Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
James Randi on Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused"
As he mentioned was forthcoming, Randi has taken up the discussion with
Mr. Atkinson of Stereophile, making clear his challenge to doing a test for the audibility of "stones" etc. in a test. He mentions once again that he will pay 1,000,000 Us dollars if such can be demonstrated in a double blind test, in which the mag gets to have a big hand in designing the test to their best advantage. Has Mr. Atkinson presented his side of the nov. issue here and the broadside that was made against Randi? Will he discuss his objections to doing this test and what continuing same could remain after this latest installment in the discussion? Were the quotes from Mr. Atkinson made here or elsewhere, has this matter also been addressed other places on the net? "The Audio World Is Aroused" http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ...
As he mentioned was forthcoming, Randi has taken up the discussion with Mr. Atkinson of Stereophile, making clear his challenge to doing a test for the audibility of "stones" etc. in a test. He mentions once again that he will pay 1,000,000 Us dollars if such can be demonstrated in a double blind test, in which the mag gets to have a big hand in designing the test to their best advantage. Has Mr. Atkinson presented his side of the nov. issue here and the broadside that was made against Randi? Will he discuss his objections to doing this test and what continuing same could remain after this latest installment in the discussion? Were the quotes from Mr. Atkinson made here or elsewhere, has this matter also been addressed other places on the net? "The Audio World Is Aroused" http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4 What the hell is this about? Mr. Atkinson is under no obligation to test or defend Shakti stones or any other piece of audio exotica. As far as I recall, Mr. Atkinson has never made or supported a claim for Shakti stones. Why don't we talk about high-end audio topics here that might help people, rather than huffing and puffing at straw-men? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
See www.audioasylum.com for his responses.
Kal On 27 Nov 2004 17:41:31 GMT, wrote: As he mentioned was forthcoming, Randi has taken up the discussion with Mr. Atkinson of Stereophile, making clear his challenge to doing a test for the audibility of "stones" etc. in a test. He mentions once again that he will pay 1,000,000 Us dollars if such can be demonstrated in a double blind test, in which the mag gets to have a big hand in designing the test to their best advantage. Has Mr. Atkinson presented his side of the nov. issue here and the broadside that was made against Randi? Will he discuss his objections to doing this test and what continuing same could remain after this latest installment in the discussion? Were the quotes from Mr. Atkinson made here or elsewhere, has this matter also been addressed other places on the net? "The Audio World Is Aroused" http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Are they? As an audio consumer (albeit don't give a toss about the stones,
etc.) I don't feel particularly aroused by this "challenge." For him to declare as such makes me think he is as much publicity hound as anything else... On 11/27/04 12:41 PM, in article , " wrote: As he mentioned was forthcoming, Randi has taken up the discussion with Mr. Atkinson of Stereophile, making clear his challenge to doing a test for the audibility of "stones" etc. in a test. He mentions once again that he will pay 1,000,000 Us dollars if such can be demonstrated in a double blind test, in which the mag gets to have a big hand in designing the test to their best advantage. Has Mr. Atkinson presented his side of the nov. issue here and the broadside that was made against Randi? Will he discuss his objections to doing this test and what continuing same could remain after this latest installment in the discussion? Were the quotes from Mr. Atkinson made here or elsewhere, has this matter also been addressed other places on the net? "The Audio World Is Aroused" http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ...
Has Mr. Atkinson presented his side of the nov. issue here and the broadside that was made against Randi? You will be able to read Art Dudley's comments tomorrow on the Amazing Randi's "Million-Dollar Challenge" in the free on-line archives at www.stereophile.com. Will he discuss his objections to doing this test... As I have never auditioned, nor written about the Shakti Stones, nor, to the best of my knowledge, has Art Dudley, I am mystified about a) why the Amazing R. has issued his challenge to the two of us and b) why anyone feels we should take part. Were the quotes from Mr. Atkinson made here or elsewhere? As I have pointed put to Mr. Randi, other than the first text quoted, which was taken from a posting I made on www.audioasylum.com, every other quote he attributes to me at http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4 was _not_ written by me. I have also pointed out to Randi that, contrary to the assertions he has made on his website at various times, I have not written about the Shakti Stones, nor have I recommended the Tice Clock. His e-mailed response consisted of "It's hard to sort out the nuts..." followed by "Oh, grow up. If you can..." Oh well... John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message ...
Mr. Atkinson is under no obligation to test or defend Shakti stones or any other piece of audio exotica. Maybe things are different in US, but here in Europe editor of a magazine is responsible for everything that is written in the magazine. In my opinion it is therefore quite natural to address Mr. Atkinson about the questionable content: "Used intelligently and in the right places, the SHAKTI offers a worthwhile and cost effective boost in sound quality." - Stereophile, February 1996, Vol. 19 No. 2 "From the midrange on up, everything sounded cleaner, that cool-breeze-after-a-hard-rain kind of cleaner. .... I repeated the experiment with "Revolution" and "Someday Soon" (and with plenty of other music since) and found that the effect was repeatable and verifiable." - Stereophile, April 1996, Vol. 19 No 4 So, the effect is said to be repeatable and verifiable, but no one has time to collect a million dollars. It happens. Lasse Ukkonen |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
But all of this avoids the core question and dwells on the rhetorical.
The "stones" as an example is not relevant, the whole subjective enterprise is, of which they are but one expression. Pick wire, pick stands, pick vibration control tweeks, pick speaker spikes, pick any number of things in the audio biz cosmos about which endless "auditions" and reviews are the stuff of each issue. That is the basis of Randi's approach, to devide the sheep from the goats on such proposed abilities as are said to be the reason for individual ability to "hear" the introduction of such tweeks into an audio system. Personalities and individual reactions are irrelevant and look to the observer as a dodge to avoid this core question, which is not of Randi's invention but is widely held among audiophiles who want reality to be the measure of the day and not subjective unrepeatable unsupportable testimonial reactions of the few. Has Mr. Atkinson presente You will be able to read Art Dudley's comments tomorrow on the Amazing Randi's "Million-Dollar Challenge" in the free on-line archives at www.stereophile.com. Will he discuss his objections to doing this test... As I have never auditioned, nor written about the Shakti Stones, nor, to the best of my knowledge, has Art Dudley, I am mystified about a) why the Amazing R. has issued his challenge to the two of us and b) why anyone feels we should take part. Were the quotes from Mr. Atkinson made here or elsewhere? As I have pointed put to Mr. Randi, other than the first text quoted, which was taken from a posting I made on www.audioasylum.com, every other quote he attributes to me at http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4 was _not_ written by me. I have also pointed out to Randi that, contrary to the assertions he has made on his website at various times, I have not written about the Shakti Stones, nor have I recommended the Tice Clock. His e-mailed response consisted of "It's hard to sort out the nuts..." followed by "Oh, grow up. If you can..." Oh well... John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, and it is because Mr. Atkinson can say he as a individual has not
endorsed them that he can now do his completely rhetorical defense not to participate in a test. While he did not endorse them, neither did he damn them and say that they represent a great many tweeks which have no effect; many of which buy advertising space in his mag. Maybe things are different in US, but here in Europe editor of a magazine is responsible for everything that is written in the magazine. In my opinion it is therefore quite natural to address Mr. Atkinson about the questionable content: "Used intelligently and in the right places, the SHAKTI offers a worthwhile and cost effective boost in sound quality." - Stereophile, February 1996, Vol. 19 No. 2 "From the midrange on up, everything sounded cleaner, that cool-breeze-after-a-hard-rain kind of cleaner. ... I repeated the experiment with "Revolution" and "Someday Soon" (and with plenty of other music since) and found that the effect was repeatable and verifiable." - Stereophile, April 1996, Vol. 19 No 4 So, the effect is said to be repeatable and verifiable, but no one has time to collect a million dollars. It happens. Lasse Ukkonen |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"What the hell is this about? Mr. Atkinson is under no obligation to test
or defend Shakti stones or any other piece of audio exotica. As far as I recall, Mr. Atkinson has never made or supported a claim for Shakti stones. Why don't we talk about high-end audio topics here that might help people, rather than huffing and puffing at straw-men?" "Stones" are not the core issue, the subjective enterprise which creates them is and is the basis for much of the reason for Stereophile to exist. It is very on topic, how to devide the myth from the reality for audiophiles, whatever their purchasing etc. objectives. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, and it is this very narrow rhetorical device by which Mr. Atkinson
