a 1,001 bet he
made with me over the audibility of vibration control devices. I think he'll
never follow through. He think he is trying to quietly back out of that bet.
December 21, 2004 3:45:18 AM

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

B&D wrote:

> On 12/19/04 7:31 PM, in article cq56h9013ls@news1.newsguy.com, "Chung"
> <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Ya know... asking someone to stand behind their claims in the media with
>>>> REAL Facts and data (after all, these magazines DO indeed present their
>>>> OPINIONS in the various venues as FACTUAL, rather than OPINION,
>>>
>>> In the same way I might say: "I ate at Carl's Jr. and the hamburgers tasted
>>> bad." I am stating it as a fact - even though you might like them just
>>> fine. I have neither betrayed journalistic trust, nor have I been deceptive
>>> in the least.
>>
>> Would any restaurant review magazine publish that opinion of yours?
>> Would any editior of such magazines stand by your claim?
>>
>> You truly don't see the difference? Amazing.
>
> If I had gone to review the restaurant and had more to write 10 words,
> absolutely.
>
> There is no basic difference. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

Stereophile is a leading magazine on hi-fi. People pay money to read it.
There is some level of responsibility on Stereophile's part to insure
that its reviews are done fairly and correctly, and that those reviews
can stand up to some degree of scrutiny. Some readers actually make
their buying decisions based on those reviews and therefore implicitly
place trust in that magazine. You, with all due respect, on the other
hand, have no credibility on the subject of restaurant testing. Your
opinion does not carry any weight. It's worth absolutely nothing.

I notice once more that you are belittling Stereophile by making an
analogy between your Carl Jr. hamburger review and the professional
Stereophile reviews. For someone who appears to be a supporter of
Stereophile, you sure give them very little respect.
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 3:49:54 AM

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

> >
> > While they claim that so-called "subjectivists" are biased to
"hear"
> > differences where there are none, there is no admission that there
> seems to
> > be a bias to NOT hear a difference where one might exist.

As I pointed out once before, this is a risky tack. You would
certainly feel embarrassed if you were the only one that couldn't hear
a difference that every other subject heard.

Norm Strong
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 3:56:57 AM

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

>From: Chung chunglau@covad.net
>Date: 12/20/2004 4:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cq7rmu02005@news1.newsguy.com>
>
>B&D wrote:
>
>> On 12/19/04 7:31 PM, in article cq56h9013ls@news1.newsguy.com, "Chung"
>> <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Ya know... asking someone to stand behind their claims in the media with
>>>>> REAL Facts and data (after all, these magazines DO indeed present their
>>>>> OPINIONS in the various venues as FACTUAL, rather than OPINION,
>>>>
>>>> In the same way I might say: "I ate at Carl's Jr. and the hamburgers
>tasted
>>>> bad." I am stating it as a fact - even though you might like them just
>>>> fine. I have neither betrayed journalistic trust, nor have I been
>deceptive
>>>> in the least.
>>>
>>> Would any restaurant review magazine publish that opinion of yours?
>>> Would any editior of such magazines stand by your claim?
>>>
>>> You truly don't see the difference? Amazing.
>>
>> If I had gone to review the restaurant and had more to write 10 words,
>> absolutely.
>>
>> There is no basic difference. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
>
>Stereophile is a leading magazine on hi-fi. People pay money to read it.

So? Is anyone forcing anyone to buy Stereophile?



>There is some level of responsibility on Stereophile's part to insure
>that its reviews are done fairly and correctly, and that those reviews
>can stand up to some degree of scrutiny.

Well they are responsible to conduct reviews as they say they claim to conduct
reviews. I see no reason to believe they don't. They are not obligated to
conduct reviews the way *you* believe they ought to.


Some readers actually make
>their buying decisions based on those reviews and therefore implicitly
>place trust in that magazine.

That is there choice, an odd one at that given the fact that Stereophile
recomends potential buyers audition any equipment themselves before buying. If
readers buy equipment based on Stereophile reviews without an audition they
aren't even following Stereophile's directions. They need to read more
carefully or face the possible consequences.

You, with all due respect, on the other
>hand, have no credibility on the subject of restaurant testing.

That's a rather bold, insulting and presumptuous claim. For all you know he may
quite the expert on food.

Your
>opinion does not carry any weight.

Balony, it at least carries the wieght of any layman who has actually tried a
Carl's Jr. Hamburger.

It's worth absolutely nothing.

A rather odd claim. Sorry you have zero faith in your fellow burger eater.


>
>I notice once more that you are belittling Stereophile by making an
>analogy between your Carl Jr. hamburger review and the professional
>Stereophile reviews.

How is that belittling? The analogy makes perfect sense to me. Someone tries
something and gives their opinion on the quality. I don't think there were any
deeper implications in that analogy.


For someone who appears to be a supporter of
>Stereophile, you sure give them very little respect.


Are you sure you aren't reading into things here? Are you sure the disrespect
for Stereophile isn't from you?
December 23, 2004 5:58:21 AM

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

S888Wheel wrote:
>>From: Chung chunglau@covad.net
>>Date: 12/20/2004 4:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <cq7rmu02005@news1.newsguy.com>
>>
>>B&D wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/19/04 7:31 PM, in article cq56h9013ls@news1.newsguy.com, "Chung"
>>> <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Ya know... asking someone to stand behind their claims in the media with
>>>>>> REAL Facts and data (after all, these magazines DO indeed present their
>>>>>> OPINIONS in the various venues as FACTUAL, rather than OPINION,
>>>>>
>>>>> In the same way I might say: "I ate at Carl's Jr. and the hamburgers
>>tasted
>>>>> bad." I am stating it as a fact - even though you might like them just
>>>>> fine. I have neither betrayed journalistic trust, nor have I been
>>deceptive
>>>>> in the least.
>>>>
>>>> Would any restaurant review magazine publish that opinion of yours?
>>>> Would any editior of such magazines stand by your claim?
>>>>
>>>> You truly don't see the difference? Amazing.
>>>
>>> If I had gone to review the restaurant and had more to write 10 words,
>>> absolutely.
>>>
>>> There is no basic difference. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
>>
>>Stereophile is a leading magazine on hi-fi. People pay money to read it.
>
> So? Is anyone forcing anyone to buy Stereophile?

You're missing the point. People pay to read Stereophile. Stereophile's
recommendations should be worth more than a hamburger review from a
random person off the street, so to speak. Wonder why this is a
difficult point for you to grasp...

>
>
>
>>There is some level of responsibility on Stereophile's part to insure
>>that its reviews are done fairly and correctly, and that those reviews
>>can stand up to some degree of scrutiny.
>
> Well they are responsible to conduct reviews as they say they claim to conduct
> reviews. I see no reason to believe they don't. They are not obligated to
> conduct reviews the way *you* believe they ought to.

You see the difference here, right? B&D's review of Carl's Junior
hamburgers has no implicit claim at all as to how that review is
conducted. In fact, B&D carries no responsibility for his hamburger
review at all. Surely you can see the difference between his hamburger
review and the leading h-fi magazine's reviews, right?

>
>
> Some readers actually make
>>their buying decisions based on those reviews and therefore implicitly
>>place trust in that magazine.
>
> That is there choice, an odd one at that given the fact that Stereophile
> recomends potential buyers audition any equipment themselves before buying. If
> readers buy equipment based on Stereophile reviews without an audition they
> aren't even following Stereophile's directions. They need to read more
> carefully or face the possible consequences.

Sure, that's also what I recommend. In fact, I suggest not paying any
attention to Stereophile's subjective reviews at all. But some of their
readers are affected by those reviews as far as their buying decisions
are concerned. Of course, Stereophile does not have any legal
responsibility, but there is an implicit trust by some of their readers
on Stereophile's recommendations. For example, being on the RCl is
supposedly an indication of superb quality, and some Stereophile readers
use that list as a buying guide.

>
> You, with all due respect, on the other
>>hand, have no credibility on the subject of restaurant testing.
>
> That's a rather bold, insulting and presumptuous claim. For all you know he may
> quite the expert on food.

Can you explain why B&D has any credibility on restauant reviews, given
his lack of presented credentials to date on this forum? Where is the
insult in what I said?

FWIW, I am sure that I have no credibility on hamburger reviews as far
as BD's concerned. And that's the way it should be.

>
> Your
>>opinion does not carry any weight.
>
> Balony, it at least carries the wieght of any layman who has actually tried a
> Carl's Jr. Hamburger.

