Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How to become life and soul at a party.
John Atkinson wrote: Next, I pointed out that your thesis -- that the "advertising money is so good" -- also doesn't bear scrutiny as, to the best of my knowledge, not one of the manufacturers of the 4 products you instance advertises in Stereophile. Again, your beliefs are not supported by reality... "Stereophile Recommended Component for 3 Years Running": http://www.audioexcellenceaz.com/aud...ablecooker.htm Forgive me for not being your mental equal, Mr. Stohler, but how does giving a link to a retailer's website that quotes Stereophile have any connection with your thesis that ads in the _magazine_ influence review findings? And again: you mentioned Stereophile reviews of the "Quantum cleaner" and the "Hallograph." I have now twice corrected your assertion but you have to admit error. More of your "mental superiority"? John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile John, I cannot find links to those reviews, so I will admit to error here, so we can end that branch of discussion if you like. My "thesis", as you put it, is this. If an audio magazine reviews high-end audio equipment favorably, advertising revenue for high-end products is positively affected, and I believe the converse is true. Now, I'm not necessarily saying that's so bad, as I'm sure most readers are aware of the situation. But cable cookers? Shakti stones? Suggesting that such things actually have an effect seems irresponsible to me. You seem very sincere and passionate about your work. I resent the adversarial tones that have crept into this discussion, and I take the blame for my share of it. |
#122
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How to become life and soul at a party.
"paul packer" wrote in message ... On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:29:02 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: O guess Paul that as usual you can't put two and two together to get four. Condescension, Arnie? Shame. I'll spell it out for you Paul: It's hard to use ears to evaluate products that you don't have access to, until you first buy them. I gain my access to products I'm considering in the dealer's listening rooms. And then I listen to them. Eventually, after listening a good while, I say, "I'll have that one please." Or more likely, "Is that the best you can do on price for that?" And if you're happy with using the least relaible, most prone to mistakes way of buying audio equipment, then that's fine for you. Some people know better than to use such methods, especially when things tend to not have any differences in the first place. That's the big advantage of PCABX - you can use it to audition equipment that you don't have direct access to. Audition? Perhaps you and I have a different understanding of the word. Absolutely, yours needs updating. |
#123
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How to become life and soul at a party.
"Nathan Stohler" wrote Nathan Stohler = Nerd. Is that supposed to be an insult? Only if you don't like being compared/reduced to a cliche, do you? Should I assume that you use a full array of gimmicks to improve the sound of your system? A Nerd with little to no empirical experiences... so how would you know? How would you know? You need a bigger shovel. If he had that would make him about a factor of ten greater than your own audio experiences. That depends on what passes for "experience". What is you litmus test for "passes." You mean like ALL AMPS = All Amps and ALL WIRE = All Wire. Your wallet sayz 'appliance-store-shopper' all over it . Is that supposed to be an insult? Arn't you of the *reductionist* mindset? Wouldn't a "'borg" imply someone who hasn't got a mind of his own and does not question things, someone like yourself? Typo error, you mean myself, right? At the time, I wasn't referring to you, Clue phone, you were talking to George. Skeptics ask questions and don't automatically accept everything they are shown,... All in the search for Trvth® I'm having trouble understanding your position. What is causative relationship between Skepticism and reality/truth/accuracy or what Arny calls "more correct and less correct?" |
#124
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How to become life and soul at a party.
"John Atkinson" wrote When it comes to reviews of audio products, we don't pretend to any prior knowledge. If true, what value does a reviewer bring to the table? Agnosticism. More like Nihilism, John . ni-hil-ism (nie'uh liz uhm, nee'-) n. 3. a. the belief that all existence is senseless and that there is no possibility of an objective basis for truth. b. nothingness or nonexistence. This is as true for odd-sounding tweaks as it is for conventional components, a Krell amplifier for example. One could also point out that statistically price follows magazine rating. One would be wrong to do so. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Quack, quack, quack... |
#125
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How to become life and soul at a party.
Powell quacked: Quack, quack, quack... Speaking for myself, I won't be convinced until I've seen you walk. Got a video uploaded somewhere? ;-) .. .. .. |
#126
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How to become life and soul at a party.
On 22 Nov 2005 07:10:10 -0800, "John Atkinson"
wrote: Nathan Stohler wrote in message : John Atkinson wrote in message s.com: As far as I know, none of the products you mention above has been advertised in Stereophile, in which case your implication is not only incorrect but not based on any evidence. :-) The fact that you have reviewed such devices, claiming that they actually work, is even worse than simply publishing an advertisement. Wow, you sure moved those goalpasts with alacrity, Mr. Stohler. I was responding to specific points you raised, only for you to pretend you were writing about something else altogether! I'll address your new point, then return to what you were originally saying. When it comes to reviews of audio products, we don't pretend to any prior knowledge. This is as true for odd-sounding tweaks as it is for conventional components, a Krell amplifier for example. All I ask from my staff is that they honestly report what they perceive when they try the product. If they start to second-guess those perceptions, by changing their mind because they find the products' rationales ridiculous, then they are no longer being honest and their reviews lose worth. I witnessed an example of this in 1984, BTW, when a Japanese reviewer, Egawa-san, and I both gave presentations to the Boston Audio Society. Egawa-san set up a single-blind comparison between two digital sources. The audience found that they could detect the difference. Yet after Egawa-san revealed that what the listeners had been auditioning was the same Sony portable CD player powered by either AC or by its internal battery, they spent the rest of the evening arguing that they _didn't_ hear what the test clearly showed they _had_, because they _knew_ a CD player's power supply could not influence sound quality. If you already know what can and cannot have an audible effect, Mr.Stohler, then why do you need even to perform any tests? Life would be so much easier. :-) If you read Stereophile, Mr. Stohler, you will find examples both of tweaks that seem to provide some benefit and others that do not. If you wish to condemn review conclusions that conflict with the your beliefs, then I have no problem with that but please don't pretend that your beliefs confer on you any kind of moral superiority. To return to your point, Mr. Stohler, you wrote in message that the outcome of reviews in Stereophile was influenced by advertsiing revenue -- "It's hard for me to tell whether you really believe in this stuff, or if the advertising money is just too good." This is both incorrect and professionally insulting. Nevertheless, I paid you the courtesy of addressing the specific examples of such supposed corruption that you had raised, complete with bullet points: - Cable cookers - Shakti stones - Quantum purifiers that strip quantum noise energy off the electrons?! - Hallographs (thin pieces of wood that dramatically affect the sound by being in the room) I pointed out that while Stereophile had reported on the first two of these products, it had not on the second two. And if it hadn't done so, it is hard to see why these two are such a "gotcha." I asked you to provide references to the instances where Stereophile had reported on the "Quantum purifiers" and the "Hallographs"; you apparently refuse to do so, presumably because your beliefs are not supported by reality. Next, I pointed out that your thesis -- that the "advertising money is so good" -- also doesn't bear scrutiny as, to the best of my knowledge, not one of the manufacturers of the 4 products you instance advertises in Stereophile. Again, your beliefs are not supported by reality. Far from admitting your error, you pretend you were talking about something else. Dirty pool, Mr. Stohler, dirty pool. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile ohhh you're so sexy I love you |
#127
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How to become life and soul at a party.
"Nathan Stohler" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick wrote: just as some leftisit athiests treat their athieism as a religion, ABX/DBT proponents treat their dogma as a religion. Some people claim to be able to determine the color of fabrics by touch or the color of crayons by taste. Their "trick" usually involves being able to peek below their blindfold to see the object. When they are tested under controlled conditions, they are, for some reason, unable to make the same distinction. Forgive me if I am unimpressed by your ability to distinguish subtle differences in audio equipment when the two pieces of gear are sitting right in front of you. I never said they were subtle. |
#128
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How to become life and soul at a party.
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Nathan Stohler" wrote in message Clyde Slick wrote: just as some leftisit athiests treat their athieism as a religion, ABX/DBT proponents treat their dogma as a religion. Some people claim to be able to determine the color of fabrics by touch or the color of crayons by taste. Their "trick" usually involves being able to peek below their blindfold to see the object. When they are tested under controlled conditions, they are, for some reason, unable to make the same distinction. Forgive me if I am unimpressed by your ability to distinguish subtle differences in audio equipment when the two pieces of gear are sitting right in front of you. IME Art is the sort of brain trust that takes two amplifiers, sets the volume control on each to a significantly different level, and then makes a big point of preferring the sound of one over the other. It comes with being like Middius. Deep thinking like his make the high end ragazines what they are today. To me, some amps are so obviously better sounding than others, that anything but egregious differences in volume don't change the result of the comparison. |
#129
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How to become life and soul at a party.
wrote in message nk.net... And if you're happy with using the least relaible, most prone to mistakes way of buying audio equipment, then that's fine for you. Some people know better than to use such methods, especially when things tend to not have any differences in the first place. So, you ARE saying that PCABX/DBT/ABX torture rituals are required for legitimate consumer purchases. |
#130
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How to become life and soul at a party.
Clyde Slick said: So, you ARE saying that PCABX/DBT/ABX torture rituals are required for legitimate consumer purchases. Mickey is also on record as supporting eyeball-gouging, either voluntary or involuntary. |
#131
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How to become life and soul at a party.
Nathan Stohler wrote: John Atkinson wrote: And again: you mentioned Stereophile reviews of the "Quantum cleaner" and the "Hallograph." I have now twice corrected your assertion but you have [yet] to admit error. More of your "mental superiority"? I cannot find links to those reviews, so I will admit to error here, so we can end that branch of discussion if you like. That's fair enough. I am willing to discuss criticims of what my magazine has done but not critisicms based on reviews published in other publications. My "thesis", as you put it, is this. If an audio magazine reviews high-end audio equipment favorably, advertising revenue for high-end products is positively affected, and I believe the converse is true. Not in my experience. Advertising revenue is generated by providing readers with a magazine that they want to read. Advertisers who wish their message to reach those readers will spend money on ads to do so. Negative reviews can also stimulate advertising as the manufacturer tries to present a different view. Consider the Audio Physic Caldera 3 review in the November issue, which could be considered a train wreck for the manufacturer. Yet they continue to advertise. I am now in the 24th year of professional magazine editing, and have not inconsiderable experience of this subject. I have written many times on this subject and a number of essays are available in Stereophile's on-line archives. I will post some URLs later today. Now, I'm not necessarily saying that's so bad, as I'm sure most readers are aware of the situation. But cable cookers? Shakti stones? Suggesting that such things actually have an effect seems irresponsible to me. Only if you already _know_ what these devices can and can't do. We have already discussed this subject and our opposing positions are clear, I feel. I continue to be surprised that things I "know" should be audible turn out not to be to an any great extent, while things I might regard as trivial do turn out to be significant. You seem very sincere and passionate about your work. I resent the adversarial tones that have crept into this discussion, and I take the blame for my share of it. Thank you. I try hard to address issues rather than people, but it is inevitable that a degree of impatience appears. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#132
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How to become life and soul at a party.
John Atkinson wrote: I have written many times on this subject and a number of essays are available in Stereophile's on-line archives. I will post some URLs later today. For example, see http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/366 , and http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/502 . I also wrote about the relationship or lack thereof between advertising and a magazine's editorial content in the chapter I contributed to the new book "Sound Bites," available from Hi-Fi news in the UK. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#133
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
How to become life and soul at a party.
Powell wrote: "Nathan Stohler" wrote Should I assume that you use a full array of gimmicks to improve the sound of your system? A Nerd with little to no empirical experiences... so how would you know? How would you know? You need a bigger shovel. "How would you know what empirical experiences I've had?" is what I meant. If he had that would make him about a factor of ten greater than your own audio experiences. That depends on what passes for "experience". What is you litmus test for "passes." Someone who claims to have been abducted by aliens can also say they've had more "experience" than me. What is causative relationship between Skepticism and reality/truth/accuracy or what Arny calls "more correct and less correct?" I'd say that healthy skepticism leads to truth/reality more often than fantasy. |