speaks as though being above the question. He did not claim ability to hear the "stones", but others in the mag did which puts Randi directly on the money to include Stereophile in the same box as other marketing/publishing folk. The real issue is the subjective claims to have the exact same ability said to make possible the claim to hear or not heart these or any other tweek, of which is common food for "audition" in almost every issue. To evoke "opinion" does not provide salvation, the mag is in the same identified box as the others for what is it's standard practice and by which "stones" are created and propagated; but they and a universe of same not yet demonstrated. Even in a journal of opinion? Don't the Europeans tolerate a range of opinions? ;-) In Stereophile, all reviews bear a byline of the writer and the opinions expressed are those of the writer and not the magazine, its editors or publishers. Kal |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"No, the challenge posed by the Amazing Randi is not rhetorical but quite
specific in naming the Shakti Stones and the reviewers who have recommended these accessories, among whom Randi incorrectly names Art" Then if he picks some other tweek clearly supported in your mag, will you then accept the test? "please note that in the laundry list of "tweaks" you quoted are some that _have_ proved possible for listeners to discern in blind tests. That you or James Randi don't believe so is irrelevant." I don't know to what you refer, please do provide an example. "And until James Randi removes the misleading comments on his website about things I am supposed to have said but in actual fact didn't -- a fundamental matter of journalistic honesty that, regardless of what youthink about me or about Stereophile, appears to be lacking in James Randi -- I shall continue to regard the man as an attention-seeking sensationalist no better than the most outrageous of the putative scam artists he claims to debunk." Now we are back to the rhetorical, from which point we began. It is clear you will not participate in a test of audio tweeks regardless of whom wrote about them for whatever reason; the entire edifice of the subjective enterprise is too much to lose. His attention geting etc. is an intresting spin on the topic, as the entire marketing/publishing arena is about getting attention and of buffing the image of those holding yet unsupported claims to abilities to discern things audio in audibility. Until those kind of tests are done then we are well founded to see such claims equal in nature as those made claiming esp. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Lasse" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... Mr. Atkinson is under no obligation to test or defend Shakti stones or any other piece of audio exotica. Maybe things are different in US, but here in Europe editor of a magazine is responsible for everything that is written in the magazine. In my opinion it is therefore quite natural to address Mr. Atkinson about the questionable content: "Used intelligently and in the right places, the SHAKTI offers a worthwhile and cost effective boost in sound quality." - Stereophile, February 1996, Vol. 19 No. 2 "From the midrange on up, everything sounded cleaner, that cool-breeze-after-a-hard-rain kind of cleaner. ... I repeated the experiment with "Revolution" and "Someday Soon" (and with plenty of other music since) and found that the effect was repeatable and verifiable." - Stereophile, April 1996, Vol. 19 No 4 So, the effect is said to be repeatable and verifiable, but no one has time to collect a million dollars. It happens. Lasse Ukkonen I find it interesting that you fail to mention the author of the review articles. To the best of my knowledge, it is the writer and researcher's opinion that is presented in a review....other than outright censorship, the only legitimate thing an editor can do is add a dessenting endnote or blurb if he feels the article contains outright error and he can support that opposing view. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 28 Nov 2004 17:33:02 GMT, (Lasse) wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... Mr. Atkinson is under no obligation to test or defend Shakti stones or any other piece of audio exotica. Maybe things are different in US, but here in Europe editor of a magazine is responsible for everything that is written in the magazine. In my opinion it is therefore quite natural to address Mr. Atkinson about the questionable content: Even in a journal of opinion? Don't the Europeans tolerate a range of opinions? ;-) In Stereophile, all reviews bear a byline of the writer and the opinions expressed are those of the writer and not the magazine, its editors or publishers. Kal So you are not subject to fact-checking and editorial review? The Editor just takes what you send in without comment other than syntax and typography? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
But all of this avoids the core question and dwells on the rhetorical. The "stones" as an example is not relevant, the whole subjective enterprise is, of which they are but one expression. Pick wire, pick stands, pick vibration control tweeks, pick speaker spikes, pick any number of things in the audio biz cosmos about which endless "auditions" and reviews are the stuff of each issue. That is the basis of Randi's approach, to devide the sheep from the goats on such proposed abilities as are said to be the reason for individual ability to "hear" the introduction of such tweeks into an audio system. Personalities and individual reactions are irrelevant and look to the observer as a dodge to avoid this core question, which is not of Randi's invention but is widely held among audiophiles who want reality to be the measure of the day and not subjective unrepeatable unsupportable testimonial reactions of the few. Has Mr. Atkinson presente You will be able to read Art Dudley's comments tomorrow on the Amazing Randi's "Million-Dollar Challenge" in the free on-line archives at www.stereophile.com. Will he discuss his objections to doing this test... As I have never auditioned, nor written about the Shakti Stones, nor, to the best of my knowledge, has Art Dudley, I am mystified about a) why the Amazing R. has issued his challenge to the two of us and b) why anyone feels we should take part. Were the quotes from Mr. Atkinson made here or elsewhere? As I have pointed put to Mr. Randi, other than the first text quoted, which was taken from a posting I made on www.audioasylum.com, every other quote he attributes to me at http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4 was _not_ written by me. I have also pointed out to Randi that, contrary to the assertions he has made on his website at various times, I have not written about the Shakti Stones, nor have I recommended the Tice Clock. His e-mailed response consisted of "It's hard to sort out the nuts..." followed by "Oh, grow up. If you can..." Oh well... John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Actually Mr Atkinson may not have personally written about the Tice Clock nor the Stones but it seems that both were recommended in the magazine he edits and was editing at the time. I simply do not understand how he can claim that he has no stake in the issue unless he made a disclaimer in the magazine when the assertion was published....the first time. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
The below is the rhetorical dance. Repeat, the core issue is the
subjective enterprise based on untested claims to have abilities to detect the audibility of difference in audio gear without constraint. This is a prime mover in Stereophile, almost each "audition" being based on the assumed ability not yet demonstrated. What in Randi's behavior or what he has said to whom about what when is irrelevant to this core issue. Those things to which you take exception, are equallyy irrelevant to this question. Let us remove Randi and the rhetoric from the picture, will you participate in a test of wire to be done by folk not associated with him? "I am not saying that my refusal to take part in the Amazing Randi's shell game is due to my lack of endorsement, it is because I have never auditioned the Shakti devices. I have persoanlly not made the claims for them that Randi implicates me as making.I have no idea what effect they have nor if they have any effect at all," snip "so how on earth can I be expected to express an opinion either way? All I am aware is that two of my reviewers did express positive opinions of the devices in Stereophile 8 years ago." |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"I find it interesting that you fail to mention the author of the review
articles. To the best of my knowledge, it is the writer and researcher's opinion that is presented in a review....other than outright censorship, the only legitimate thing an editor can do is add a dessenting endnote or blurb if he feels the article contains outright error and he can support that opposing view." So he is a victom of content over which he has no control? If he remains silent he at least is supporting the exercise of subjective abilities to discern such objects, that is the real question about which he evokes this as a narrow rhetorical self imposed constraint. Perhaps what he needs to do is like those infomercials about which tv/radio say at the beginning, "this program should not be seen as an endorsement ...", and has no reality beyond the testament of the writer and has no external confirmation. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
... Yes, and it is because Mr. Atkinson can say he as a individual has not endorsed them that he can now do his completely rhetorical defense not to participate in a test. While he did not endorse them, neither did he damn them and say that they represent a great many tweeks which have no effect; many of which buy advertising space in his mag. We saw lots of this before the recent election. Political ads that are approved, but not written, by candidates. I assume--and I expect the readers assume--that what's said in the editorial space of a magazine meets with the approval of the editor. It's true that the editor doesn't have to agree with the point of view of his contributors, but he is responsible for what is presented on its pages. Norm Strong |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ...
"I find it interesting that you fail to mention the author of the review articles. To the best of my knowledge, it is the writer and researcher's opinion that is presented in a review....other than outright censorship, the only legitimate thing an editor can do is add a dessenting endnote or blurb if he feels the article contains outright error and he can support that opposing view." So he is a victom of content over which he has no control? If he remains silent he at least is supporting the exercise of subjective abilities to discern such objects, that is the real question about which he evokes this as a narrow rhetorical self imposed constraint. Perhaps what he needs to do is like those infomercials about which tv/radio say at the beginning, "this program should not be seen as an endorsement ...", and has no reality beyond the testament of the writer and has no external confirmation. I am sorry but I wrote for The Abso!ute Sound for its first few issues. I can assure you that their is no way the editor can test, blind or not, every item written about in the issue. Nor should he. That is what he has reviewers for. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused"
From: Kalman Rubinson Date: 11/28/2004 10:38 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: On 28 Nov 2004 17:33:02 GMT, (Lasse) wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... Mr. Atkinson is under no obligation to test or defend Shakti stones or any other piece of audio exotica. Maybe things are different in US, but here in Europe editor of a magazine is responsible for everything that is written in the magazine. In my opinion it is therefore quite natural to address Mr. Atkinson about the questionable content: Even in a journal of opinion? Don't the Europeans tolerate a range of opinions? ;-) In Stereophile, all reviews bear a byline of the writer and the opinions expressed are those of the writer and not the magazine, its editors or publishers. Thank you for pointing out what should be the obvious. It baffles me that some people cannot grasp this idea much less embrace it. The idea that the editor of a subjectiv e review magazine has to repeat the audition proccess of every review of every piece of equipment and concur with the conclusions is absurd. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused"
From: Date: 11/28/2004 11:28 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: But all of this avoids the core question and dwells on the rhetorical. The "stones" as an example is not relevant, the whole subjective enterprise is, of which they are but one expression. Pick wire, pick stands, pick vibration control tweeks, pick speaker spikes, pick any number of things in the audio biz cosmos about which endless "auditions" and reviews are the stuff of each issue. That is the basis of Randi's approach, to devide the sheep from the goats on such proposed abilities as are said to be the reason for individual ability to "hear" the introduction of such tweeks into an audio system. Personalities and individual reactions are irrelevant and look to the observer as a dodge to avoid this core question, which is not of Randi's invention but is widely held among audiophiles who want reality to be the measure of the day and not subjective unrepeatable unsupportable testimonial reactions of the few. Has Mr. Atkinson presente You will be able to read Art Dudley's comments tomorrow on the Amazing Randi's "Million-Dollar Challenge" in the free on-line archives at www.stereophile.com. Will he discuss his objections to doing this test... As I have never auditioned, nor written about the Shakti Stones, nor, to the best of my knowledge, has Art Dudley, I am mystified about a) why the Amazing R. has issued his challenge to the two of us and b) why anyone feels we should take part. Were the quotes from Mr. Atkinson made here or elsewhere? As I have pointed put to Mr. Randi, other than the first text quoted, which was taken from a posting I made on www.audioasylum.com, every other quote he attributes to me at http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4 was _not_ written by me. I have also pointed out to Randi that, contrary to the assertions he has made on his website at various times, I have not written about the Shakti Stones, nor have I recommended the Tice Clock. His e-mailed response consisted of "It's hard to sort out the nuts..." followed by "Oh, grow up. If you can..." Oh well... John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Vibration control devices? If Randi wants to offer the challenge to the audibility of vibration control devices I will happily take the million dollars. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message
... On 29 Nov 2004 01:21:42 GMT, (John Atkinson) wrote: Regarding the comment made by another poster that I am obliged to accept Randi's challnge because I published a review of the Shakti devices, please note that Stereophile is a magazine of _opinion_. As editor, I choose the magazine's content on the basis that the writer has something to say, not whether or not I agree with it. So, are we clear that you personally do *not* believe that Shakti stones have any audible effect? No, as I am getting tired of saying, I have never auditioned the devices. I therefore have opinion either way. I remain agnostic on the matter. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Perhaps what he needs
to do is like those infomercials about which tv/radio say at the beginning, "this program should not be seen as an endorsement ...", and has no reality beyond the testament of the writer and has no external confirmation. "I am sorry but I wrote for The Abso!ute Sound for its first few issues. I can assure you that their is no way the editor can test, blind or not, every item written about in the issue. Nor should he. That is what he has reviewers for." Which begs the core question and turns it on it's head, are the abilities assumed for the reviewers to have, a product of perception process in the brain alone or does it have reality in the signal as it enters the ear. In some things both are no doubt the answer, while in "stones" etc. most likely a brain product alone. The middle ground is assumed uncritically to be an analog of the real world in the subjective enterprise, and as you note, must be by definition a product of a series of testimonial based experiences with no benchmark in reality. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
On 30 Nov 2004 04:42:31 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:
Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused" From: Kalman Rubinson Date: 11/28/2004 10:38 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: On 28 Nov 2004 17:33:02 GMT, (Lasse) wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... Mr. Atkinson is under no obligation to test or defend Shakti stones or any other piece of audio exotica. Maybe things are different in US, but here in Europe editor of a magazine is responsible for everything that is written in the magazine. In my opinion it is therefore quite natural to address Mr. Atkinson about the questionable content: Even in a journal of opinion? Don't the Europeans tolerate a range of opinions? ;-) In Stereophile, all reviews bear a byline of the writer and the opinions expressed are those of the writer and not the magazine, its editors or publishers. Thank you for pointing out what should be the obvious. It baffles me that some people cannot grasp this idea much less embrace it. The idea that the editor of a subjectiv e review magazine has to repeat the audition proccess of every review of every piece of equipment and concur with the conclusions is absurd. However, isn't it interesting that when asked to stand behind his reviewers, he backs off at light speed? In this country (UK) at least, editors are definitely seen to be responsible for what appears in their publications - vide Boris Johnston and the mawkish Scousers. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
On 30 Nov 2004 04:44:08 GMT, (John
Atkinson) wrote: that then-bastion of objectivity, Audio magazine. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Sorry, but John Atkinson lost credibility with me years ago on the TAN network (does it still exist ?). Now he makes snide remarks about Audio magazine. Audio magazine was the only publication in this country that supported DIY with projects occasionally. When reading remarks by Mr. Atkinson, please bear in mind that his ego will not allow him to admit a mistake, nor even admit the possibility. -=Bill Eckle=- Vanity Web Page at: http://www.wmeckle.com |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message ...
I find it interesting that you fail to mention the author of the review articles. To the best of my knowledge, it is the writer and researcher's opinion that is presented in a review....other than outright censorship, the only legitimate thing an editor can do is add a dessenting endnote or blurb if he feels the article contains outright error and he can support that opposing view. Well, the other thing he can do is refuse to run the piece. That's not "censorship." That's editorial discretion. I've edited a couple of political magazines and I've run opinion pieces I disagreed with many times. I've also refused to run opinion pieces because I thought the writer failed to make a cogent argument. I'd argue that someone who endorses Shakti Stones or any other scientifically implausible tweak solely on the basis of sighted listening is not making a cogent argument. And an editor with any respect for science wouldn't run it. It's not as if Stereophile were an open forum. There are many opinions that are not permitted in its editorial pages (letters to the editor excepted). Who decides not to run articles about ABX testing of tweaks? Who decides not to run side-by-side blind comparisons of components? John Atkinson does. He may not share every opinion that appears in his magazine, but he is responsible for whatever pseudoscientific garbage appears in its pages, precisely because he makes those choices. bob |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
On 30 Nov 2004 04:43:39 GMT, (John
Atkinson) wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ... On 29 Nov 2004 01:21:42 GMT, (John Atkinson) wrote: Regarding the comment made by another poster that I am obliged to accept Randi's challnge because I published a review of the Shakti devices, please note that Stereophile is a magazine of _opinion_. As editor, I choose the magazine's content on the basis that the writer has something to say, not whether or not I agree with it. So, are we clear that you personally do *not* believe that Shakti stones have any audible effect? No, as I am getting tired of saying, I have never auditioned the devices. I therefore have opinion either way. I remain agnostic on the matter. Very well. In that case, is there *any* 'tweak', or is there *any* cable, which you would personally recommend? As editor of Stereophile, a widely read mainstream 'audiophile' publication, have you *no* opinions whatever on the sonic value of devices which are highly recommended in your magazine, but fly in the face of common engineering knowledge - such as expensive cabling? If you have no opinions on this subject, why are you there? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Marcus wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... I find it interesting that you fail to mention the author of the review articles. To the best of my knowledge, it is the writer and researcher's opinion that is presented in a review....other than outright censorship, the only legitimate thing an editor can do is add a dessenting endnote or blurb if he feels the article contains outright error and he can support that opposing view. Well, the other thing he can do is refuse to run the piece. That's not "censorship." That's editorial discretion. I've edited a couple of political magazines and I've run opinion pieces I disagreed with many times. I've also refused to run opinion pieces because I thought the writer failed to make a cogent argument. I'd argue that someone who endorses Shakti Stones or any other scientifically implausible tweak solely on the basis of sighted listening is not making a cogent argument. And an editor with any respect for science wouldn't run it. Bingo. This is the fundamental flaw of much audio reportage. The existence of perceptual bias is undeniable -- yet the audio world essentially ignores it. Little wonder that it's left to the James Randis of the world to tilt against it -- most scientists , seeing such an obvious, unaddressed source of error in a method, wouldn't waste more time with results based on it. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
If I actually thought I could tell when Shakti stones were in use (as
opposed to rocks out of the garden) I'd be on the phone immediately, making arrangements to be tested. The exact conditions of the test would be known, and any waffling would be advertised. If it turned out that Randi's challenge was bogus, that fact would be documented thoroughly. $1,000,000 is a lot of money to me. I'd certainly be willing to go to some effort to retrieve the prize. Of course, if I really didn't think I could pass a blind test, I'd be doing and saying the same things Atkinson and his writers are saying! Norm Strong |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 28 Nov 2004 23:47:47 GMT, wrote: Yes, and it is this very narrow rhetorical device by which Mr. Atkinson speaks as though being above the question. He did not claim ability to hear the "stones", but others in the mag did which puts Randi directly on the money to include Stereophile in the same box as other marketing/publishing folk. Then Randi should challenge with more care and point. Of course, his demonstrated inability to discern who said exactly what makes that unlikely. Kal I agree with the original poster. If Mr Atkinson did not specifically distance himself from questionable statements made in the publication he edits at the time of publication it is then unfair to distance himself from them later. Further I think this discussion is useful for potential readers in that it is clear that the magazine is simply a set of often unsubstantiated opinions when challenged the editors will use the "I didn't personally say that" defense. In the October issue the pull quote for the As We See It definitively says "We Highly recommend All components listed in "Recommended Components."" which must mean even those components such as cones and isolation devices which are said to produce "greater perceived detail and "faster" Bass." Or that produce sound that "just tightens up, cleans up, clears up. I hear more low level information. Imaging improves. Timing too. Transients are crisper. I hear improvements in just about every respect." And interconnects that "Gave me the color, air, transparency and liveliness I so enjoy while banishing any and all mechanical/electronic effects," None of these few quotes sounds anything like there is any doubt at all about any of these dubious claims which have never been publically documented in any replicable experiment. But there is no mention in As We See It that there's the slightest doubt that these effects WERE NOT verifiable or HAD NOT been personally accepted by the Editor of the RCL and the magazine. No disclaimers. So IMO it seems entirely likely that the Editor can be considered to have personal responsibility for any of the the outrageous claims that he published unless he makes a specific disclaimer at the time of original publication. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Power conditioner or power cord or something else | Audio Opinions | |||
Audiophilia updated | Audio Opinions | |||
Crazy market saturation! | Car Audio | |||
Note to the Idiot | Audio Opinions | |||
System balance for LP? | Audio Opinions |