OK, his opinion carries as much weight as any layman's :)  . But I am
not taking his review seriously at all :)  , and I don't think too many
people would either. You think a Stereophile's review carries the same
weight as any layman's?

>
> It's worth absolutely nothing.
>
> A rather odd claim. Sorry you have zero faith in your fellow burger eater.
>
>

I am happy that you have faith in BD's hamburger review :)  . Exactly
how much faith do you have? Based on what?


>>
>>I notice once more that you are belittling Stereophile by making an
>>analogy between your Carl Jr. hamburger review and the professional
>>Stereophile reviews.
>
> How is that belittling? The analogy makes perfect sense to me. Someone tries
> something and gives their opinion on the quality. I don't think there were any
> deeper implications in that analogy.

I'll spell it out for you. He was saying that Stereophile's review has
the same credibility as his hamburger reviews. Would anyone pay for his
hamburger reviews?

>
>
> For someone who appears to be a supporter of
>>Stereophile, you sure give them very little respect.
>
>
> Are you sure you aren't reading into things here? Are you sure the disrespect
> for Stereophile isn't from you?

Oh yes, I am sure.
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 10:03:29 PM

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

>From: chung chunglau@covad.net
>Date: 12/22/2004 6:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cqdc8d02609@news3.newsguy.com>
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>>From: Chung chunglau@covad.net
>>>Date: 12/20/2004 4:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <cq7rmu02005@news1.newsguy.com>
>>>
>>>B&D wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/19/04 7:31 PM, in article cq56h9013ls@news1.newsguy.com, "Chung"
>>>> <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Ya know... asking someone to stand behind their claims in the media
>with
>>>>>>> REAL Facts and data (after all, these magazines DO indeed present
>their
>>>>>>> OPINIONS in the various venues as FACTUAL, rather than OPINION,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the same way I might say: "I ate at Carl's Jr. and the hamburgers
>>>tasted
>>>>>> bad." I am stating it as a fact - even though you might like them just
>>>>>> fine. I have neither betrayed journalistic trust, nor have I been
>>>deceptive
>>>>>> in the least.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would any restaurant review magazine publish that opinion of yours?
>>>>> Would any editior of such magazines stand by your claim?
>>>>>
>>>>> You truly don't see the difference? Amazing.
>>>>
>>>> If I had gone to review the restaurant and had more to write 10 words,
>>>> absolutely.
>>>>
>>>> There is no basic difference. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
>>>
>>>Stereophile is a leading magazine on hi-fi. People pay money to read it.
>>
>> So? Is anyone forcing anyone to buy Stereophile?
>
>You're missing the point.

No, I am just disagreeing with it.

People pay to read Stereophile.

People *choose* to pay to read Stereophile.

Stereophile's
>recommendations should be worth more than a hamburger review from a
>random person off the street, so to speak.

You are not the arbitrator of the value of a Stereophile review or a hamburger
review for that matter. You decide for yourself what the valuse is for each and
so does *everybody else.* Both may be of greater value to someone else than you
find them to be for yourself.

Wonder why this is a
>difficult point for you to grasp...

Perhaps you are not used to having others disagree with you.

>
>>
>>
>>
>>>There is some level of responsibility on Stereophile's part to insure
>>>that its reviews are done fairly and correctly, and that those reviews
>>>can stand up to some degree of scrutiny.
>>
>> Well they are responsible to conduct reviews as they say they claim to
>conduct
>> reviews. I see no reason to believe they don't. They are not obligated to
>> conduct reviews the way *you* believe they ought to.
>
>You see the difference here, right? B&D's review of Carl's Junior
>hamburgers has no implicit claim at all as to how that review is
>conducted.

Sure it does. It is implied that he ate at least one and formed a subjective
opinion about it's taste.

In fact, B&D carries no responsibility for his hamburger
>review at all.

No, not if he were to publish it he would carry the responsibility for trying
the burger and honestlt reporting his opinion of it's quality. I suppose off
the cuff personal recomendations are a little bit more lax but no one will give
him the time of day the next time around if they disagreed with him.

Surely you can see the difference between his hamburger
>review and the leading h-fi magazine's reviews, right?

Other than the difference in use, no. I see an obvious difference in reporting
the measurements but frankly one can report the ingredients in a food review if
they chose to.

