"normanstrong" wrote in message ...

$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!

Part of the problem is that $1 million is way to much to be taken
seriously. It sounds more like a publicity stunt than a serious
challenge.

It'd sound more serious if it were $1000. Or maybe 1000 euros--might
as well use a currency that's still worth something!

bob

(John Atkinson) wrote:
wrote in message ...
John Atkinson wrote:
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.

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.

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
Dudley and myself. I repeat: neither of us has auditioned the Shakti
Stones, so it hardly seems appropriate for anyone to insist that Art
and myself respond to the Challenge? Randi might as well choose _you_ to
defend the Shakti devices, surely.

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.

Why do I have to pick _anything_? And please note that as I proved to
Tom Nousaine a few months back on the newsgroups, reviews of cables and
accessories are a relatively small part of Stereophile's content.

A quick count of the latest Recommended Components List shows that
approximately 20% of the Components on the list are accessories such as cones,
Power Line equipment, stands and cabling products. In that same issue there are
9 products found in the Equipment Reports Section and 3 of them are wire
products.

Also
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.

And which of those have proved possible? Which ones have been shown to be
audible?

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 you
think 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.

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.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Is it fair to say that you agree with all the sound quality comments found in
the RCL for October 2004? If not, which ones do you disagree with?

wrote:



"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.

I've conducted experiments on Tweaks (read "To Tweak or Not to Tweak" June 1998
Stereo Review) and loudspeaker stands (If I'm remembering correctly that was
published in January 1995 Stereo Review) and found that 10 subjects were unable
to distingush a full-tweak system (High-End vacumn tube preamplifier, outboard
DAC, High-End power amplifier, $100 a foot interconnects, networked Speaer
Cables, vibration control devices and special wire dress from a Geaked-Out
system including a 15 year old $99 solid state preamplifier, a $200 used solid
state power amplifier, 16-guage car speaker cable (25-feet for one channel and
6-feet for the other) and junk-box interconnects driving the same speakers
using their personal reference recordings in a single listener experiment where
the subject controlled all aspects of program selection and play.

As for speaker stands subjects compared a set of High-End stands filled with 25
lbs of lead shot with spikes both at the floor and at the speaker bottoms
compared to a set of make-shift stands made with an empty 12-inch woofer
speaker cardboard carton duct taped to a set of Bose 901 stamped steel stands
and adjusted for height with paperback books and magazines.

For the experiment I acquired 4 2-way speakers from Snell that were taken off
the mqanufacturing line in sequential order. Subjects listened to 2 systems
with identical electronics in a blind screen test. There was no significant
difference in quality ratings that was due to speaker stands used. Subjects did
subjectively give high ratings to a specific set of speaker locations but those
rating were consistent with location but not which stands were employed.

(Bob Marcus) wrote:
"normanstrong" wrote in message
...

$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!

Part of the problem is that $1 million is way to much to be taken
seriously. It sounds more like a publicity stunt than a serious
challenge.

It'd sound more serious if it were $1000. Or maybe 1000 euros--might
as well use a currency that's still worth something!

bob

Well I had a standing challenge when I was giving my controlled listening test
results talks in the mid-90s that if anyone could prove an ability to
distinguish his currently used speaker wire or interconnecting cables I'd cough
up $100 of my own money. The challenge was often published in advance of the
talks. And were not to be limited to my equipment (I was amenable to conduct
such as experiment off-site at a persons reference system either before or
after the talk.)

Want to know how many people accepted that challenge? Exactly None.

I even conducted an interconnect listening test at a PSACS Meeting. The
experiment used a Cd Player and the headphone jack of a Bryston 2B power
ampliifer. Subjects brought over their personal reference cables and CDs and
listened individually for a previously agreed upon minimum of 10 trials. I had
2 headphones available but anybody who brought their own were free to do so.

Do you want to know how many people were able to distinguish their personal
reference interconnects from a set of junk-box interconnects in my collection
of rcas that were cannibalized from the packing cartons of lo-mid fi gear?
Exactly none.

One of the subjects was the "designer" of a regionally distributed cable
company. He complained that his "interconnects threw a really big image" that
was just not discernable with headphones.

So the following week we arranged for him to supply his own system; he supplied
his amplifiers, speaker cables and speakers as well as his own interconnects.

Want to know what the results were? While he had agreed to 10 trials up
front....he walked out of the experiment during the first trial saying he
couldn't tell the wires apart, packed up his stuff and stalked off.

This brings me to another issue. John Atkinson complained about a subject who
allegedly filled out his score sheet in advance as an example of how
experiments could be designed in such a way that would allow people to cheat
(his word.)

IME a much bigger problem is getting folks who make unsubstantiated claims
about the 'sound' of things like tweaks, wires, amplifiers and the like to
actually submit to controlled listening circumstances that would allow them to
verify their claims.

I was once challenged by a wire company who was not happy with the results of
bias controlled listening tests of speaker cabling to visit his facility (in
Hollis Maine) where he would "show me differences." He even followed this with
a letter to the local AES Chapter following my presentation.

Several months later I arranged a visit to that facility. When I arrived the
challenger REFUSED to conduct a controlled listening test claiming that he had
never offered same even though he had done so and confirmed same in a letter.

So IME the biggest problem with bias conntrolled listening tests is finding a
claimant (including Mr Atkinson and his review staff) who will subject
themselves to the verifying experiment. With all the bluster it should be so
easy .... no need to claim being agnostic.... IF the sonic differences were to
have acoustic cause.

When was the Stone review published? 1996? Was that right? And now after all
this discussion he claims that he never bothered to check his review staff or
personally verify the "improvements" that could be obtained with this product.

Either he really doesn't believe his staff OR he just isn't interested in the
sound quality improvements that can be obtained with the Stones. In either case
it should certainly make subscribers wonder

(Bob Marcus) wrote in message ...

Part of the problem is that $1 million is way to much to be taken
seriously. It sounds more like a publicity stunt than a serious
challenge.

It'd sound more serious if it were $1000. Or maybe 1000 euros--might
as well use a currency that's still worth something!

Fortunatelly there are several other smaller challenges similar to
Randi's. So, if someone really wants to win less than a million, they
should contact 'poorer' organization like finnish Skepsis which offers
10000e challenge, http://www.skepsis.fi/eng/.

Lasse Ukkonen

(S888Wheel) wrote in message ...

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.

Maybe I should try to clarify my point through a comparison:
CEO is held more or less responsible for the company. No one
expects that the CEO knows everything that is going on in the
company, no one expects that the CEO personally aproves every
decision that his/her subordinates do. However, when serious
questions arise about the company, then the CEO must take action.

An oil tanker runs aground, the CEO didn't personally cause it,
he didn't personally approve the course taken by the captain,
but nevertheless he/she is held responsible for cleaning up
the mess. In Europe the editor is expected to do the same, just
substitute the tanker with a magazine.

Lasse Ukkonen

Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused"
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 11/30/2004 3:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

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.

So should we expect ever editor of every audio magazine to agree with every
review in their magazines if they don't express a "timely" disagreement in
print? That once again puts the unreasonable onus on an editor to run around
and review every product that is reviewed in their publication for themselves.
If people cannot understand the nature of subjective review magazines that is
their problem IMO. If I were to purchase a pair of speakers based on one of
your reviews and found I didn't like them should I hold your editor
responsible?





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.


What other defense will any editor use when the subjective opinions of one of
his or her reviewers is challenged?



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."

Well if you want to challenge the audibility of isolation devices I'll happily
take your money or the million Randi is offering. Just make it worth my while.



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.

Nor would any number of quotes from subjective reviews of movies music or even
food. It's the nature of the beast. Again, for those that don't understand the
nature of subjective review the burden is on them to educate themselves.

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.

Was there any mention that the were verifibale or had been personally accpeted
by the editor? You think a subjective review magazine needs a disclaimer on
every page? Stereophile does often offer the disclaimer that their reviews are
subjective and potential buyers should audition any component for themsleves
before buying.



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.


You are entitlted to your opinion. Do your editors feel responsible for all the
opinions you express in print?

Tom Nousaine ) of Sound & Vision, The Sensible Sound &
The Audio Critic wrote in message :
(John Atkinson) wrote:
wrote in message
...
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.

Why do I have to pick _anything_? And please note that as I proved to
Tom Nousaine a few months back on the newsgroups, reviews of cables
and accessories are a relatively small part of Stereophile's content.

A quick count of the latest Recommended Components List shows that
approximately 20% of the Components on the list are accessories such
as cones, Power Line equipment, stands and cabling products.

So what, Mr. Nousaine? "outsor" clearly wrote that "auditions" and
reviews of cables and "tweek" products are the "stuff" of _each_ issue,
by which I think it reasonable to assume he meant the majority or the
core of the review content. Whether or not an example of Stereophile's
biannual "Recommended Components" includes such products is immaterial
to "outsor"'s point. He was clearly writing about _each_ issue's content.

And what, BTW, is wrong about recommending stands, etc to Stereophile's
readers? Would you like them to put speakers and other components on the
floor? :-)

In that same issue there are products found in the Equipment Reports
Section and 3 of them are wire products.

Again so what? Picking just one out of the 300 issues Stereophile has
published between September 1962 and January 2005 is hardly going to
produce representative statistics. Like the Amazing James Randi, Mr.
Nousaine, you appear to pick and choose only those data that fit your
predetermined case. Both of you show a lamentable willingness to
disregard facts, attributions, and specifics in your skeptical zeal.

Let's look at "wire products" reviewed in Stereophile. (I assume you
are implying that one issue is somehow typical of the magazine in
general.) Here are the statistics I gave you earlier in the year when
you claimed that cable reviews comprised a major proportion of
Stereophile's content. (These figures are updated to include the issues
published in 2004). Stereophile has published reviews of 3,737 products
since the magazine's launch, of which 184 were cables, a proportion of
just 4.9%.

You argued strenuously the last time I quoted these figures to you that
it was misleading of me to quote statistics that include reviews
published before I became editor of Stereophile (although quite _why_
it is misleading for me to do so remains unclear). So, looking just
at the reviews published in Stereophile since I took over its
direction, the magazine published reviews of 3,039 products in that
time, of which 179 were cable products, ie, a ratio of 5.9%, ie, we
have published less than one cable review per issue (I have edited 217
issues in that period).

You then argued that it was misleading of me to quote statistics that
covered my entire period as Stereophile's editor, and quoted the year
2001 as typical of the whole (more data dredging on your part). Here
are the figures for the past few years:

2000 13 cables out of 175 components reviewed, ie, 7.4%.
2001 19 cables out of 163 components reviewed, ie, 11.65%.
2002 3 cables out of 143 components reviewed, ie, 2.1%.
2003 12 cables out of 179 components reviewed, ie, 6.7%.
2004 9 cables out of 183 components reviewed, ie, 5.0%.

With 56 cables reviewed in 60 issues, this is still less than one
such review per issue, hardly the "stuff of each issue."

"But," I hear you spluttering Mr. Nousaine, "you haven't included
stands'n'racks'n'"Power Line" equipment." No I didn't because, in
my humble opinion, as people make good use of stands, racks, record
cleaning machines, stylus downforce gauges, tonearm protractors,
test equipment, room acoustics treatment, computer programs, etc, etc,
I hardly see what is wrong in Stereophile reviewing and recommending
such products. But I will humor you, Mr. Nousaine. Here are the
statistics for the past 5 years covering _all_ such accessories
reviewed in the magazine:

2000 18 accessories out of 175 components reviewed, ie, 10.3%.
2001 9 accessories out of 163 components reviewed, ie, 5.5%.
2002 8 accessories out of 143 components reviewed, ie, 5.6%.
2003 7 accessories out of 179 components reviewed, ie, 3.9%.
2004 9 accessories out of 183 components reviewed, ie, 5.0%.

(Other than our 2004 issues, the index for which will be found in the
forthcoming January 2005 issue, the raw data for these statistics can
be found at http://www.stereophile.com/images/ma...dex/index.html .)

If you wish to say that the incidence of cable and accessory reviews in
Stereophile (107 out of 843 products reviewed in 60 issues) is too high
for your liking, Mr. Nousaine, then that is a reasonable opinion for you
to express. But the suggestion that such reviews are a major proportion
of Stereophile's content, as both you and "outsor" have strongly implied,
is not supported by the data.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Lasse Ukkonen wrote:
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.

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.

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.

Aren't you curious? Wouldn't it nice to know what kind of job your
reviewers are doing?

There seem to be a number of instances when the reviewers abilities have
come into question.

If for no other reason than the claims made for the Stones appear to be so
completely contrary to common sense, and there's a million bucks on the
line, I'd think someone would jump at the chance.


While he did not endorse them, neither did he damn them and say that
they represent a great many tweeks which have no effect...

I have no idea what effect they have nor if they have any effect at all,
so how on earth can I be expected to express an opinion either way?

By listening.

All
I am aware is that two of my reviewers did express positive opinions of
the devices in Stereophile 8 years ago.

One assumes you read their comments. I can only say that if if I read that
something like the stones caused an audible difference of any kind, I would
want a rather immediate demonstration.


That you are taken in by this man's posturing is truly sad.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

That you choose not to personally investigate some of your reviewer's more
controversial recommendations, seems sad as well.

"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
...
"normanstrong" wrote in message
...

$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!

Part of the problem is that $1 million is way to much to be taken
seriously. It sounds more like a publicity stunt than a serious
challenge.


The monye is there and has been for some time. It stands for anybody to
claim once they prove any of the claims that Randi challenges.

Mr. Atkinson is now avoiding the core question of the subjective
enterprise by saying only a fraction of articles are about tweek related
items, while not being clear as to why it should matter to the question.
We can avoid this problem, if it is one, by changing the same claimed but
never demonstrated abilities to find audible things audio by shifting the
discussion to "breakin" which seems almost a now required part of each
"audition". Be it wire, or amp, or speaker, or cd player, or just about
everything note is made that "breakin" considerations were made/practiced
and differences almost always percieved before doing the "audition" so as
to discover the "real" sound of the item in question. Shall we propose
that "breakin" be the tweek which most applies to all the mag does and to
which almost universal acceptance is displayed and represents the most
possibill unencombered by other factors which have been evoked thus far?
It would be a simple clean test, a before and after or two of the same
item where one is "broken" and the other not.

(S888Wheel) wrote:
Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused"
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 11/30/2004 3:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

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.

So should we expect ever editor of every audio magazine to agree with every
review in their magazines if they don't express a "timely" disagreement in
print? That once again puts the unreasonable onus on an editor to run around
and review every product that is reviewed in their publication for
themselves.
If people cannot understand the nature of subjective review magazines that is
their problem IMO. If I were to purchase a pair of speakers based on one of
your reviews and found I didn't like them should I hold your editor
responsible?

Sure. But you can also bet your bippy that my Editorial staff questions
anythingI write that appears on its face value to be inconsistent with what is
known about acoustical sound reproduction in the listening room.

And the opinion of anybody with a device such as a loudspeaker which has
noticeable response errors in rooms is automatically qualified as a opinion.
But the "sound" of a stone placed in your listening room or an interconnecting
cable changing the timing of signals passed through it is more than opinion
..... its a revision of physics and deserves scutiny EVEN if that's simply a
verification of possible affects with even moderate bias controls implemented.
Or even for a subjectivist it would seem likely that the CEO would investigate
the sound quality improvements that might be gained with such an extraordinary
claim.



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.


What other defense will any editor use when the subjective opinions of one of
his or her reviewers is challenged?

At Sound & Vision the question and the cause is investigated. But then, when
was the last time you heard "my cables made my bass faster" or another fanciful
opinion in that publication? Is it because there is technical and editorial
oversight?

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."

Well if you want to challenge the audibility of isolation devices I'll
happily
take your money or the million Randi is offering. Just make it worth my
while.

I've offered to allow you to verify your claim of amplifier sound before but
that wasn't worth the time for you then. What is your price for proving the
"sound" of any particular item?

For me the cost lay in NOT proving I really hear what my perceptions or other
enthusiasts tell me. That's exactly why I began controlled testing the 'sound'
of capacitors, amplifiers, cabling, isolation etc a quarter century ago; to
maximize the effectiveness of resource deployment in the quest of sound quality
optimization.




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.

Nor would any number of quotes from subjective reviews of movies music or
even
food. It's the nature of the beast. Again, for those that don't understand
the
nature of subjective review the burden is on them to educate themselves.

Please. If that is so why haven't you already conducted and shared the
experimental results of amp amd isolation sound? We are not assessing the "art"
of sound reproduction, that's certainly subject to debate (I once had a lively
argument in 1966 in Vietnam about whether "Summer in the City" was better than
"Satisfaction" but that's not the same as assessing which amplifier does a
better job of delivering the electrical signal to the loudspeaker terminals
..... the latter is perfectly testable either electrically OR acoustically.


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.

Was there any mention that the were verifibale or had been personally
accpeted
by the editor? You think a subjective review magazine needs a disclaimer on
every page?

No. But it should be included for extraordinary claims when the Editor may
want to walk away from them at a later date claiming "agnosticism."

Stereophile does often offer the disclaimer that their reviews
are
subjective and potential buyers should audition any component for themsleves
before buying.

That's a different argument. The magazine review offered an extraordinary
claim, one that would most likely be questioned later, yet some 8 years later
the Editor says he has never auditioned them. It seems to me that he is either
not interested in possible sound quality improvements or, perhaps, that he
never trusted his reviewer or that he was just too lazy. In any case why would
anybody want to accept anything published in the book as having any value
(except for the measurements.....which can be verified...) because even when
they are extrordinary claims they are accepted without qualification with no
technical review and never with verification as to acoustical cause.


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.


You are entitlted to your opinion. Do your editors feel responsible for all
the
opinions you express in print?

Damn right they do. But then I publish few "opinions."

(John Atkinson) wrote:
Tom Nousaine ) of Sound & Vision, The Sensible Sound &
The Audio Critic wrote in message :

Hey thanks for the current byline list; why not include my 25 years at
Bell/Ameritech too. Does anyone remember Sound & Image? I wrote for them too,
all 1 or 2 issues.

(John Atkinson) wrote:
wrote in message
...
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.

Why do I have to pick _anything_? And please note that as I proved to
Tom Nousaine a few months back on the newsgroups, reviews of cables
and accessories are a relatively small part of Stereophile's content.

A quick count of the latest Recommended Components List shows that
approximately 20% of the Components on the list are accessories such
as cones, Power Line equipment, stands and cabling products.

So what, Mr. Nousaine? "outsor" clearly wrote that "auditions" and
reviews of cables and "tweek" products are the "stuff" of _each_ issue,
by which I think it reasonable to assume he meant the majority or the
core of the review content. Whether or not an example of Stereophile's
biannual "Recommended Components" includes such products is immaterial
to "outsor"'s point. He was clearly writing about _each_ issue's content.

Actually I think you are overlooking the fact that about 20% of your RCL
contents are cabling and accessories (not counting room conditioning and things
like books and software) so exactly how does that percentage become so high
when you seldom "review" them?

I will agree, as I have in the past, that your review count does not hold a
high percentage of accessories; but when I pick up a copy it seems that I must
just be extraordinarily lucky to get one that has a fairly high wire count. As
you surely must realize this was the latesr RCL issue .... not one that I had
to 'dredge' up.


And what, BTW, is wrong about recommending stands, etc to Stereophile's
readers? Would you like them to put speakers and other components on the
floor? :-)

Only when it makes them sound better. :-) But there are some components that
work best there, like my subwoofer.


In that same issue there are products found in the Equipment Reports
Section and 3 of them are wire products.

Again so what? Picking just one out of the 300 issues Stereophile has
published between September 1962 and January 2005 is hardly going to
produce representative statistics. Like the Amazing James Randi, Mr.
Nousaine, you appear to pick and choose only those data that fit your
predetermined case.

Actually I just picked one that was still on my desk. Wasn't that hard.

Both of you show a lamentable willingness to
disregard facts, attributions, and specifics in your skeptical zeal.

I like this accusation. Are you telling me that my depiction of the October RCL
issue was wrong? Aren't you glad that you decided to check your database.

Have you ever wondered why so much of your RCL is accessory based, of which,
MOST of them are products that have NOT been formally reviewed? I have.


Let's look at "wire products" reviewed in Stereophile. (I assume you
are implying that one issue is somehow typical of the magazine in
general.)

You may assume anything you want. I never said anything that was NOT a true
depiction of the contents in that issue (October 2004.)

Here are the statistics I gave you earlier in the year when
you claimed that cable reviews comprised a major proportion of
Stereophile's content. (These figures are updated to include the issues
published in 2004).

"Major"? Don't recall that. But it is true that I said that cables were a
bigger part of the magazine than appeared at face value.

Stereophile has published reviews of 3,737 products
since the magazine's launch, of which 184 were cables, a proportion of
just 4.9%.

So exactly how do cables comprise about 12% of your Recommended Components
(assumimg that your current count of 500 is still accurate; don't we all
remember when you boasted that the RCL had over 800 components when the actual
count was just a little over 500) when you so rarely 'review' them?

You argued strenuously the last time I quoted these figures to you that
it was misleading of me to quote statistics that include reviews
published before I became editor of Stereophile (although quite _why_
it is misleading for me to do so remains unclear).

I don't recall arguing strenuously but it was a real point. You wanted to
include the part of the magazine where you weren't personally involved. IMO if
Gordon Holt never reviewed cableswasn't part of the current magazine image.

So, looking just
at the reviews published in Stereophile since I took over its
direction, the magazine published reviews of 3,039 products in that
time, of which 179 were cable products, ie, a ratio of 5.9%, ie, we
have published less than one cable review per issue (I have edited 217
issues in that period).

You then argued that it was misleading of me to quote statistics that
covered my entire period as Stereophile's editor, and quoted the year
2001 as typical of the whole (more data dredging on your part).

Oh I never said it was typical. Those were just the issues I had access to at
the time. And that count seemed to match the then-current RCL reasonably well.

What you want to do Mr Atkinson, is divert attention from the issue that
Stereophile promotes and even encourages many myths about sound quality factors
that have never been shown to have an acoustical affect of the reproduced
sound.

Here
are the figures for the past few years:

2000 13 cables out of 175 components reviewed, ie, 7.4%.
2001 19 cables out of 163 components reviewed, ie, 11.65%.
2002 3 cables out of 143 components reviewed, ie, 2.1%.
2003 12 cables out of 179 components reviewed, ie, 6.7%.
2004 9 cables out of 183 components reviewed, ie, 5.0%.

With 56 cables reviewed in 60 issues, this is still less than one
such review per issue, hardly the "stuff of each issue."

OK then why do cables represent 12% of the Recommended Components if they
represent only 5% of the "reviewed" components?


"But," I hear you spluttering Mr. Nousaine, "you haven't included
stands'n'racks'n'"Power Line" equipment." No I didn't because, in
my humble opinion, as people make good use of stands, racks, record
cleaning machines, stylus downforce gauges, tonearm protractors,
test equipment, room acoustics treatment, computer programs, etc, etc,
I hardly see what is wrong in Stereophile reviewing and recommending
such products. But I will humor you, Mr. Nousaine. Here are the
statistics for the past 5 years covering _all_ such accessories
reviewed in the magazine:

2000 18 accessories out of 175 components reviewed, ie, 10.3%.
2001 9 accessories out of 163 components reviewed, ie, 5.5%.
2002 8 accessories out of 143 components reviewed, ie, 5.6%.
2003 7 accessories out of 179 components reviewed, ie, 3.9%.
2004 9 accessories out of 183 components reviewed, ie, 5.0%.

Holy cow. Then why do Power Line accessories represent about 6% of your RCL and
Stands,cones, etc occupy another 7% IF few of them have ever been 'reviewed?'

Aren't the RCL components selected on the basis of "...entirely on performance
--- accuracy of reproduction---"? Exactly how has any Power Line accessory or
Stand, Cone...et al, Cable product EVER been shown to have an effect of
accuracy of reproduction in a replicable experiment?

Even though they represent roughly 20% of the Highly Recommended Products and
yet, relatively few have ever been subjected to a "review"?


(Other than our 2004 issues, the index for which will be found in the
forthcoming January 2005 issue, the raw data for these statistics can
be found at http://www.stereophile.com/images/ma...dex/index.html .)

If you wish to say that the incidence of cable and accessory reviews in
Stereophile (107 out of 843 products reviewed in 60 issues) is too high
for your liking, Mr. Nousaine, then that is a reasonable opinion for you
to express. But the suggestion that such reviews are a major proportion
of Stereophile's content, as both you and "outsor" have strongly implied,
is not supported by the data.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

My "liking" has nothing to do with it. But, again tell me exactly how many of
the October 2004 Recommended Components do you accept as sonically described in
the 2004 October RCL?

"Michael wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Lasse Ukkonen wrote:
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.

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.

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.

Aren't you curious? Wouldn't it nice to know what kind of job your
reviewers are doing?

There seem to be a number of instances when the reviewers abilities have
come into question.

If for no other reason than the claims made for the Stones appear to be so
completely contrary to common sense, and there's a million bucks on the
line, I'd think someone would jump at the chance.


While he did not endorse them, neither did he damn them and say that
they represent a great many tweeks which have no effect...

I have no idea what effect they have nor if they have any effect at all,
so how on earth can I be expected to express an opinion either way?

By listening.

I would think that if my trusted review team said that these devices changed
and/or improved the sound I certainly would have investigated more
deeply....assumimg I was truly interested in sound quality improvement.


All
I am aware is that two of my reviewers did express positive opinions of
the devices in Stereophile 8 years ago.

Yes, and why not follow up?

One assumes you read their comments. I can only say that if if I read that
something like the stones caused an audible difference of any kind, I would
want a rather immediate demonstration.


That you are taken in by this man's posturing is truly sad.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

That you choose not to personally investigate some of your reviewer's more
controversial recommendations, seems sad as well.

Or failed to further investigate the probability of improving sound quality in
your own system.

On 2 Dec 2004 00:49:07 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused"
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 11/30/2004 3:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

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.

So should we expect ever editor of every audio magazine to agree with every
review in their magazines if they don't express a "timely" disagreement in
print? That once again puts the unreasonable onus on an editor to run around
and review every product that is reviewed in their publication for themselves.
If people cannot understand the nature of subjective review magazines that is
their problem IMO. If I were to purchase a pair of speakers based on one of
your reviews and found I didn't like them should I hold your editor
responsible?

No, but like the 'big boss' of any other organisation, when the work
of one of his senior staff is challenged, he should step up to the
plate, not shrug and say that it's nothing to do with him what his
staff say in public. Further, what about the Recommended Components
list? It seems that Atkinson does not even care to stand behind this
most famous bastion of his publication. Does the editor of arguably
*the* mainstream US audiophile publication have *no* opinions on audio
'tweaks' such as cables? If not, why is he there?

Well if you want to challenge the audibility of isolation devices I'll happily
take your money or the million Randi is offering. Just make it worth my while.

A million is not worth your while? My, how nice for you! :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 2 Dec 2004 00:51:18 GMT, (John
Atkinson) wrote:

If you wish to say that the incidence of cable and accessory reviews in
Stereophile (107 out of 843 products reviewed in 60 issues) is too high
for your liking, Mr. Nousaine, then that is a reasonable opinion for you
to express. But the suggestion that such reviews are a major proportion
of Stereophile's content, as both you and "outsor" have strongly implied,
is not supported by the data.

Actually, it's a lot simpler than that. As editor of arguably *the*
mainstream US audiophile publication, is there *any* cable from the
polethora on the RC list which you are prepared to claim *will* sound
different from cheap 'zipcord' in any system of your choice? Are you
indeed prepared to offer *any* opinion whatever about the more
controversial audio matters? If not, then why are you there?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

(S888Wheel) wrote in message ...
Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused"
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 11/30/2004 3:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

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.

So should we expect ever editor of every audio magazine to agree with every
review in their magazines if they don't express a "timely" disagreement in
print?

Of course not. An editor is not expected to agree with every opinion
he publishes. But reviews are not simply opinions. They also contain
facts. If a reviewer gets his facts wrong, an editor with even a shred
of professional pride will take responsibility for that. That's why
many magazines employ fact-checkers.

I'd argue that a reviewer who says that Shakti Stones have audible
effects is getting his facts wrong. But at the very least, the
assertion is so scientifically implausible that it demands checking.
That Atkinson is so incurious about this does not reflect well on him
as either an editor or a scientist.

That once again puts the unreasonable onus on an editor to run around
and review every product that is reviewed in their publication for themselves.

I haven't seen Stereophile's Recommended Components List in a while,
but I can't remember it containing a disclaimer about components being
listed *only* because a reviewer liked them. I rather had the
impression that they were putting the weight of the magazine behind
those recommendations. I think there's something wrong with an editor
who includes a product on his recommended list, and then runs away
from that recommendation and claims it's only some reviewer's opinion
when chllenged.

bob

wrote in message ...
Mr. Atkinson is now avoiding the core question of the subjective
enterprise by saying only a fraction of articles are about tweek
related items, while not being clear as to why it should matter to
the question.

It matters, "outsor," because I was addressing a specific point you made,
which was that "endless 'auditions' and reviewers" of so-called "tweeks"
are supposedly the "stuff" of Stereophile magazine, by which I assumed
you meant the content of each issue. Here is the exact statement you
made on this subject:

wrote in message ...
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.

If you claim the objective high ground, which it appears you do, then
surely you are obliged to get your facts correct? Regardless of your
opinion of some of the "tweek" products reviewed in Stereophile,
such reviews are not the "stuff" of each issue, far from it, in fact.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I must say I am dissappointed in Mr. Atkinson.

He is doing all the little things, using all the little tricks of debate,
specificity,
etc. etc. to keep from having a firmly known opinion of some of he more
questionable high end ideas about what matters. While certainly entitled
to point out where Randi has twisted facts, split hairs, not be fully
forthcoming
etc. etc., and no doubt should do this imo, he isn't hitting at the core of
the
question. He is skillfully avoiding it.

Now avoiding it is also fine if he believes the question of blind testing
versus
everything else is in error. Or that blind testing is not as discerning as
other
methods. But he seems to have carefully avoided hinting at that as well.

His overall demeanor in all this seems like one of two things. Someone who
knows they cannot win an argument. Or what bothers me more, like someone
who knows some of his business that provides a good living for himself is
less
than honest. And therefore wishes to avoid admitting he didn't think all of
this
tweak stuff amounted to anything anyway. Rather he just let it go without
his
particular endorsement as it benefitted his magazine to do so.

If he seriously wishes to contest the matter, he could find some tweakery,
even
if not the Shakti stones in particular, which he could show has some basis
in
reality. And that should suffice to shut off the criticism of Randi. Wire
audibility
certainly seems the best possible choice to do that with.

But does Mr. Atkinson believe different wire sounds different? And would he
venture to prove it to a skeptic like Randi?

Be nice to have those questions answered.

Dennis

(Nousaine) wrote in message ...
(John Atkinson) wrote:
Tom Nousaine ) of Sound & Vision, The Sensible Sound &
The Audio Critic wrote in message :
Hey thanks for the current byline list; why not include my 25 years at
Bell/Ameritech too.

I didn't think it relevant, Mr. Nousaine. I do think it relevant that
you are employed by magazines that compete with my own, hence you cannot
claim to be impartial in this discussion.

why do cables represent 12% of the Recommended Components if they
represent only 5% of the "reviewed" components?

Because, Mr. Nousaine, as I have explained to you before but you
appear to have conveniently "forgot," products are dropped from
"Recommended Components" when no-one on my staff has had any continuing
experience of them 3 years after the review was published. As cables and
other accessories tend to be used over long periods of time, they stay
on the list longer than other components. As a result, they become
over-represented in "Recommended Components."

But that is not the point, I was responding specifically to "outsor"'s
incorrect statement that reviews of cables and accessories were the
"stuff" of each issue. They are not, as the statistics I gave proved.

Even though they represent roughly 20% of the Highly Recommended Products
and yet, relatively few have ever been subjected to a "review"?

Put your straw man away, Mr. Nousaine. The cables and accessories in
"Recommended Components" that have not been formally reviewed are
clearly indicated with "NR," as it states in the published introduction.
However, they _have_ been tested by one or more of the maagzine's staff
and the listing is based on their experience.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"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.

I think in the case of things like Shakti Stones and the claims made for
them I would choose to listen myself, if I were the editor. Partly out of
curiosity, since I like to be able to improve things and partly because the
claims seem outrageous on their face.

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:
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.

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.

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
Dudley and myself. I repeat: neither of us has auditioned the Shakti
Stones, so it hardly seems appropriate for anyone to insist that Art
and myself respond to the Challenge?

You couldn't use a million bucks?

Randi might as well choose _you_ to
defend the Shakti devices, surely.

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.

Why do I have to pick _anything_? And please note that as I proved to
Tom Nousaine a few months back on the newsgroups, reviews of cables and
accessories are a relatively small part of Stereophile's content. Also
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.


Have you no curiosity? Don't you want to make improvenments in your sound
system?


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.


Do you frequently disagree with your reviewers? There are ways to insure
they get things done in a less controversial way.

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
...
(Nousaine) wrote in message
...
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..."

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...

I really wish you, like James Randi, would take the care to get your
facts correct, Mr. Nousaine. No I have not written about the Shakti
Stones, not have I personally recommended them, though 2 of my reviewers,
Jonathan Scull and Barry Willis did do so, back in 1996.

Given their recomendations, don't you think it reasonable that they should
maybe get their ears checked?

But yes, I
have written about Tice Ckock and did not recommend it, an act which
resulted in Tice cancelling all their advertising in Stereophile and
moving it TAS and that then-bastion of objectivity, Audio magazine.

How about showing the same sort of courage now? What cones, cables, etc, do
you have personal knowledge of? Which ones improved the sound you heard?

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused"
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 11/30/2004 3:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

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.

So should we expect ever editor of every audio magazine to agree with
every
review in their magazines if they don't express a "timely" disagreement in
print?

On the controversial ones like magic rocks, YES.

That once again puts the unreasonable onus on an editor to run around
and review every product that is reviewed in their publication for
themselves.

I don't see anybody asking for that, just a bit of oversight to keep the
reviewers from looking stupid and giving the publication a bad name. Surel
tweeks would be something anyone interested in good audio would want to
investigate if for nothing more than pure selfish pleasure.

If people cannot understand the nature of subjective review magazines that
is
their problem IMO.

The problem is that people do understand the nature of subjective review
magazines.

If I were to purchase a pair of speakers based on one of
your reviews and found I didn't like them should I hold your editor
responsible?

Not if you are reasonably aquainted with the differences that speakers make.
Not if you are reasonably aware of how much difference there are between
different speakers.

Nobody is aking for consensus of opinion, just that there be some legitmate
basis for that opinion when it comes to really controversial products like
magic rocks and wooden disks.



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.


What other defense will any editor use when the subjective opinions of one
of
his or her reviewers is challenged?


That other people could hear the same changes or that frequency response
measurements confirmed something real was going on. You know, evidence.




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."

Well if you want to challenge the audibility of isolation devices I'll
happily
take your money or the million Randi is offering. Just make it worth my
while.



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.

Nor would any number of quotes from subjective reviews of movies music or
even
food.

Because those are ENTIRELY subjective. Audio has specific criteria and
things that can be measured to see if they are true.

It's the nature of the beast. Again, for those that don't understand the
nature of subjective review the burden is on them to educate themselves.

That appears to be the problem, they have educated themselves and are aware.

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.

Was there any mention that the were verifibale or had been personally
accpeted
by the editor?

Why wouldn't someone interested in sound quality wish to investigate
something that was alleged to make an improvement?

You think a subjective review magazine needs a disclaimer on
every page? Stereophile does often offer the disclaimer that their reviews
are
subjective and potential buyers should audition any component for
themsleves
before buying.

In the case of something as outrageous as the claims made for Shakti stones,
they should have some sort of verifiable evidence that something occured
somewhere aside from the in the MIND of the reviewer. The kind of
improvements claimed should be easily verifiable with FR measurements.

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
(S888Wheel) wrote:
Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused"
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 11/30/2004 3:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

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.

So should we expect ever editor of every audio magazine to agree with
every
review in their magazines if they don't express a "timely" disagreement
in
print? That once again puts the unreasonable onus on an editor to run
around
and review every product that is reviewed in their publication for
themselves.
If people cannot understand the nature of subjective review magazines
that is
their problem IMO. If I were to purchase a pair of speakers based on one
of
your reviews and found I didn't like them should I hold your editor
responsible?

Sure. But you can also bet your bippy that my Editorial staff questions
anythingI write that appears on its face value to be inconsistent with
what is
known about acoustical sound reproduction in the listening room.


That could also be interpreted as editorial intimidation, to make sure you
followed the "party line".

And the opinion of anybody with a device such as a loudspeaker which has
noticeable response errors in rooms is automatically qualified as a
opinion.
But the "sound" of a stone placed in your listening room or an
interconnecting
cable changing the timing of signals passed through it is more than
opinion
.... its a revision of physics and deserves scutiny EVEN if that's simply
a
verification of possible affects with even moderate bias controls
implemented.
Or even for a subjectivist it would seem likely that the CEO would
investigate
the sound quality improvements that might be gained with such an
extraordinary
claim.


Your opinion, since nothing but mainstream items are reviewed in Sound &
Vision.



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.


What other defense will any editor use when the subjective opinions of
one of
his or her reviewers is challenged?

At Sound & Vision the question and the cause is investigated. But then,
when
was the last time you heard "my cables made my bass faster" or another
fanciful
opinion in that publication? Is it because there is technical and
editorial
oversight?


Frankly, I subscribe to Sound & Vision only to find out what is new, and for
their feature lists. I find the magazine slightly useful from a video
standpoint, and virtually useless from a sound standpoint. The reviewer
always reviews one cd, one dvd-a, one sacd which they have just
received/purchased, with no particular listening background, and then
comment on the music, which of course 'always sounds great'. Laughable.
Talk about a magazine cottening to the advertisers!


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."

Well if you want to challenge the audibility of isolation devices I'll
happily
take your money or the million Randi is offering. Just make it worth my
while.

I've offered to allow you to verify your claim of amplifier sound before
but
that wasn't worth the time for you then. What is your price for proving
the
"sound" of any particular item?

For me the cost lay in NOT proving I really hear what my perceptions or
other
enthusiasts tell me. That's exactly why I began controlled testing the
'sound'
of capacitors, amplifiers, cabling, isolation etc a quarter century ago;
to
maximize the effectiveness of resource deployment in the quest of sound
quality
optimization.


And isn't it convenient to rid your mind of all clutter of uncertainty and
doubt, having again to listen, for all those 25 years!




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.

Nor would any number of quotes from subjective reviews of movies music or
even
food. It's the nature of the beast. Again, for those that don't
understand
the
nature of subjective review the burden is on them to educate themselves.

Please. If that is so why haven't you already conducted and shared the
experimental results of amp amd isolation sound? We are not assessing the
"art"
of sound reproduction, that's certainly subject to debate (I once had a
lively
argument in 1966 in Vietnam about whether "Summer in the City" was better
than
"Satisfaction" but that's not the same as assessing which amplifier does a
better job of delivering the electrical signal to the loudspeaker
terminals
.... the latter is perfectly testable either electrically OR acoustically.


Sorry Charley, but I defy you to "hear" an electrical signal.


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.

Was there any mention that the were verifibale or had been personally
accpeted
by the editor? You think a subjective review magazine needs a disclaimer
on
every page?

No. But it should be included for extraordinary claims when the Editor
may
want to walk away from them at a later date claiming "agnosticism."


Only if the editor professes the magazine to be a scientic journal, as
opposed to a subjectivist, hobbiest review magazine.

Stereophile does often offer the disclaimer that their reviews
are
subjective and potential buyers should audition any component for
themsleves
before buying.

That's a different argument. The magazine review offered an extraordinary
claim, one that would most likely be questioned later, yet some 8 years
later
the Editor says he has never auditioned them. It seems to me that he is
either
not interested in possible sound quality improvements or, perhaps, that he
never trusted his reviewer or that he was just too lazy. In any case why
would
anybody want to accept anything published in the book as having any value
(except for the measurements.....which can be verified...) because even
when
they are extrordinary claims they are accepted without qualification with
no
technical review and never with verification as to acoustical cause.


And that same magazine is happy to post letters from readers who feel as you
do. That certainly should scare off the culpable.



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.


You are entitlted to your opinion. Do your editors feel responsible for
all
the
opinions you express in print?

Damn right they do. But then I publish few "opinions."

Censorship and intimidation are then obviously alive and well at Sound &
Vision and Sensible Sound. Everything sounds the same unless proven with a
double blind...well..you know what.

"But that is not the point, I was responding specifically to "outsor"'s
incorrect statement that reviews of cables and accessories were the
"stuff" of each issue. They are not, as the statistics I gave proved."

I'm perhaps not recalling, without going back to check, but my comment was
with specific regard to the subjective enterpriss based on claimed but
undemonstrated ability to hear audible differences were the stuff of each
issue. It is, as said repeatably, the core question which is not being
addressed. The number of tweek articles is irrelevant to this question.
I did say when can then avoid this "problem", if it be one, by using
"breakin" as the example; as it is almost in every article and applied in
all categories.

wrote in message ...
John Atkinson ) wrote:
But that is not the point, I was responding specifically to "outsor"'s
incorrect statement that reviews of cables and accessories were the
"stuff" of each issue. They are not, as the statistics I gave proved."

I'm perhaps not recalling, without going back to check, but my comment
was with specific regard to the subjective enterpriss based on claimed
but undemonstrated ability to hear audible differences were the stuff
of each issue.

No, "outsor," you made a specific comment about Stereophile, to which I
was responding. this is what you wrote in, in message
:
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.

It is, as said repeatably, the core question which is not being
addressed. The number of tweek articles is irrelevant to this question.

Not at all; it directly addresses the point you incorrectly made. But
if you are now changing your point, to the general, why, if you are not
a Stereophile reader, do you think your opinion matters? My readers
seem satisfied with what they are offered and free to adopt or reject
the opinions expressed in Stereopihle, according to their own beliefs
and experiences. Surely all you are offering is the age-old lament of
the powerless, unable to reshape a world that they do not much like!

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused"
From: (Lasse)
Date: 12/1/2004 4:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(S888Wheel) wrote in message
...

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.

Maybe I should try to clarify my point through a comparison:
CEO is held more or less responsible for the company. No one
expects that the CEO knows everything that is going on in the
company, no one expects that the CEO personally aproves every
decision that his/her subordinates do. However, when serious
questions arise about the company, then the CEO must take action.

An oil tanker runs aground, the CEO didn't personally cause it,
he didn't personally approve the course taken by the captain,
but nevertheless he/she is held responsible for cleaning up
the mess.

No, the company is. The CEO odoes not pay for it out of his or her pocket. But
what is your point?

In Europe the editor is expected to do the same, just
substitute the tanker with a magazine.

So? How does this conflict with what I said?

Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused"
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 12/2/2004 4:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(S888Wheel) wrote:
Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused"
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 11/30/2004 3:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

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.

So should we expect ever editor of every audio magazine to agree with every
review in their magazines if they don't express a "timely" disagreement in
print? That once again puts the unreasonable onus on an editor to run around
and review every product that is reviewed in their publication for
themselves.
If people cannot understand the nature of subjective review magazines that
is
their problem IMO. If I were to purchase a pair of speakers based on one of
your reviews and found I didn't like them should I hold your editor
responsible?

Sure.

Really? Will they give my mony back? How does one hold them responsible for
your opinions?

But you can also bet your bippy that my Editorial staff questions
anythingI write that appears on its face value to be inconsistent with what
is
known about acoustical sound reproduction in the listening room.

"what is known" is highly debated. The editorial policies of your publications
are hardly a model that must be followed by all other publications. If they
fill a niche fine. Do they actually rpeat your auditions and reject any reviews
with which they disagree?



And the opinion of anybody with a device such as a loudspeaker which has
noticeable response errors in rooms is automatically qualified as a opinion.

Any opinion is automatically qualified as opinion.


But the "sound" of a stone placed in your listening room or an
interconnecting
cable changing the timing of signals passed through it is more than opinion

No. it is mere oipion until claimed to be more than an opinion.


.... its a revision of physics and deserves scutiny EVEN if that's simply a
verification of possible affects with even moderate bias controls
implemented.

It is not any claim about physics until stated as such.


Or even for a subjectivist it would seem likely that the CEO would
investigate
the sound quality improvements that might be gained with such an
extraordinary
claim.

Should you ever become a CEO you are free to act accordingly. I'm sure Mr.
Atkinson is a busy person. He may not agree with you on this point. That is his
choice not yours.





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.



What other defense will any editor use when the subjective opinions of one
of
his or her reviewers is challenged?

At Sound & Vision the question and the cause is investigated.

Two words, Bedini clarifier.

But then, when
was the last time you heard "my cables made my bass faster" or another
fanciful
opinion in that publication?

I don't recall reading that claim. I tend to not pay much attention to cable
reviews though.

Is it because there is technical and editorial
oversight?

The reasons have been explained to you. The reviewers are free to express their
opinions of their impressions of equipment they review.



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."

Well if you want to challenge the audibility of isolation devices I'll
happily
take your money or the million Randi is offering. Just make it worth my
while.

I've offered to allow you to verify your claim of amplifier sound before but
that wasn't worth the time for you then. What is your price for proving the
"sound" of any particular item?

Lets see how many "skeptics" you can get to give up their money on this one.
I'll offer a thousand dollar bet right now that you won't take this challenge.
The challenge being the audible effects of isolation devices in audio playback.
I use them, I am confident they have an effect. I'll take any bet you want to
offer over a thousand dollars. anything less is a waste.



For me the cost lay in NOT proving I really hear what my perceptions or other
enthusiasts tell me. That's exactly why I began controlled testing the
'sound'
of capacitors, amplifiers, cabling, isolation etc a quarter century ago; to
maximize the effectiveness of resource deployment in the quest of sound
quality
optimization.




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.

Nor would any number of quotes from subjective reviews of movies music or
even
food. It's the nature of the beast. Again, for those that don't understand
the
nature of subjective review the burden is on them to educate themselves.

Please. If that is so why haven't you already conducted and shared the
experimental results of amp amd isolation sound?

Who said I have done any such experiments?

We are not assessing the
"art"
of sound reproduction, that's certainly subject to debate (I once had a
lively
argument in 1966 in Vietnam about whether "Summer in the City" was better
than
"Satisfaction" but that's not the same as assessing which amplifier does a
better job of delivering the electrical signal to the loudspeaker terminals
.... the latter is perfectly testable either electrically OR acoustically.


All irrelevant to the nature of subjective review. Many things that are not art
related are subject to such review. Cars, boats, fishing equipment, golf clubs
etc. All are subject to subjective review and all opinions stated in such
reviews are just that, opinions.





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.

Was there any mention that the were verifibale or had been personally
accpeted
by the editor? You think a subjective review magazine needs a disclaimer on
every page?

No. But it should be included for extraordinary claims when the Editor may
want to walk away from them at a later date claiming "agnosticism."

You are not the arbitrator of what is and is not "extraordinary." If you wish
to start your own publication and exercise this policy you are free to do so.
Personally I am quite satisfied with the disclaimers in Stereophile as they
stand and have no sympathy for anyone who buys a product based on a review
without first auditioning it for themselves.



Stereophile does often offer the disclaimer that their reviews
are
subjective and potential buyers should audition any component for themsleves
before buying.

That's a different argument.

No.

The magazine review offered an extraordinary
claim,

IYO

one that would most likely be questioned later, yet some 8 years later
the Editor says he has never auditioned them.

The reason has been explained.

It seems to me that he is
either
not interested in possible sound quality improvements or, perhaps, that he
never trusted his reviewer or that he was just too lazy.

Well it seems you are claiming to know what Atkinson is thinking despite what
he says he is thinking. Now that is an extraordinary claim. Would your editor
question this opinion were you to express it in an article?

In any case why
would
anybody want to accept anything published in the book as having any value
(except for the measurements.....which can be verified...) because even when
they are extrordinary claims they are accepted without qualification with no
technical review and never with verification as to acoustical cause.

I don't understand why you cannot see beyond your own biases. That may be your
comfort zone but it is hardly a universal comfort zone. Some of us have been
quite happy trusting our auditions without the bias of measurements telling us
what we should and should not prefer.




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.


You are entitlted to your opinion. Do your editors feel responsible for all
the
opinions you express in print?

Damn right they do. But then I publish few "opinions."

Then they are not really much of a subjective review magazine. Nothing wrong
with that but it's hardly a fair comparison anymore.

On 4 Dec 2004 16:58:06 GMT, (John
Atkinson) wrote:

wrote in message ...

It is, as said repeatably, the core question which is not being
addressed. The number of tweek articles is irrelevant to this question.

Not at all; it directly addresses the point you incorrectly made. But
if you are now changing your point, to the general, why, if you are not
a Stereophile reader, do you think your opinion matters? My readers
seem satisfied with what they are offered and free to adopt or reject
the opinions expressed in Stereopihle, according to their own beliefs
and experiences. Surely all you are offering is the age-old lament of
the powerless, unable to reshape a world that they do not much like!

And now, we finally come to the core of it. Who cares what is real and
what can actually be heard, subscriptions are up!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

No, "outsor," you made a specific comment about Stereophile, to which I
was responding. this is what you wrote in, in message
: 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.

"pick any number of things in the audio biz cosmos" does not seem to be a
statement upon the percent of tweeky articles but a reference to the
central question of the subjective enterprise evident in each issue. Had
I meant to be doing a quibble about percent I would have clearly said so
and is the reason I did not recall what was not intended. Too bad that
such fine editorial attention is not paid the credulity extended the aural
claims of the several authors.

.... if
you are not a Stereophile reader, do you think your opinion matters?

If you are not a proponent of evidence based approaches to answering
questions about the physical world, does your's anyywhere but the choir
loft?

.... My readers seem
satisfied with what they are offered and free to adopt or reject the
opinions expressed in Stereopihle, according to their own beliefs and
experiences.

As do readers of aastrology mags, for the same exact reasons, there is no
validation requered beyond the "warm fuzzy" and the sales figures;you
failed to mention buyers of ad space.

Surely all you are offering is the age-old lament of the
powerless, unable to reshape a world that they do not much like! John
Atkinson Editor, Stereophile

Which world contains Randi and similar and all the audiophiles who aren't
buying the message of the pretentious frog in the small pond nor the
"reshaping" efforts hoped for in it's rhetorical treading of water and of
rearranging of lily pads so as to divert attention from the validity of
the subjective edifice..

Mr. Atkinson,

As a long time reader of Stereophile, like nearly 20 years, I have an
interest in the opinion of you and others at Stereophile.

You did not answer any concerns I had in another thread here. Ignored it.
Just like someone who knows the emperor has no clothes, but doesn't
want to directly discuss it as ignoring that fact makes them money.

So what say you?

Dennis

Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused"
From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 12/2/2004 4:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 2 Dec 2004 00:49:07 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused"
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 11/30/2004 3:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

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.

So should we expect ever editor of every audio magazine to agree with every
review in their magazines if they don't express a "timely" disagreement in
print? That once again puts the unreasonable onus on an editor to run around
and review every product that is reviewed in their publication for
themselves.
If people cannot understand the nature of subjective review magazines that
is
their problem IMO. If I were to purchase a pair of speakers based on one of
your reviews and found I didn't like them should I hold your editor
responsible?

No, but like the 'big boss' of any other organisation, when the work
of one of his senior staff is challenged, he should step up to the
plate, not shrug and say that it's nothing to do with him what his
staff say in public.

I don't see that as the case for subjective review magazines.

Further, what about the Recommended Components
list?

What about it? You read the articles that always go along with the recomended
components? Do you not understand what they mean?

It seems that Atkinson does not even care to stand behind this
most famous bastion of his publication.

Hardly.

Does the editor of arguably
*the* mainstream US audiophile publication have *no* opinions on audio
'tweaks' such as cables?

Well, gee obviously he doesn't have an opinion about each and every single one
of them. Is that so outrageous?

If not, why is he there?

You don't know what he does as editor of Stereophile?



Well if you want to challenge the audibility of isolation devices I'll
happily
take your money or the million Randi is offering. Just make it worth my
while.

A million is not worth your while? My, how nice for you! :-)

Are you offering a million dollars for proof that an isolation device can make
an audible difference in a play back system? I'll take that challenge. If Randi
wishes to challenge the audibility of isolation devices that I use in my system
I'll happily take the challenge.

From: (Bob Marcus)
Date: 12/2/2004 5:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(S888Wheel) wrote in message
...
Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused"
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 11/30/2004 3:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

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.

So should we expect ever editor of every audio magazine to agree with every
review in their magazines if they don't express a "timely" disagreement in
print?

Of course not. An editor is not expected to agree with every opinion
he publishes. But reviews are not simply opinions. They also contain
facts.

If Stereophile makes factual mistakes in their reviews that is indeed a
mistake. It is my impression that they run a pretty tight ship when it comes to
that.

If a reviewer gets his facts wrong, an editor with even a shred
of professional pride will take responsibility for that.

Has Atkinson failed to do so?

That's why
many magazines employ fact-checkers.

I'd argue that a reviewer who says that Shakti Stones have audible
effects is getting his facts wrong.

You may wish to argue it but there are many including myself that would argue
it is an opinion. That it is debatable clearly makes it different than the
usual sort of fact checking you mentioned above.


But at the very least, the
assertion is so scientifically implausible that it demands checking.

Perhaps it is. Stereophile makes no claims to be a scientific journal. All
sorts of magazines make all sorts of claims that are scientifically
questionable. Good luck policing them. I'd certainly limit myself to ones that
are not offering obvious opinions.




That Atkinson is so incurious about this does not reflect well on him
as either an editor or a scientist.

I disagree with how you think it reflects on him as an editor. I did not know
that he was a scientist.



That once again puts the unreasonable onus on an editor to run around
and review every product that is reviewed in their publication for
themselves.

I haven't seen Stereophile's Recommended Components List in a while,
but I can't remember it containing a disclaimer about components being
listed *only* because a reviewer liked them. I rather had the
impression that they were putting the weight of the magazine behind
those recommendations.

Well gee, that isn't very scientific is it? If you don't know what is in the
disclaimers how can you possibly form such an opinion?

I think there's something wrong with an editor
who includes a product on his recommended list, and then runs away
from that recommendation and claims it's only some reviewer's opinion
when chllenged.

You are entitled to your opinion. It clearly runs contrary to what Stereophile
is clearly representing with their recomended components list.

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 12/3/2004 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused"
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 11/30/2004 3:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

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.

So should we expect ever editor of every audio magazine to agree with
every
review in their magazines if they don't express a "timely" disagreement in
print?

On the controversial ones like magic rocks, YES.

And who is the in house arbitrator on what is and is not contraversial at
Stereophile?



That once again puts the unreasonable onus on an editor to run around
and review every product that is reviewed in their publication for
themselves.

I don't see anybody asking for that, just a bit of oversight to keep the
reviewers from looking stupid and giving the publication a bad name.

What exactly constitutes a "bit of oversight?"

Surel
tweeks would be something anyone interested in good audio would want to
investigate if for nothing more than pure selfish pleasure.

All of them?



If people cannot understand the nature of subjective review magazines that
is
their problem IMO.

The problem is that people do understand the nature of subjective review
magazines.

You are speaking for "people?" Who do you know that does not understand the
nature of subjective reviews?



If I were to purchase a pair of speakers based on one of
your reviews and found I didn't like them should I hold your editor
responsible?

Not if you are reasonably aquainted with the differences that speakers make.
Not if you are reasonably aware of how much difference there are between
different speakers.

That doesn't make sense.



Nobody is aking for consensus of opinion, just that there be some legitmate
basis for that opinion when it comes to really controversial products like
magic rocks and wooden disks.

If people are so upset with Stereophile they should simply not purchase it.





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.


What other defense will any editor use when the subjective opinions of one
of
his or her reviewers is challenged?


That other people could hear the same changes or that frequency response
measurements confirmed something real was going on. You know, evidence.

Well that is not going to happen. Even the so called objective magazines do not
do this with all or even many of their reviews.






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."

Well if you want to challenge the audibility of isolation devices I'll
happily
take your money or the million Randi is offering. Just make it worth my
while.



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.

Nor would any number of quotes from subjective reviews of movies music or
even
food.

Because those are ENTIRELY subjective.

So are the subjective opinions of audio reviews.

Audio has specific criteria and
things that can be measured to see if they are true.

So do cars and boats and many other things. Ultimately the opinion of
performance does rely on actual use. Opinions will vary.



It's the nature of the beast. Again, for those that don't understand the
nature of subjective review the burden is on them to educate themselves.

That appears to be the problem, they have educated themselves and are aware.

That doesn't make sense either. How is *that* a problem?



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.

Was there any mention that the were verifibale or had been personally
accpeted
by the editor?

Why wouldn't someone interested in sound quality wish to investigate
something that was alleged to make an improvement?

Why haven't you investigated *everything* that has been claimed to make an
improvement? Or have you?



You think a subjective review magazine needs a disclaimer on
every page? Stereophile does often offer the disclaimer that their reviews
are
subjective and potential buyers should audition any component for
themsleves
before buying.

In the case of something as outrageous as the claims made for Shakti stones,
they should have some sort of verifiable evidence that something occured
somewhere aside from the in the MIND of the reviewer.

IYO.

The kind of
improvements claimed should be easily verifiable with FR measurements.

IYO

"Dennis Moore" wrote in message
...
Mr. Atkinson... You did not answer any concerns I had in another
thread here. Ignored it. Just like someone who knows the emperor
has no clothes, but doesn't want to directly discuss it as ignoring
that fact makes them money.

So what say you?

My apologies Mr. Moore. I do not recall your posting. I will search for
on groups.google.com and respond appropriately.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message
...
On 4 Dec 2004 16:58:06 GMT, (John
Atkinson) wrote:
why, if you are not a Stereophile reader, do you think your opinion
matters? My readers seem satisfied with what they are offered and
free to adopt or reject the opinions expressed in [Stereophile],
according to their own beliefs and experiences. Surely all you are
offering is the age-old lament of the powerless, unable to reshape
a world that they do not much like!

And now, we finally come to the core of it. Who cares what is real and
what can actually be heard, subscriptions are up!

With respect, Stewart, this is a serious point that all publishers and
editors address. Faced with calls for major changes in their content,
what should they do? If those calls are from a significant proportion
of their readership, then clearly they need to take those calls for
change very seriously, perhaps changing editors.

But if those calls for change come predominantly from people who do not
read their publications and most likely would not read them even if the
changes were made -- note that some of the loudest calls for change come
from someone who is employed by the mwgaines competition -- then it would
be unwise for me to pay attention. That is all I am saying.

Stereophile's content reflects what _I_ feel appropriate to publish. If
my choices become increasingly uninteresting to my readers, then yes,
change becomes appropriate. But as I said, my current readership
appears to value the balance of views that they are offered each month.
So while small-scale change occurs all the time, no large-scale change
is necessary.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Dennis Moore" wrote in message
...
You did not answer any concerns I had in another thread here.
Ignored it.

Well, I looked through the r.a.h-e archive on groups.google.com, Mr.
Moore and found two 2004 postings from you in which you asked questions
of me (although it should be noted that in both cases you weren't
responding to postings of _mine_, which is probably why I missed them).
Also please note that the search engine at groups.google.com tends
to omit search results that are similar to ones it has already
retrieved, so if I missed the posting you were talking about, my
apologies.

Here is the first posting of yours that I found:

On 2004-07-11 Dennis Moore wrote to Bob Marcus in message
regarding Stereophile's review of the
Wavac amplifier:
I do feel JA pulled some punches. And wish I knew what he really
thought since he experienced the thing. Does he reconsider the
philsophy they work with now, or try and decide if it went wrong?
Does he have some misgivings, yet cannot publically admit them?
I wish I knew. That would be showing even more integrity. For if
this episode hasn't given him pause he isn't as smart as I thought
he was. And I do believe his intelligence isn't lacking.

If these questions are not rhetorical, Mr. Moore, you say you wish
you knew what I "really thought"? I wrote about my experience of the
Wavac amplifier both in the review and in the March 2004 issue's
"As We See it." Both are available in free on-line archives at
www.stereophile.com. No, I haven't reconsidered my philosophy on the
basis of my experience of the Wavac and no I don't have any misgivings.
However, as I didn't feel I pulled any punches in what I wrote, I _am_
surprised that several people bought Wavac amplifiers after reading the
Stereophile review, according to the US importer.

The other message of yours I found was, again, not written in
response to me but to someone else, in this case "outsor," where
he wrote regarding Stereophile's content that he meant something
different from what he actually wrote in a r.a.h-e posting:

On 2004-12-2 Dennis Moore wrote to "outsor" in message
:

Snip of discussion of my comments on the Randi Challenge in which no
questions were asked of me

Does Mr. Atkinson believe different wire sounds different? And would
he venture to prove it to a skeptic like Randi? Be nice to have those
questions answered.

Yes, I do believe that some cables can sound different from others,
though my experience has been that the differences are always small in
absolute terms (which does not mean they are unimportant). I have
written on this subject on a number of occasions in both Stereophile
and in Hi-Fi News & Record Review. And no, I have no interest in
"[proving] it to a skeptic like Randi," given both James Randi's
continuing misrepresentations on his website of what I have said and
done and his statement from some years ago, a similar challenge,
when he was asked if he was afraid he would ever have to pay out, Randi
replied "No, I always have a way out..."

Please note that if you wish an answer from me on anything specific to
do with Stereophile, you should email me at .
While I cannot promise always to respond -- I receive literally
hundreds of emails each month from Stereophile readers -- I do try to
do so.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

(John Atkinson) wrote:
(Nousaine) wrote in message
...
(John Atkinson) wrote:
Tom Nousaine ) of Sound & Vision, The Sensible Sound &
The Audio Critic wrote in message :
Hey thanks for the current byline list; why not include my 25 years at
Bell/Ameritech too.

I didn't think it relevant, Mr. Nousaine. I do think it relevant that
you are employed by magazines that compete with my own, hence you cannot
claim to be impartial in this discussion.

Sure, but I've not hidden my involvement in the industry. I've even Further I
do not claim to be 'agnostic' about the sonic contribution of accessories and
wires either that have never been shown to have even the slightest possibility
of even minor improvements.

why do cables represent 12% of the Recommended Components if they
represent only 5% of the "reviewed" components?

Because, Mr. Nousaine, as I have explained to you before but you
appear to have conveniently "forgot," products are dropped from
"Recommended Components" when no-one on my staff has had any continuing
experience of them 3 years after the review was published. As cables and
other accessories tend to be used over long periods of time, they stay
on the list longer than other components.

Even so it would seem likely that every component that was dropped would have
been replaced by a similar component that was reviewed in the current issue.
After a while this should come to equilibrium as to the List content.

As a result, they become
over-represented in "Recommended Components."

"over-represented"? That's exactly the point. Cables and other accessories that
have NOT been shown that they represent an improvement in sound quality (let
alone even a difference) ARE over-represented in your list which is represented
as "based entirely on performance ---ie. accuracy of reproduction ----"


But that is not the point, I was responding specifically to "outsor"'s
incorrect statement that reviews of cables and accessories were the
"stuff" of each issue. They are not, as the statistics I gave proved.

Even though they represent roughly 20% of the Highly Recommended Products
and yet, relatively few have ever been subjected to a "review"?

Put your straw man away, Mr. Nousaine. The cables and accessories in
"Recommended Components" that have not been formally reviewed are
clearly indicated with "NR," as it states in the published introduction.
However, they _have_ been tested by one or more of the maagzine's staff
and the listing is based on their experience.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Yet in the RCL preamble you say that the the listing is based entirely on
"performance". It looks to me that its at least 1/5 based on the "experience"
of a single staff member who hasn't given any one of them the courtesy of a
formal "review."

And, you claim to be "agnostic" about products that are questioned. If those
stands, cables, AC conditioners, cones, etc DO contribute to improved
"performance" how can you remain agnostic about anything that appears on the
List? Why haven't you used allof them in your personal system? Don't YOU want
optimal performance?

It seems to me on the face of it that IF each category of products that the
"experience" of staff indicates a performance improvement that there would
development a consensus about which was best and at the very least you'd have
quality rankings as in the other categories.

But in the final analysis it seems that your RCL is simply based on the
opinions of your staff (with seldom a cross-correlation, does all the staff use
the same wires?) with no apparent or necessary relationship to "accuracy of
reproduction"

Indeed a casual examination of the Associated Equipment in the reviews
published in the October issue it would appear that no 2 reviewers use the same
cabling or accessories.

I think that either they ALL offer the SAME performance OR some evaluators are
running sub-optimal systems. Of course, one would argue that they all may have
equivalent performance but differ in different areas but it would seem to me
that someone, especially you, would be hard-pressed to remain agnostic about
any of this unless you simply don't trust your stafff, you don't care or more
likely you aeew aware that these things unless they commit some unpardonable
error simply have no affect of performance.

(John Atkinson) wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message
...
On 4 Dec 2004 16:58:06 GMT, (John
Atkinson) wrote:
why, if you are not a Stereophile reader, do you think your opinion
matters? My readers seem satisfied with what they are offered and
free to adopt or reject the opinions expressed in [Stereophile],
according to their own beliefs and experiences. Surely all you are
offering is the age-old lament of the powerless, unable to reshape
a world that they do not much like!

And now, we finally come to the core of it. Who cares what is real and
what can actually be heard, subscriptions are up!

With respect, Stewart, this is a serious point that all publishers and
editors address. Faced with calls for major changes in their content,
what should they do? If those calls are from a significant proportion
of their readership, then clearly they need to take those calls for
change very seriously, perhaps changing editors.

But if those calls for change come predominantly from people who do not
read their publications and most likely would not read them even if the
changes were made -- note that some of the loudest calls for change come
from someone who is employed by the mwgaines competition -- then it would
be unwise for me to pay attention. That is all I am saying.

Stereophile's content reflects what _I_ feel appropriate to publish. If
my choices become increasingly uninteresting to my readers, then yes,
change becomes appropriate. But as I said, my current readership
appears to value the balance of views that they are offered each month.
So while small-scale change occurs all the time, no large-scale change
is necessary.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

IMO nobody, certainly not me, has asked for any change at Stereophile. I think
my subscription money has the same color as anyone else. In my opinion
Stereophile does a disservice to readers by the continual active and passive
promotion of urban-legend such as amp/wire/cable/bit sound and break-in.

I would be saddened if you stopped doing this and attended to true performance
improvements instead. Then I'd have fewer things to post about on RAO :-) That
aside, however, doing so would make it easier for me to sort the things you
publish that actually have sonic substance but I guess that the poetry may not
ve as entertaining.