know if they are themselves deluded or if they are
intentionally trying to dupe people in order to pump up
circulation.

An either/or proposition predicated on your axiom that your opinions are
irrefutable facts. Sorry, I'm not buying the premise so the argument goes
nowhere with me.

So, you can hear differences between wires? I mean, while I
cut everybody some slack when it comes to speakers, rooms,
surround processors, equalizers, and a few other items, I do
not cut them any slack at all when it comes to wires, and I
do not cut them much slack when it comes to amps and CD
players. A little, but not much. Not all of my opinions are
irrefutable facts, but I think that those concerning wire,
and the bogus selling of same, are just that.

You are entitled to believe youyr opinion on wires is an irrefutable fact. That
is not going to dictate policy for Stereophile though.


The BIG problem is that the people who have a psychological
dependence upon audio hype have to a great extent been
created by fringe-element journalism.

Please feel free to prove this assertion and it's prevelence in
audiophilia.

Well, I could be wrong. As Barnum said, a lot of suckers are
just born that way. Of course, the sad thing is that said
journals make a point of roping in such individuals.

Well don't worry, the hard core objectivist journals are not reaching too many
people.


That is, over the
years certain magazines have created a Frankenstein monster.

The analogy makes no sense to me.

They have created a group of individuals (those who have a
kind of will to believe) who depend upon the magazine for
baloney information. If the magazine changed course and took
a brass-tacks approach it would go down the tubes. The
created reader base depends upon the magazine to keep
feeding it hyperbole. Kill the monster and you kill the
magazine.

Prove it.


No doubt (in my mind, at least) this was initially done,
because certain audio journalists had strong beliefs about
audibility issues. They really thought they could hear
differences, and they never really did settle down and do
rigorous comparisons to see if their impressions were
correct.

When science finally rears its head and says enough, certain
magazine editors are put into a terrible bind.

I look forward to the day that legitimate science rears it's head in
audiophilia. It looks like scientists have better things to do with their
time
and resources.

There is nothing wasteful about those involved in audio
journalism taking a scientific approach.

I agree. It just doesn't happen.

I am not saying
that scientists who are working on DNA or cancer research,
or space exploration, have to temporarily switch to audio
for a while. All that is required is for those who are
already involved in the hobby to adopt a more honest
approach with what they are doing.

Again you are questioning the honesty of soem reviewers simply because ou don't
agree with them. That is selfrighteous by defintion. Science is much better
served when scientists can leave their selfrighteousness at the lab door.
Objectivists reviewers and journals will never be truly scientific until they
can do this. So far IMo they haven't.


If they
ignore what the engineers and scientists say they risk being
put into a tweako pigeon hole by some very intelligent
people.

What are scientists saying? Do you really think there are no scientists
that
believe in amp sound or cable sound? You think there are no engineers that
do
so either?

Well, none that I have heard of have any opinions about
cable or wire sound.

Well that is your limmited slice of life experience. I know scientists and
electrical engineers that do have opinions about cable sound. so there you have
it.

Sure, amps can sound different.
However, I'll bet that the ones that do sound different from
the mainstream are junk jobs (even if expensive), designed
to sound different - but not accurate.

One man's junk is another man's treasure. Your treasure may be junk to some.


On the other hand, if they decide to become rational
themselves and adopt the scientific approach (and, for
example, say that lamp cord sounds as good as any upscale
speaker wire) they will alienate all those naive true
believers created by their overzealous writers over the
years.

I would say the your assertion that one is being irrational if they don't
agree
with your beliefs in audio is highly prejudicial and is somewhat
selfrighteous (snipped definition).

Hey, they do not have to agree with me. All they have to do
is be honest in their evaluation work.

Prove that they aren't already doing that.


Believe me, John has my deepest sympathies, because on the
one hand he would like to be taken seriously by serious
engineers and scientists, while on the other hand he would
like to keep the magazine's circulation increase or at least
hold steady.

I don't believe you.

Well, I certainly do not think he wants circulation to
shrink. And I do think he wants to be taken seriously by
engineers and scientists.

So?


Hard to do that if he alienates a bunch of
readers by telling them that they have been played as
suckers for years by his magazine's reviewers.

Tough call. Glad I do not have to make it.

A call that is based once again on your axiom that your beliefs on audio
are
irrefutable facts and, in this case, that JA secretly agrees with those
beliefs.

Well, perhaps he does not. I really do not know what the guy
thinks, to tell the truth.