>
>>
>>
>> Some readers actually make
>>>their buying decisions based on those reviews and therefore implicitly
>>>place trust in that magazine.
>>
>> That is there choice, an odd one at that given the fact that Stereophile
>> recomends potential buyers audition any equipment themselves before buying.
>If
>> readers buy equipment based on Stereophile reviews without an audition they
>> aren't even following Stereophile's directions. They need to read more
>> carefully or face the possible consequences.
>
>Sure, that's also what I recommend. In fact, I suggest not paying any
>attention to Stereophile's subjective reviews at all.

That's fine. I don't see why one should pay no attention to them though. I
think they can offer some idea for a reader as to whether or not the product
might be worthy of an audition.

But some of their
>readers are affected by those reviews as far as their buying decisions
>are concerned.

They may be. Ultimately the buyer has to live with the purchase and decide for
themselves if it was a good one.

Of course, Stereophile does not have any legal
>responsibility, but there is an implicit trust by some of their readers
>on Stereophile's recommendations.

IMO the only implicit trust is that the reviewers are giving honest opinions.

For example, being on the RCl is
>supposedly an indication of superb quality, and some Stereophile readers
>use that list as a buying guide.

If they are using it as anything other than a list of possible options for the
purpose of auditioning they are not using the list as Stereophile recomends it
be used. You cannot hold Stereophile responsible in any way for the readers
failure to use such a guide as it is recomended to be used by the magazine.

>
>>
>> You, with all due respect, on the other
>>>hand, have no credibility on the subject of restaurant testing.
>>
>> That's a rather bold, insulting and presumptuous claim. For all you know he
>may
>> quite the expert on food.
>
>Can you explain why B&D has any credibility on restauant reviews, given
>his lack of presented credentials to date on this forum?

You are asking me to speculate. You claimed he had none. maybe you can explain
how you know he has none and his recomendations are "worthless?"

Where is the
>insult in what I said?

I meant that jokingly.

>
>FWIW, I am sure that I have no credibility on hamburger reviews as far
>as BD's concerned. And that's the way it should be.

He might be keenly interested in your opinion on burgers.

>
>>
>> Your
>>>opinion does not carry any weight.
>>
>> Balony, it at least carries the wieght of any layman who has actually tried
>a
>> Carl's Jr. Hamburger.
>
>OK, his opinion carries as much weight as any layman's :)  . But I am
>not taking his review seriously at all :)  ,

Fair enough. At least you know why.

and I don't think too many
>people would either. You think a Stereophile's review carries the same
>weight as any layman's?

I would say they carry the weight of any audiophile who has tried the equipment
in question.

>
>>
>> It's worth absolutely nothing.
>>
>> A rather odd claim. Sorry you have zero faith in your fellow burger eater.
>>
>>
>
>I am happy that you have faith in BD's hamburger review :)  .

I suspect i have an appropriate amount of faith in it. Which is more than zero.
Of course he could be fibbing. He may not have ever even had one.

Exactly
>how much faith do you have?

How would one quantify such a thing? Some not a lot?

Based on what?

On the trust that he tried the burger and is not terribly unusual in his
preferences for burgers.

>
>
>>>
>>>I notice once more that you are belittling Stereophile by making an
>>>analogy between your Carl Jr. hamburger review and the professional
>>>Stereophile reviews.
>>
>> How is that belittling? The analogy makes perfect sense to me. Someone
>tries
>> something and gives their opinion on the quality. I don't think there were
>any
>> deeper implications in that analogy.
>
>I'll spell it out for you. He was saying that Stereophile's review has
>the same credibility as his hamburger reviews.

he may believe that. Opinions is opinions when it comes to what we like and
don't like.

Would anyone pay for his
>hamburger reviews?

I don't know.

>
>>
>>
>> For someone who appears to be a supporter of
>>>Stereophile, you sure give them very little respect.
>>
>>
>> Are you sure you aren't reading into things here? Are you sure the
>disrespect
>> for Stereophile isn't from you?
>
>Oh yes, I am sure.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 10:05:56 PM

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

On 12/22/04 9:58 PM, in article cqdc8d02609@news3.newsguy.com, "chung"
<chunglau@covad.net> wrote:

>>> There is some level of responsibility on Stereophile's part to insure
>>> that its reviews are done fairly and correctly, and that those reviews
>>> can stand up to some degree of scrutiny.
>>
>> Well they are responsible to conduct reviews as they say they claim to
>> conduct
>> reviews. I see no reason to believe they don't. They are not obligated to
>> conduct reviews the way *you* believe they ought to.
>
> You see the difference here, right? B&D's review of Carl's Junior
> hamburgers has no implicit claim at all as to how that review is
> conducted. In fact, B&D carries no responsibility for his hamburger
> review at all. Surely you can see the difference between his hamburger
> review and the leading h-fi magazine's reviews, right?

