In message jBGyc.32786$HG.21420@attbi_s53
Tom Nousaine ) wrote
(John Atkinson) wrote:
Tom Nousaine ) wrote in message
...
(John Atkinson) wrote:
(Nousaine) wrote in message
news:rU9xc.14227$HG.12445@attbi_s53...
(John Atkinson) wrote:
Now you are asking that I limit my analysis to just the issues for
which I have been responsible, though it is fair to point out that
you made no such qualification when you claimed that "12%" of the
products reviewed in Stereophile were cables, nor did you clarify
until pressed that you were basing your "12%" figure on just one
year's worth of Stereophile issues (2001).

I specifically said that I examined one January list of prior years
products and found that 12% of them were cables.

Yes. I pointed out that you happened to choose a year where more
cables had been written about than usual to derive your typical
figure.

No response from Tom Nousaine. This is a serious point: that if Mr.
Nousaine is presenting statistical information to support his point,
his picking and choosing among the data is both misleading and bad
science.

No "science" is needed to examine a consumer magazine. Please.

An extraordinary non sequitur, Mr. Nousaine. You appear to be saying
that because a magazine is aimed at consumers instead of, I assume,
intended as a scientific journal, that someone critical of its content
is somehow justified in faking a statistical analysis of that content,
as you did in the case of your statement about the incidence of cable
reviews in Stereophile. As I said, extraordinary.

The reviews [in] Stereophile seem to disregard any of the available
data on the sound of wires/amplifiers/digital reproduction, even those
conducted by yourself.

A perfectly legitimate opinion for you to hold and express, Mr.
Nousaine. I see no need to argue with your opinions. I disagree, is all.

Indeed, you personally made a claim in a newsgroup ('subjects were able
to hear a single electrolytic capacitor in the signal path') based on
evidence available for review that did not show that to be the case.

Regarding my 1985 tests of capacitors, you have raised this subject many
times on the newsgroups, as well as in your column in The Audio Critic,
and I have argued with you before about your interpretation of the
results. I see no need to do so again. I also fail to understand what
relevance it has to the subject of Stereophile's reviews of cables.

You then cherry-picked another year...

No. I mentioned another year's figure in passing to demonstrate
that the year you chose was not representative. I made no claim
that this other year was typical or representative.

OK why not just post all the years from 1999 to now?

Why do I have to do that, Mr. Nousaine? I have now repeatedly posted
the incidence of cable reviews when all reviews are considered (5%)
and the incidence of cable reviews since I became editor of Stereophile
(6%). I respecfully suggest that as _you_ are one who is making the
claims, you are the one obliged to do the work to support those claims.
I have repeatedly posted the Web address where you can find the raw data.

I am [interested] in answers. How many of of those cables wound up on
your RCL the following year? How many of the amplifiers reviewed in
that year wound up on your RCL? You have steadfastly refused to answer
those questions; instead "answering" with vague statements.

Again, Mr. Nousaine, these are all questions for which you can work out
the answers yourself. I don't see why, in a thread where I am trying to
address a specific misstatement you made about Stereophile's content,
that I am therefore obliged to answer _all_ the questions you throw up
in an apparent smokescreen of confusion and obfuscation.

I assume you wish to downplay the "significance of cabling," Mr.
Nousaine because you believe that cables, provided they are of the
appropriate length, gauge, and construction, don't affect sound
quality.

I don't "believe" that cables are cable...all the extant evidence
shows that this is true.

In your opinion, Mr. Nousaine. Others hold different opinions, even
regarding the "extant evidence," it should be noted.

As I said, all I am doing is addressing your specific point
concerning the proportion of _reviews_ of cables published in
Stereophile. As I have shown, to derive your "12%" of reviews that
you decribed as referring to a "few years," you chose a specific
single year (2001) that was untypical. However you wish to describe
this -- "cherry picking," "data dredging" -- it is bad science on
your part.

There is no science involved.

Considering that the subject being discussed was your statistical
analysis of the incidence of cable reviews in Stereophile, this is a
surprising admission on your part, Mr. Nousaine.

The significance of cabling is reflected in [Stereophile's Recommended
Components list], mentions in reviews and perhaps most loudly in the
allied component lists.

Of course. No-one has said otherwise. All I have been doing is addressing
your incorrect analysis of the incidence of cable reviews in Stereophile.
You should note that I have not expressed any opinion _at all_ about the
significance of Stereophile's overall coverage of cables. It is what it
is. If you feel that that coverage is out of proportion to the importance
of cables in absolute terms, that is an opinion you are welcome to hold.
I don't see any need to argue with it, nor do I see any need to change
either my own opinion or how I edit Stereophile as a result of you
expressing your opinion.

You keep trying to pretend you were talking about Stereophile's
Recommended Components listing when Dr. Richman's original statement
and your original response concerned _reviews_.

No pretense. I think that restricting the data discussion to items
"reviewed" understates the relative importance of cabling in your
publication.

So why then did _you_ make that restriction, Mr. Nousaine? Here again
are your exact words:

A study of one of the last few years Reviewed Components for the
previous years showed 12% were cabling, more than any other
single product category except digital components and loudspeakers.

Please note that all I have been attempting to do in this thread is
to correct your statement that "12%" of the reviews published in
Stereophile were of cables. Yes, you have brought into the discussion
Stereophile's "Recommended Components" listings, amplifiers, the
ancillary components listed in our reviews, even the late Julian
Hirsch and Stereo Review's editing policy [and now my 1985 capacitor
listening tests], when all you really needed to do was acknowledge that
your 12% figure was incorrect, that the actual figure is 5% when all
the reviews published by Stereophile are taken into account, or 6% when
the reviews are restricted to those published since I became the
magazine's editor in May 1986.

Please I made no restrictions on any given point.

Really? I quoted your exact words above, Mr. Nousaine. Both Dr. Richman
and you were clearly first referenced the incidence of _reviews_
published in Stereophile and _that_ was what I was addressing. That you
subsequently expanded your initial statement to explain that you had all
along been talking about the incidence of cables in Stereophile's
"Recommended Components" still doesn't make your "12%" figure correct.

My point was that Richman was wrong when he made the statement...

Really? Here are Dr. Richman's exact words:

Even the content of such magazines as Stereophile and The
Absolute Sound, contain relatively few cable reviews...

and, of course if you restrict yourself to "reviews" he was right. I
have said so.

If you had, I must have missed it, Mr. Nousaine. My apologies for
prolonging the argument unduly, therefore.

But if you look at the overall imprint of Stereophile it looks like
you are more than happy to Recommend that enthusiasts devote at least
10% to cabling.

10% of what, Mr. Nousaine? The number of components in enthusiasts'
systems? Their total enthusiam for audio? What they're prepared to spend
on components?

I'm just interested in who is caring for readers (like me) and who is
not. And as far as I can see Stereophile is not in a general sense.
And that's primarily because you are carrying and occasionally promoting
the High-End Myths and [Urban] Legends instead of emphasizing acoustical
performance.

In your opinion, Mr. Nousaine. I am content to let readers make up their
own minds on the value of the information Stereophile offers them.

publishing a Recommended Components List that includes products
that might not even exist or have not been evaluated (NR)

I don't know which magazine you are referring to here, Mr. Nousaine.
Every product recommended in Stereophile's listing exists and has
been evaluated. The "NR" to which you refer means that while the
product has indeed been evaluated, a review has not been published.

You acknowledged in this newgroup that your RCL listed a product
(Grado cartridge) that never existed and had never been reviewed did
you not?

Excuse me? This was an mid-1990s parenthetical mention of a product
that was not specifically being recommended. Here is the exact wording
that bothered Norman Schwartz. It appeared in the middle of an entry
for a Grado cartridge that was being recommended, that had been
reviewed: "Will hum if used with older AR decks (an "AR" version is
available)."

OK, fair enough.

Good. Perhaps you will consider the matter closed. But...

Why did it remain on the list for more than a single issue?

Apparently the matter is not closed. As best as I can recall -- this all
happened in the mid 1990s and the correspondence is long discarded -- we
included this mention in the list until we were informed by the
manufacturer that this special version never made it into production. At
which point, in 1996, we eliminated the mention. Even so, I still fail
to understand why this subject is such a "gotcha," either for Mr.
Schwartz or now for you.

Look, Mr. Nousaine, if you are serious about making it your mission
to criticize magazines that compete with your own, why don't you
investigate the fact that some reviewers (not Stereophile's) act as
paid consultants for manufacturers whose products they review?

Asked before. Who are you talking about?

If you note the number of quotation brevets (), Mr. Nousaine, you
will note that you are inserting an answer into text quoted from prior
messages. That is why it looks to you as if it was "asked before." It
was.

Time and resources permitting I will conduct independent evaluations
for manufacturers on contract and and DIY enthusiasts but I do not
now nor have I ever consulted in design with a manufacturer.

No-one has said that you do "consult in design," Mr. Nousaine. But if
you do consultancy work of _any_ kind for manufacturers whose products
you review, shouldn't that fact be made public in your published
evaluations? And why isn't it a conflict of interest?

It has been publicly acknowledged.

Not in the magazines to which you contribute, Mr. Nousaine, that I could
find. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, of course. Could you give me an
issue and page-number reference?

And I've never reviewed a product (or measured one for another evaluator
that I've measured independently in the course of a review)...

Forgive me, but it is unclear what you are saying here. By "measured
independently," are you referring to your consultancy work for
manufacturers? If so, does that mean that your consultancy work is
restricted to the same kind of measurements that you publish in Sound &
Vision and Mobile Entertainment? And if so, am I correct in inferring
that you've never reviewed a product or published measurements of a
product that you have consulted on?

Here, by the way, is what you wrote in an earlier posting on this
subject, in message :

I have occasionally been hired by home audio loudspeaker companies to
evaluate products on a for-hire basis providing data like that contained
in my magazine reports or on some occasions exceeding same.

And in message :

In my case the magazine doesn't pay me nearly enough to preclude
opportunity for other work in the field. My contract only specifically
requires story ideas to them first and to obtain prior agreement for
any editorial work for a competing publication.

...but even if that had happened, so what?

Personally, I feel that for a reviewer to be paid by a manufacturer for
work he does for them when the same reviewer may then be called on to
evaluate that company's products by a magazine by whom he is also paid is
by _definition_ a conflict of interest. My opinion.

There is also the fact that no matter how honest the reviewer is and
how disinterested he can remain, the manufacturers are not bound by any
conflict of interest and can start offering the reviewer consultancy
work _because_ he also writes reviews.

This is why Stereophile's reviewers cannot do consultancy work, period.
Other magazines practise other policies, which is fine by me as long as
the policy is made public so readers can judge accordingly.

Measurements are measurements. Why would that be a conflict of interest?

See above.

As far as other instances I know of none offhand. [The late] Peter
Mitchell consulted and evaluated products but as far as I know he
didn't review his own work.

Yes, Peter's primary career was as a consultant. As he wrote a news
column for Stereophile when he was alive, not reviews, I don't see
that this was a conflict of interest.

As above; why not?

Because a) Peter did not evaluate products for Stereophile, b) his
consultancy work was declared up front in Stereophile, and c) even in
his news columns, Peter never wrote one word in Stereophile about the
companies to which he was a consultant.

When Peter approached me in 1987 about him writing a news column for
Stereophile, these are the conditions we arrived at, in order to allow
him to do so.

Why don't you investigate a magazine (not Stereophile) whose current
policy is to sell its cover to an advertiser?

I'm guessing that you are bringing up The Audio [Critic] and Fourier
loudspeaker issue again.

Why would you guess that, Mr. Nousaine? I used the word "current."
And The Audio Critic didn't "sell its cover to an advertiser," it
published a highly complimentary review of a product made by a
company in which the magazine's editor, by his subsequent admission,
had a 50% equity holding.

OK who is currently consulting on products that they are reviewing?
And who is selling the cover?

A Google Web search combined with a groups.google.com search will give
you some answers to these questions, Mr. Nousaine. I instanced them
because you are the one who endlessly questions the ethics and motives
of Stereophile on the newsgroups, you are the one who publishes a column
in The Audio Critic where you criticize the content of audio magazines
including that of Stereophile. You pretend to be a disinterested observer,
Mr. Nousaine, yet you don't seem at all interested in what I personally
regard as major ethical breeches committed by writers for and editors of
magazines other than Stereophile (including some of those to which you
contribute).

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile