wrote:
How can a product such as the "Shakti Hallographic Soundfield
Optimizer" possibly improve the sound quality of an audio system?

You tell me, Mr. Welch.

Why does your magazine give positive reviews to such do-nothing
frauds?

When was that, Mr. Welch?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ups.com
wrote:
How can a product such as the "Shakti Hallographic
Soundfield Optimizer" possibly improve the sound quality
of an audio system?

You tell me, Mr. Welch.

Why does your magazine give positive reviews to such
do-nothing frauds?

When was that, Mr. Welch?

Wow, ever see an editor go backwards that fast over such a
major issue? ;-)

Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ups.com
wrote:
How can a product such as the "Shakti Hallographic
Soundfield Optimizer" possibly improve the sound quality
of an audio system?...Why does your magazine give
positive reviews to _such_ (my underlining) do-nothing
frauds?

When was that, Mr. Welch?

Wow, ever see an editor go backwards that fast over such
a major issue? ;-)

It appears you misunderstood both Mr. Welch's question and
my response, Mr. Krueger. Mr. Welch was quite clearly
referring to a purported Stereophile review of the
"Shakti Hallographic Soundfield Optimizer." As I can't
find any such review in my index, I was asking Mr. Welch
for help in finding it.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message

oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message

ups.com
wrote:

How can a product such as the "Shakti Hallographic
Soundfield Optimizer" possibly improve the sound
quality of an audio system?...Why does your magazine
give positive reviews to _such_ (my underlining)
do-nothing frauds?

When was that, Mr. Welch?

Wow, ever see an editor go backwards that fast over such
a major issue? ;-)

It appears you misunderstood both Mr. Welch's question and
my response, Mr. Krueger. Mr. Welch was quite clearly
referring to a purported Stereophile review of the
"Shakti Hallographic Soundfield Optimizer." As I can't
find any such review in my index, I was asking Mr. Welch
for help in finding it.

Here's a little tip about reading English, John. Mr Welch
qualified his statement with the word "such".

That means that finding or not finding a review on a
specific product is far from definitive.

Odd that I'm being forced to give you practical lessons in
reading rhetoric, John. Mini-strokes?

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 09:41:38 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message

roups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message

ups.com
wrote:

How can a product such as the "Shakti Hallographic
Soundfield Optimizer" possibly improve the sound
quality of an audio system?...Why does your magazine
give positive reviews to _such_ (my underlining)
do-nothing frauds?

When was that, Mr. Welch?

Wow, ever see an editor go backwards that fast over such
a major issue? ;-)

It appears you misunderstood both Mr. Welch's question and
my response, Mr. Krueger. Mr. Welch was quite clearly
referring to a purported Stereophile review of the
"Shakti Hallographic Soundfield Optimizer." As I can't
find any such review in my index, I was asking Mr. Welch
for help in finding it.

Here's a little tip about reading English, John. Mr Welch
qualified his statement with the word "such".

That means that finding or not finding a review on a
specific product is far from definitive.

Odd that I'm being forced to give you practical lessons in
reading rhetoric, John. Mini-strokes?

Well, you certainly give lessons in debating trade tactics. "Mr.
Welch" has learned well.

So does that mean that I could criticize the magazine for something it
did not do and get away with it, just by using the 'such as' clause? I
think not:

The OP clearly implies that the magazine published an article on the
quoted piece of gear.... regardless how much 'slippery' wording is
used.

"BD" wrote in message
ups.com
So does that mean that I could criticize the magazine for
something it did not do and get away with it, just by
using the 'such as' clause? I think not:

The OP clearly implies that the magazine published an
article on the quoted piece of gear.... regardless how
much 'slippery' wording is used.


Hmm, truth is stranger than fiction, slippery wording, or
what have you:

http://www.stereophile.com/features/69/index2.html

"Mpingo Discs are small, ebony discs that measure about 1
(5/8" in diameter and about 1/2" thick. They're meant to be
placed face- (logo-) side down on turn-tables and all
front-end electronics; eg, CD transports, DACs, preamps.
Like all Shun Mook products, the Discs are directional. They
cost $50 each, so you can buy a few to experiment with in
your system and then buy a few more, which I know you'll do
after hearing them. The Mpingo I use on the large, flat VTA
adjuster knob on the Forsell Air Force One Mk.II gives an
excellent effect; I've placed three of them in a triangle
around the turntable's platter, tangent to the direction of
platter spin.
"On some turntables, it works better to orient the Mpingos
in toward the spindle. We entertained a friend from another
audio magazine the other day, and as I lifted the four
Mpingos from the Forsell and then replaced them, he was in
awe: With the Discs in place, the sound was richer and more
extended, and all aspects of the soundstage reproduction
were enhanced---you don't need gold-plated ears to hear the
difference.

"I've got a Mpingo on the top of my CAT preamp; I move it to
the top of the Jadis JP 80 MC's chassis near the line-stage
tubes when that sexy French preamp is in the system. (It
becomes a strange-looking beast with its Mpingo and Ensemble
Tubesox in place.) There are three Mpingos on top of the
Timbre Technology digital processor---its case is rigid and
damped by design, and it takes all three to make the
difference here, although usually one is sufficient on
electronics. I've also got a Mpingo slotted in between the
twin pair of speaker binding posts on each Jadis JA 200, and
move them to the same or similar positions when switching
amps.

*Please follow up on the URL above - the rest of this
Atkinson-approved article just gets stranger and stranger
and stranger...

BD said to DebatingTradeBorg:

So does that mean that I could criticize the magazine for something it
did not do and get away with it, just by using the 'such as' clause? I
think not:

The OP clearly implies that the magazine published an article on the
quoted piece of gear.... regardless how much 'slippery' wording is
used.

The "debating trade" is not recommended for sane persons. Please be cautious.

Mea Culpa! I confused the "Shakti Hallograph Soundfield Optimizer" with
the "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer". This is akin to confusing the
Green Bottle of "medicine" with the Blue Bottle of "medicine" at an old
traveling "Medicine Show"; both are likely equally ineffective and
fraudulent.

Let me ask the question again:

Mr. Atkinson, can you explain how a product such as the "Shakti
Electromagnetic Stabilizer" could possibly improve the sound quality of
an audio system?

Why does your magazine give positive reviews (in vol. 19 no.2 and vol.
19 no.4, by J. Scull and B. Willis, respectively) to such do-nothing
frauds?

Is that clear enough, Mr. Atkinson?

John Atkinson wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ups.com
wrote:
How can a product such as the "Shakti Hallographic
Soundfield Optimizer" possibly improve the sound quality
of an audio system?...Why does your magazine give
positive reviews to _such_ (my underlining) do-nothing
frauds?

When was that, Mr. Welch?

Wow, ever see an editor go backwards that fast over such
a major issue? ;-)

It appears you misunderstood both Mr. Welch's question and
my response, Mr. Krueger. Mr. Welch was quite clearly
referring to a purported Stereophile review of the
"Shakti Hallographic Soundfield Optimizer." As I can't
find any such review in my index, I was asking Mr. Welch
for help in finding it.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ups.com
wrote:
How can a product such as the "Shakti Hallographic
Soundfield Optimizer" possibly improve the sound quality
of an audio system?...Why does your magazine give
positive reviews to _such_ (my underlining) do-nothing
frauds?

When was that, Mr. Welch?

Wow, ever see an editor go backwards that fast over such
a major issue? ;-)

It appears you misunderstood both Mr. Welch's question and
my response, Mr. Krueger. Mr. Welch was quite clearly
referring to a purported Stereophile review of the
"Shakti Hallographic Soundfield Optimizer." As I can't
find any such review in my index, I was asking Mr. Welch
for help in finding it.

Mea Culpa! I confused the "Shakti Hallograph Soundfield
Optimizer" with the "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer".

Or perhaps you were misled by James Randi's implication on his
website that Wayne Donnelly's review of the "Hallographic
Soundfield Optimizer" had appeared in Stereophile?

This is akin to confusing the Green Bottle of "medicine"
with the Blue Bottle of "medicine" at an old traveling
"Medicine Show"; both are likely equally ineffective and
fraudulent.

And you know that how, Mr. Welch? When did you try these
devices for yourself?

Let me ask the question again:
Mr. Atkinson, can you explain how a product such as the
"Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer" could possibly improve
the sound quality of an audio system?

I have no idea, Mr. Welch. But that doesn't mean it can't
have an effect, of course.

Why does your magazine give positive reviews (in vol.19 no.2
and vol.19 no.4, by J. Scull and B. Willis, respectively) to
such do-nothing frauds?

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

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson wrote:
wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ups.com
wrote:
How can a product such as the "Shakti Hallographic
Soundfield Optimizer" possibly improve the sound quality
of an audio system?...Why does your magazine give
positive reviews to _such_ (my underlining) do-nothing
frauds?

When was that, Mr. Welch?

Wow, ever see an editor go backwards that fast over such
a major issue? ;-)

It appears you misunderstood both Mr. Welch's question and
my response, Mr. Krueger. Mr. Welch was quite clearly
referring to a purported Stereophile review of the
"Shakti Hallographic Soundfield Optimizer." As I can't
find any such review in my index, I was asking Mr. Welch
for help in finding it.

Mea Culpa! I confused the "Shakti Hallograph Soundfield
Optimizer" with the "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer".

Or perhaps you were misled by James Randi's implication on his
website that Wayne Donnelly's review of the "Hallographic
Soundfield Optimizer" had appeared in Stereophile?


If I were easily misled, Mr. Atkinson, I would be a loyal Stereophile
reader. Do you see Randi everywhere, Mr. Atkinson? If I were a huckster
and conman like yourself, an intelligent, persistent, hard-nosed
sceptic like Randi would get under my skin, too.

This is akin to confusing the Green Bottle of "medicine"
with the Blue Bottle of "medicine" at an old traveling
"Medicine Show"; both are likely equally ineffective and
fraudulent.

And you know that how, Mr. Welch? When did you try these
devices for yourself?


Which one? The Blue Bottle or the Green Bottle?

Let me ask the question again:
Mr. Atkinson, can you explain how a product such as the
"Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer" could possibly improve
the sound quality of an audio system?

I have no idea, Mr. Welch. But that doesn't mean it can't
have an effect, of course.


You sound like an astrologist, Mr. Atkinson. Do you also believe in the
Akashic record? Tarot cards? Tea leaves?

Why does your magazine give positive reviews (in vol.19 no.2
and vol.19 no.4, by J. Scull and B. Willis, respectively) to
such do-nothing frauds?

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


A much more likely scenario, Mr. Atkinson, is that your reviewers are
either deluded, incompetent and/or corrupt and cynical.


John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ups.com
wrote:
How can a product such as the "Shakti Hallographic
Soundfield Optimizer" possibly improve the sound quality
of an audio system?...Why does your magazine give
positive reviews to _such_ (my underlining) do-nothing
frauds?

When was that, Mr. Welch?

Wow, ever see an editor go backwards that fast over such
a major issue? ;-)

It appears you misunderstood both Mr. Welch's question and
my response, Mr. Krueger. Mr. Welch was quite clearly
referring to a purported Stereophile review of the
"Shakti Hallographic Soundfield Optimizer." As I can't
find any such review in my index, I was asking Mr. Welch
for help in finding it.

Mea Culpa! I confused the "Shakti Hallograph Soundfield
Optimizer" with the "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer".

Or perhaps you were misled by James Randi's implication on his
website that Wayne Donnelly's review of the "Hallographic
Soundfield Optimizer" had appeared in Stereophile?

This is akin to confusing the Green Bottle of "medicine"
with the Blue Bottle of "medicine" at an old traveling
"Medicine Show"; both are likely equally ineffective and
fraudulent.

And you know that how, Mr. Welch? When did you try these
devices for yourself?

Let me ask the question again:
Mr. Atkinson, can you explain how a product such as the
"Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer" could possibly improve
the sound quality of an audio system?

I have no idea, Mr. Welch. But that doesn't mean it can't
have an effect, of course.

Why does your magazine give positive reviews (in vol.19 no.2
and vol.19 no.4, by J. Scull and B. Willis, respectively) to
such do-nothing frauds?

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

Let's see the before and after measurements so we can decide.


The odds of them being right are roughly the same as Bush serving a 3rd term
as President.

John Atkinson wrote:
wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ups.com
wrote:
How can a product such as the "Shakti Hallographic
Soundfield Optimizer" possibly improve the sound quality
of an audio system?...Why does your magazine give
positive reviews to _such_ (my underlining) do-nothing
frauds?

When was that, Mr. Welch?

Wow, ever see an editor go backwards that fast over such
a major issue? ;-)

It appears you misunderstood both Mr. Welch's question and
my response, Mr. Krueger. Mr. Welch was quite clearly
referring to a purported Stereophile review of the
"Shakti Hallographic Soundfield Optimizer." As I can't
find any such review in my index, I was asking Mr. Welch
for help in finding it.

Mea Culpa! I confused the "Shakti Hallograph Soundfield
Optimizer" with the "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer".

Or perhaps you were misled by James Randi's implication on his
website that Wayne Donnelly's review of the "Hallographic
Soundfield Optimizer" had appeared in Stereophile?