Once you sign your name to it - you are responsible for the review accuracy
content and methods. I think you are grasping at straws here - there is
essentially little difference between the reviews.

If it would help your imagination: you can imagine that single sentence was
a summary of a 15 page article showing pictures of the interior of the
restaurant, tasting notes, weighing the burger with a follow up paragraph of
the restaurant management's reaction to my review. I also put in a sentence
on how you need to match the hamburger to your palate.
December 24, 2004 1:10:56 AM

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

B&D wrote:
> On 12/22/04 9:58 PM, in article cqdc8d02609@news3.newsguy.com, "chung"
> <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
>
>>>> There is some level of responsibility on Stereophile's part to insure
>>>> that its reviews are done fairly and correctly, and that those reviews
>>>> can stand up to some degree of scrutiny.
>>>
>>> Well they are responsible to conduct reviews as they say they claim to
>>> conduct
>>> reviews. I see no reason to believe they don't. They are not obligated to
>>> conduct reviews the way *you* believe they ought to.
>>
>> You see the difference here, right? B&D's review of Carl's Junior
>> hamburgers has no implicit claim at all as to how that review is
>> conducted. In fact, B&D carries no responsibility for his hamburger
>> review at all. Surely you can see the difference between his hamburger
>> review and the leading h-fi magazine's reviews, right?
>
> Once you sign your name to it - you are responsible for the review accuracy
> content and methods. I think you are grasping at straws here - there is
> essentially little difference between the reviews.

Let me summarize what you are saying here: B&D's one-sentence review of
the Carl's Jr. hamburger ("it tastes bad") is no different than the
leading hi-fi magazine's review of a piece of audio gear.

Wonder why I said that the you have little respect for Stereophile? :) 
>
> If it would help your imagination: you can imagine that single sentence was
> a summary of a 15 page article showing pictures of the interior of the
> restaurant, tasting notes, weighing the burger with a follow up paragraph of
> the restaurant management's reaction to my review. I also put in a sentence
> on how you need to match the hamburger to your palate.

But you did not provide a 15 page review in a leading restaurant review
magazine with a paid subscription, did you? See the huge difference?
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 5:15:02 AM

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

>From: chung chunglau@covad.net
>Date: 12/23/2004 2:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cqffpg02rci@news3.newsguy.com>
>
>B&D wrote:
>> On 12/22/04 9:58 PM, in article cqdc8d02609@news3.newsguy.com, "chung"
>> <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> There is some level of responsibility on Stereophile's part to insure
>>>>> that its reviews are done fairly and correctly, and that those reviews
>>>>> can stand up to some degree of scrutiny.
>>>>
>>>> Well they are responsible to conduct reviews as they say they claim to
>>>> conduct
>>>> reviews. I see no reason to believe they don't. They are not obligated to
>>>> conduct reviews the way *you* believe they ought to.
>>>
>>> You see the difference here, right? B&D's review of Carl's Junior
>>> hamburgers has no implicit claim at all as to how that review is
>>> conducted. In fact, B&D carries no responsibility for his hamburger
>>> review at all. Surely you can see the difference between his hamburger
>>> review and the leading h-fi magazine's reviews, right?
>>
>> Once you sign your name to it - you are responsible for the review accuracy
>> content and methods. I think you are grasping at straws here - there is
>> essentially little difference between the reviews.
>
>Let me summarize what you are saying here: B&D's one-sentence review of
>the Carl's Jr. hamburger ("it tastes bad") is no different than the
>leading hi-fi magazine's review of a piece of audio gear.

That isn't a sumary it is simply a mischaracterization. He didn't say "no
difference" he said "essentially little difference" he then went on to note
what the differences were. basically size and extensiveness of the two reviews.

>
>Wonder why I said that the you have little respect for Stereophile? :) 

Not any more. You don't seem to get his point.

>>
>> If it would help your imagination: you can imagine that single sentence was
>> a summary of a 15 page article showing pictures of the interior of the
>> restaurant, tasting notes, weighing the burger with a follow up paragraph
>of
>> the restaurant management's reaction to my review. I also put in a
>sentence
>> on how you need to match the hamburger to your palate.
>
>But you did not provide a 15 page review in a leading restaurant review
>magazine with a paid subscription, did you? See the huge difference?

No, I see the size difference. Essentially they are the same beast. Ocean
liners and small sail boats are both boats. They are quite different in size
but they essentially do the same thing, allow people to travel on the water.
>
>
>
>
>
>
December 24, 2004 7:09:09 PM

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

S888Wheel wrote:
>>From: chung chunglau@covad.net
>>Date: 12/23/2004 2:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <cqffpg02rci@news3.newsguy.com>
>>
>>B&D wrote:
>>> On 12/22/04 9:58 PM, in article cqdc8d02609@news3.newsguy.com, "chung"
>>> <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> There is some level of responsibility on Stereophile's part to insure
>>>>>> that its reviews are done fairly and correctly, and that those reviews
>>>>>> can stand up to some degree of scrutiny.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well they are responsible to conduct reviews as they say they claim to
>>>>> conduct
>>>>> reviews. I see no reason to believe they don't. They are not obligated to
>>>>> conduct reviews the way *you* believe they ought to.
>>>>
>>>> You see the difference here, right? B&D's review of Carl's Junior
>>>> hamburgers has no implicit claim at all as to how that review is
>>>> conducted. In fact, B&D carries no responsibility for his hamburger
>>>> review at all. Surely you can see the difference between his hamburger
>>>> review and the leading h-fi magazine's reviews, right?
>>>
>>> Once you sign your name to it - you are responsible for the review accuracy
>>> content and methods. I think you are grasping at straws here - there is
>>> essentially little difference between the reviews.
>>
>>Let me summarize what you are saying here: B&D's one-sentence review of
>>the Carl's Jr. hamburger ("it tastes bad") is no different than the
>>leading hi-fi magazine's review of a piece of audio gear.
>
> That isn't a sumary it is simply a mischaracterization. He didn't say "no
> difference" he said "essentially little difference" he then went on to note
> what the differences were. basically size and extensiveness of the two reviews.
>

Fair enough. He is saying that there is essentially little difference
between his one sentence review of the Carl's JR. hamburgers ("it tastes
bad) the leading hi-fi magazine's review of audio gear.

Wonder why I said that he has little respect for Stereophile?

>>
>>Wonder why I said that the you have little respect for Stereophile? :) 
>
> Not any more. You don't seem to get his point.
>
>>>
>>> If it would help your imagination: you can imagine that single sentence was
>>> a summary of a 15 page article showing pictures of the interior of the
>>> restaurant, tasting notes, weighing the burger with a follow up paragraph
>>of
>>> the restaurant management's reaction to my review. I also put in a
>>sentence
>>> on how you need to match the hamburger to your palate.
>>
>>But you did not provide a 15 page review in a leading restaurant review
>>magazine with a paid subscription, did you? See the huge difference?
>
> No, I see the size difference. Essentially they are the same beast. Ocean
> liners and small sail boats are both boats. They are quite different in size
> but they essentially do the same thing, allow people to travel on the water.
>>

So according to your logic, a $5 transistor radio and your tubed vinyl
rig are essentially the same beast: they essentially do the same thing,
make sound.

Your comparison has effectively made my point, thanks for the clarification.
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 7:15:04 PM

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

B&D wrote:

>On 12/19/04 10:56 AM, in article cq48an020de@news2.newsguy.com, "John A.
>Lichtenberger" <auplater@alltel.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Harry Lavo wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>><Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
>>>news:cptoem018h9@news3.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>erigby@batelnet.bs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>How is it that stereophile alone absorbs all the flak about
>>>>>what is wrong in audio publishing?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>At least as far as the Newsgroups are concerned, I believe it
>>>>is due at least in part to the fact that I take to the time to
>>>>respond to Stereophile's critics. :-)
>>>>John Atkinson
>>>>Editor, Stereophile
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Not only that, John, but you also have a critic in Nousaine who periodically
>>>fans the flames. Harry Pearson used to occasionally lurk here (may be still
>>>does) but does not participate, and since most objectivists here dismiss the
>>>magazine (their mistake, despite some egregious errors of judgment from time
>>>to time) there is no controversy .... it is one hand clapping in the
>>>wilderness.
>>>
>>>
>>Ya know... asking someone to stand behind their claims in the media with
>>REAL Facts and data (after all, these magazines DO indeed present their
>>OPINIONS in the various venues as FACTUAL, rather than OPINION,
>>
>>
>
>In the same way I might say: "I ate at Carl's Jr. and the hamburgers tasted
>bad." I am stating it as a fact - even though you might like them just
>fine. I have neither betrayed journalistic trust, nor have I been deceptive
>in the least.
>
There's no "betrayal of journalistic trust" implied here. A simple
request of, to be taken seriously by those of us with a a modicum of
scientific curiosity and integrity, (and the credentials to back it up)
supplying supporting documentation and independent verification to
validate opinions presented as fact. You don't have to like it, but
that's how convincing arguments are made for new discoveries, phony
claims are debunked, etc. It's called "peer review". Unfortunately,
Stereopile does not seem interested in entertaining valid criticism of
its stylistic methods, choosing instead to pander to its advertisers
with implied psuedoscience morphed to resemble peer review.

>So what, if you haven't figured out it is an opinion, then I have an
>excellent beachfront property opportunity in Arizona for you to consider.
>
Trust me, I've figured it out. However, apparently to your dismay, I've
also figured out I have a right to post a rebuttal pointing out the
glaring deficiencies in a self-proclaimed "expert periodical" that may
influence others regarding their trust and comprehension of all things
"high end" presented as science, when in fact they are advertising copy
and fluff.

>notwithstanding the waterfall plots and other pseudo-testing presented
>ad nauseum to somehow validate their "expertise") is not really asking
>too much... if Stereophile and TAS (among others) want to be reduced to
>the level of Nicolodeon magazine and PC Gamer, that's great.. that's
>about the level of entertainment I get from them when I buy them once a
>year on vacation for toilet reading.
>
>
>
>TAS does not perform measurements on the equipment they review - part of
>their charter is to be nearly 100% subjective in the reviews.
>
>
never said they did

> Stereophile performs some measurements on the equipment in addition to a

>subjective review.
>
>Again - so what? If you feel that their methodology is in error to the
>point of leading someone astray if they are trying to figure out if a piece
>of gear - you should feel free to get a piece of that gear into a testing
>laboratory and perform tests to your hearts content and write your own
>reviews in a magazine.
>
>
so I shouldn't post to a newsgroup pointing out that what they present
may be flawed and misleading so that others can make judgements of their
own and reach their own conclusions using additional information? Come
on, do you really believe in intercrystalline crossover distortion in
wires due to quark-quark confabulation being resolved by special winding
techniques and magic coating and fabrication techniques, without some
form of external demonstrable validation by those who've studied
materials science for many many decades?
Perhaps that beachfront property in AZ is looking better and better, eh?

>My hat is off to you for taking the time to confront and stand your ground.
>From one who does the same, I know you can learn from the exchanges and only
>hope that those with differing positions can also learn from them (although
>in my despairing moments I doubt it. It is difficult to do when you are
>convinced you have a lock on "the truth".)
>
>
>>I don't think the "objectivists", which you and others so pejoratively
>>disdain, proclaim any such "truth"; au contraire, they merely insist on
>>independent, unbiased validation of wild claims of the supernatural,
>>paranormal "golden ear" cause/effect phenomena bantied about as the holy
>>grail (and justification for ridiculous pricing structures) so
>>prevalent in the "high end" of audio. It's curious that, more often than
>>not, ad hominen attacks originate from the "believers" aginst the
>>"objectivists. Of course, should "Stereophile Editor" proclaim such a
>>position, his advertising revenue would dry up. Simple economics is the
>>answer.
>>
>>
>
>Ah, but there is so much more than that here - it isn't a mere and humble
>quest for truth. They aren't nearly as objective on this NG as their
>philosophy states.
>
>
Who is "they" anyway? I 'd like to see a more honest approach (and gain
further understanding) of music reproduction from the few audio
magazines left in the world; instead we get tripe and psuedoscience
paraded in "reviews" as factual information. I have no problem with the
ad copy in these rags. Just leave it in the ads!

>While they claim that so-called "subjectivists" are biased to "hear"
>differences where there are none, there is no admission that there seems to
>be a bias to NOT hear a difference where one might exist. The ABX and DBT
>might be able to proof against the former bias, but won't help one bit with
>the latter.
>
>There ain't a fountain of truth at the disposal of either warring camps,
>folks.
>
No one said there was; to the contrary, seeking the "truth" as you
phrase it, is what the scientific method and honest peer review is all
about. I'm not sure what this "warring camps" phrase is all about. I
view these posts as informational exchange of ideas. I may (or may not)
not agree with others perspective and will post my own thoughts as I see
fit. Attempts to characterize such discussions as "warrring camps" and
such seems only to be an agenda of ad hoc ad hominen diminution, akin to
attorney-speak efforts to discredit some perceived damaging testimony.

John L
Auplater
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 7:22:32 PM

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

On 12/24/04 11:15 AM, in article cqhfa802ccg@news1.newsguy.com, "John A.
Lichtenberger" <auplater@alltel.net> wrote:

>> In the same way I might say: "I ate at Carl's Jr. and the hamburgers tasted
>> bad." I am stating it as a fact - even though you might like them just
>> fine. I have neither betrayed journalistic trust, nor have I been deceptive
>> in the least.
>>
> There's no "betrayal of journalistic trust" implied here. A simple
> request of, to be taken seriously by those of us with a a modicum of
> scientific curiosity and integrity, (and the credentials to back it up)
> supplying supporting documentation and independent verification to
> validate opinions presented as fact. You don't have to like it, but
> that's how convincing arguments are made for new discoveries, phony
> claims are debunked, etc. It's called "peer review". Unfortunately,
> Stereopile does not seem interested in entertaining valid criticism of
> its stylistic methods, choosing instead to pander to its advertisers
> with implied psuedoscience morphed to resemble peer review.

I may not have any interest in having any of my methods reviewed, nor may I
have any interest in opening a dialogue with people who have (what appears
to me to be) irreconcilable philosophical differences (i.e. An axe to grind)
with my reviews and so on. And boy or boy do a lot of people here and
peppered throughout this hobby have axes to grind.

You will find most magazines and newspapers will take a few claims
seriously, but if it is a continuous chorus from a small but vocal minority
who do not appear to be and will never be patrons, they will be happily
ignored.
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 7:13:09 PM

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

B&D wrote:

>On 12/24/04 11:15 AM, in article cqhfa802ccg@news1.newsguy.com, "John A.
>Lichtenberger" <auplater@alltel.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>In the same way I might say: "I ate at Carl's Jr. and the hamburgers tasted
>>>bad." I am stating it as a fact - even though you might like them just
>>>fine. I have neither betrayed journalistic trust, nor have I been deceptive
>>>in the least.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>There's no "betrayal of journalistic trust" implied here. A simple
>>request of, to be taken seriously by those of us with a a modicum of
>>scientific curiosity and integrity, (and the credentials to back it up)
>>supplying supporting documentation and independent verification to
>>validate opinions presented as fact. You don't have to like it, but
>>that's how convincing arguments are made for new discoveries, phony
>>claims are debunked, etc. It's called "peer review". Unfortunately,
>>Stereopile does not seem interested in entertaining valid criticism of
>>its stylistic methods, choosing instead to pander to its advertisers
>>with implied psuedoscience morphed to resemble peer review.
>>
>>
>
>I may not have any interest in having any of my methods reviewed, nor may I
>have any interest in opening a dialogue with people who have (what appears
>to me to be) irreconcilable philosophical differences (i.e. An axe to grind)
>with my reviews and so on. And boy or boy do a lot of people here and
>peppered throughout this hobby have axes to grind.
>
>You will find most magazines and newspapers will take a few claims
>seriously, but if it is a continuous chorus from a small but vocal minority
>who do not appear to be and will never be patrons, they will be happily
>ignored.
>
Huh??? What are you talking about? I've merely stated (as a sometime
"patron" of Stereophile, that I take issue with their presentation of
opinion as fact.
That's it. They are being dishonest when they present psuedo-expert
graphs, studies, tests, etc. as some sort of validation linked to wild
claims of super-normal
phenomena beyond all reason, and then ask the reader to take such pablum
as truth without dissent.

You've appear to have engaged in a false diatribe with a strawman of
your own invention. No axe to grind here.

John L.
Auplater
!