In rec.audio.tech John Atkinson wrote:


Putting to one side precisely _how_ you came by your knowledge
that the Shakti Stones are "do-nothing frauds," Mr. Welch,
I commissioned reviews of the Shaktis from 2 reviewers, one
of whom. Mr. Scull, is by hs own admission a subjectivist, the
other of whom, Barry Willis, is an avowed skeptic. Imagine my
surprise, therefore, when _both_ subjectivist and skeptic found
that the Shakti devices had a positive audible effect on the
sounds of their systems. Could it possibly be that Scull and
Willis are right and you are wrong, Mr. Welch?

Was the 'avowed skeptic' skeptical enough to actually subject
the 'device' to a controlled comparison?

Could it be possible that neither Scull nor Willis actually
evaluated the device in a manner that would actually
identify whether the *cause* of the 'positive audible effect'
was subjective or objective?




--

-S