This is akin to confusing the Green Bottle of "medicine"
with the Blue Bottle of "medicine" at an old traveling
"Medicine Show"; both are likely equally ineffective and
fraudulent.

And you know that how, Mr. Welch? When did you try these
devices for yourself?

Let me ask the question again:
Mr. Atkinson, can you explain how a product such as the
"Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer" could possibly improve
the sound quality of an audio system?

I have no idea, Mr. Welch. But that doesn't mean it can't
have an effect, of course.

Why does your magazine give positive reviews (in vol.19 no.2
and vol.19 no.4, by J. Scull and B. Willis, respectively) to
such do-nothing frauds?

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

I just sped through the Willis article and I can't find anywhere where
he says they work. He spends a lot of time discussing cultures and
open mindedness and that he isn't saying they don't work... just that
they didn't work for him in the 20 minutes he spent listening to 'em at
WCES. Am I missing something?

BTW... if Barry Willis is an avowed skeptic than Arny Krueger is most
personable character on usenet.

ScottW

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...
Let me ask the question again:
Mr. Atkinson, can you explain how a product such as the
"Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer" could possibly improve
the sound quality of an audio system?

I have no idea, Mr. Welch.

Truth at last!

But that doesn't mean it can't have an effect, of course.

So why not provide some objective proof. Maybe because you can't?

Why does your magazine give positive reviews (in vol.19 no.2
and vol.19 no.4, by J. Scull and B. Willis, respectively) to
such do-nothing frauds?

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

If they were, they would have provided proof. Since they didn't, you can
assume they are just writing words for money. And those words are usually
what is asked for, or what is expected by the publisher.

MrT.

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com

Mr. Welch,
I commissioned reviews of the Shaktis from 2 reviewers,
one
of whom. Mr. Scull, is by hs own admission a
subjectivist, the other of whom, Barry Willis, is an
avowed skeptic. Imagine my surprise, therefore, when
_both_ subjectivist and skeptic found that the Shakti
devices had a positive audible effect on the sounds of
their systems. Could it possibly be that Scull and Willis
are right and you are wrong, Mr. Welch?

John, it just goes to show that your idea of a skeptic
corresponds to most people's idea of a born sucker.

The mind boggles at the idea of Stereophile publishing a
review of Shatki devices written by say, David Clark or for
that part, Richard Clark.

In rec.audio.tech John Atkinson wrote:


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

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

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




--

-S

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

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Can I assume that these Shakti devices were purchased by Scull and Willis,
and they are currently installed in their systems?

Norm Strong

Given the enthusiastic reactions in 1994 of both your then-resident
subjectivest Jonathan Scull (in vol.19 no.2) and your avowed staff
sceptic Barry Willis
(in vol.19 no.4) to the "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer" (aka,
Shakti Stone), I'm sure you must have felt the need to experience these
marvels for yourself in your personal music system. How could you not?

How many Shakti Stones did (do) you use? How did you place them? Any
insider tips on which components they are most effective on? Any other
info you would care to pass along?

TIA!

In article .com,
says...

Given the enthusiastic reactions in 1994 of both your then-resident
subjectivest Jonathan Scull (in vol.19 no.2) and your avowed staff
sceptic Barry Willis
(in vol.19 no.4) to the "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer" (aka,
Shakti Stone), I'm sure you must have felt the need to experience these
marvels for yourself in your personal music system. How could you not?

How many Shakti Stones did (do) you use? How did you place them? Any
insider tips on which components they are most effective on? Any other
info you would care to pass along?

TIA!


Atkinson won't respond to this topic. He is a coward, as most dishonest people
are.

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ups.com
wrote:
How can a product such as the "Shakti Hallographic
Soundfield Optimizer" possibly improve the sound quality
of an audio system?...Why does your magazine give
positive reviews to _such_ (my underlining) do-nothing
frauds?

When was that, Mr. Welch?

Wow, ever see an editor go backwards that fast over such
a major issue? ;-)

It appears you misunderstood both Mr. Welch's question and
my response, Mr. Krueger.

It appears you are parsing words. Mr. Welch asked 2 separate questions.
How could the Shakti device do what it claimed, and why would your magazie
review things that can't possibly do what is claimed of them? If your mag
ever did a review of the Shakti device he mentioned, then you could answer
as to why. If you didn't review it then why review other devices that are
snake oil?

Mr. Welch was quite clearly
referring to a purported Stereophile review of the
"Shakti Hallographic Soundfield Optimizer." As I can't
find any such review in my index, I was asking Mr. Welch
for help in finding it.

See above and stop the stupid dancing.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile