As he mentioned was forthcoming, Randi has taken up the discussion with
Mr. Atkinson of Stereophile, making clear his challenge to doing a test
for the audibility of "stones" etc. in a test. He mentions once again
that he will pay 1,000,000 Us dollars if such can be demonstrated in a
double blind test, in which the mag gets to have a big hand in designing
the test to their best advantage. Has Mr. Atkinson presented his side of
the nov. issue here and the broadside that was made against Randi? Will
he discuss his objections to doing this test and what continuing same
could remain after this latest installment in the discussion? Were the
quotes from Mr. Atkinson made here or elsewhere, has this matter also been
addressed other places on the net?

"The Audio World Is Aroused"

http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4

wrote in message ...
As he mentioned was forthcoming, Randi has taken up the discussion with
Mr. Atkinson of Stereophile, making clear his challenge to doing a test
for the audibility of "stones" etc. in a test. He mentions once again
that he will pay 1,000,000 Us dollars if such can be demonstrated in a
double blind test, in which the mag gets to have a big hand in designing
the test to their best advantage. Has Mr. Atkinson presented his side of
the nov. issue here and the broadside that was made against Randi? Will
he discuss his objections to doing this test and what continuing same
could remain after this latest installment in the discussion? Were the
quotes from Mr. Atkinson made here or elsewhere, has this matter also been
addressed other places on the net?

"The Audio World Is Aroused"

http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4

What the hell is this about? Mr. Atkinson is under no obligation to test
or defend Shakti stones or any other piece of audio exotica. As far as I
recall, Mr. Atkinson has never made or supported a claim for Shakti stones.
Why don't we talk about high-end audio topics here that might help people,
rather than huffing and puffing at straw-men?

"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

On 28 Nov 2004 17:33:02 GMT, (Lasse) wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message ...

Mr. Atkinson is under no obligation to test
or defend Shakti stones or any other piece of audio exotica.

Maybe things are different in US, but here in Europe editor
of a magazine is responsible for everything that is written
in the magazine. In my opinion it is therefore quite natural
to address Mr. Atkinson about the questionable content:

Even in a journal of opinion? Don't the Europeans tolerate a range of
opinions? ;-)

In Stereophile, all reviews bear a byline of the writer and the
opinions expressed are those of the writer and not the magazine, its
editors or publishers.

Kal

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 28 Nov 2004 17:33:02 GMT, (Lasse) wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

Mr. Atkinson is under no obligation to test
or defend Shakti stones or any other piece of audio exotica.

Maybe things are different in US, but here in Europe editor
of a magazine is responsible for everything that is written
in the magazine. In my opinion it is therefore quite natural
to address Mr. Atkinson about the questionable content:

Even in a journal of opinion? Don't the Europeans tolerate a range of
opinions? ;-)

In Stereophile, all reviews bear a byline of the writer and the
opinions expressed are those of the writer and not the magazine, its
editors or publishers.

Kal

So you are not subject to fact-checking and editorial review? The Editor just
takes what you send in without comment other than syntax and typography?

On 29 Nov 2004 16:11:41 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

So you are not subject to fact-checking and editorial review? The Editor just
takes what you send in without comment other than syntax and typography?

Fact-checking, yes, even expressed disagreement but no excision of
opinion.

Kal

Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused"
From: Kalman Rubinson
Date: 11/28/2004 10:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 28 Nov 2004 17:33:02 GMT, (Lasse) wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

Mr. Atkinson is under no obligation to test
or defend Shakti stones or any other piece of audio exotica.

Maybe things are different in US, but here in Europe editor
of a magazine is responsible for everything that is written
in the magazine. In my opinion it is therefore quite natural
to address Mr. Atkinson about the questionable content:

Even in a journal of opinion? Don't the Europeans tolerate a range of
opinions? ;-)

In Stereophile, all reviews bear a byline of the writer and the
opinions expressed are those of the writer and not the magazine, its
editors or publishers.

Thank you for pointing out what should be the obvious. It baffles me that some
people cannot grasp this idea much less embrace it. The idea that the editor of
a subjectiv e review magazine has to repeat the audition proccess of every
review of every piece of equipment and concur with the conclusions is absurd.

On 30 Nov 2004 04:42:31 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused"
From: Kalman Rubinson
Date: 11/28/2004 10:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 28 Nov 2004 17:33:02 GMT, (Lasse) wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

Mr. Atkinson is under no obligation to test
or defend Shakti stones or any other piece of audio exotica.

Maybe things are different in US, but here in Europe editor
of a magazine is responsible for everything that is written
in the magazine. In my opinion it is therefore quite natural
to address Mr. Atkinson about the questionable content:

Even in a journal of opinion? Don't the Europeans tolerate a range of
opinions? ;-)

In Stereophile, all reviews bear a byline of the writer and the
opinions expressed are those of the writer and not the magazine, its
editors or publishers.

Thank you for pointing out what should be the obvious. It baffles me that some
people cannot grasp this idea much less embrace it. The idea that the editor of
a subjectiv e review magazine has to repeat the audition proccess of every
review of every piece of equipment and concur with the conclusions is absurd.

However, isn't it interesting that when asked to stand behind his
reviewers, he backs off at light speed? In this country (UK) at least,
editors are definitely seen to be responsible for what appears in
their publications - vide Boris Johnston and the mawkish Scousers.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

(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

"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 find it interesting that you fail to mention the author of the review
articles. To the best of my knowledge, it is the writer and researcher's
opinion that is presented in a review....other than outright censorship,
the only legitimate thing an editor can do is add a dessenting endnote or
blurb if he feels the article contains outright error and he can support
that opposing view."

So he is a victom of content over which he has no control? If he remains
silent he at least is supporting the exercise of subjective abilities to
discern such objects, that is the real question about which he evokes this
as a narrow rhetorical self imposed constraint. Perhaps what he needs to
do is like those infomercials about which tv/radio say at the beginning,
"this program should not be seen as an endorsement ...", and has no
reality beyond the testament of the writer and has no external
confirmation.

wrote in message ...
"I find it interesting that you fail to mention the author of the review
articles. To the best of my knowledge, it is the writer and researcher's
opinion that is presented in a review....other than outright censorship,
the only legitimate thing an editor can do is add a dessenting endnote or
blurb if he feels the article contains outright error and he can support
that opposing view."

So he is a victom of content over which he has no control? If he remains
silent he at least is supporting the exercise of subjective abilities to
discern such objects, that is the real question about which he evokes this
as a narrow rhetorical self imposed constraint. Perhaps what he needs to
do is like those infomercials about which tv/radio say at the beginning,
"this program should not be seen as an endorsement ...", and has no
reality beyond the testament of the writer and has no external
confirmation.

I am sorry but I wrote for The Abso!ute Sound for its first few issues. I
can assure you that their is no way the editor can test, blind or not, every
item written about in the issue. Nor should he. That is what he has
reviewers for.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message ...

I find it interesting that you fail to mention the author of the review
articles. To the best of my knowledge, it is the writer and researcher's
opinion that is presented in a review....other than outright censorship, the
only legitimate thing an editor can do is add a dessenting endnote or blurb
if he feels the article contains outright error and he can support that
opposing view.

Well, the other thing he can do is refuse to run the piece. That's not
"censorship." That's editorial discretion. I've edited a couple of
political magazines and I've run opinion pieces I disagreed with many
times. I've also refused to run opinion pieces because I thought the
writer failed to make a cogent argument.

I'd argue that someone who endorses Shakti Stones or any other
scientifically implausible tweak solely on the basis of sighted
listening is not making a cogent argument. And an editor with any
respect for science wouldn't run it.

It's not as if Stereophile were an open forum. There are many opinions
that are not permitted in its editorial pages (letters to the editor
excepted). Who decides not to run articles about ABX testing of
tweaks? Who decides not to run side-by-side blind comparisons of
components? John Atkinson does. He may not share every opinion that
appears in his magazine, but he is responsible for whatever
pseudoscientific garbage appears in its pages, precisely because he
makes those choices.

bob

Bob Marcus wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message ...

I find it interesting that you fail to mention the author of the review
articles. To the best of my knowledge, it is the writer and researcher's
opinion that is presented in a review....other than outright censorship, the
only legitimate thing an editor can do is add a dessenting endnote or blurb
if he feels the article contains outright error and he can support that
opposing view.

Well, the other thing he can do is refuse to run the piece. That's not
"censorship." That's editorial discretion. I've edited a couple of
political magazines and I've run opinion pieces I disagreed with many
times. I've also refused to run opinion pieces because I thought the
writer failed to make a cogent argument.

I'd argue that someone who endorses Shakti Stones or any other
scientifically implausible tweak solely on the basis of sighted
listening is not making a cogent argument. And an editor with any
respect for science wouldn't run it.

Bingo. This is the fundamental flaw of much audio reportage.
The existence of perceptual bias is undeniable -- yet the audio
world essentially ignores it. Little wonder that it's left to
the James Randis of the world to tilt against it -- most
scientists , seeing such an obvious, unaddressed source of error
in a method, wouldn't waste more time with results based on it.

"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.

In article ,
(Lasse) wrote:

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.

Well, Atkinson must certainly bear some responsibility for the claims made
by reviewers in Stereophile. On the other hand, Randi is behaving like a
nincompoop. In addition to being an abysmal writer, he appears incapable of
upholding even minimal journalistic standards such as getting his quotes
straight. This is a perfect situation for lots of sound and fury signifying
nothing. Randi could rectify the situation by coming clean and admitting
the quotes he misattributed to J.A.

"What the hell is this about? Mr. Atkinson is under no obligation to test
or defend Shakti stones or any other piece of audio exotica. As far as I
recall, Mr. Atkinson has never made or supported a claim for Shakti
stones. Why don't we talk about high-end audio topics here that might help
people, rather than huffing and puffing at straw-men?"


"Stones" are not the core issue, the subjective enterprise which creates
them is and is the basis for much of the reason for Stereophile to exist.
It is very on topic, how to devide the myth from the reality for
audiophiles, whatever their purchasing etc. objectives.

In article , wrote:

As he mentioned was forthcoming, Randi has taken up the discussion with
Mr. Atkinson of Stereophile, making clear his challenge to doing a test
for the audibility of "stones" etc. in a test. He mentions once again
that he will pay 1,000,000 Us dollars if such can be demonstrated in a
double blind test, in which the mag gets to have a big hand in designing
the test to their best advantage. Has Mr. Atkinson presented his side of
the nov. issue here and the broadside that was made against Randi? Will
he discuss his objections to doing this test and what continuing same
could remain after this latest installment in the discussion? Were the
quotes from Mr. Atkinson made here or elsewhere, has this matter also been
addressed other places on the net?

"The Audio World Is Aroused"

http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4

Try the Audio Asylum Critic's Corner.

Stephen

Are they? As an audio consumer (albeit don't give a toss about the stones,
etc.) I don't feel particularly aroused by this "challenge." For him to
declare as such makes me think he is as much publicity hound as anything
else...

On 11/27/04 12:41 PM, in article ,
" wrote:

As he mentioned was forthcoming, Randi has taken up the discussion with
Mr. Atkinson of Stereophile, making clear his challenge to doing a test
for the audibility of "stones" etc. in a test. He mentions once again
that he will pay 1,000,000 Us dollars if such can be demonstrated in a
double blind test, in which the mag gets to have a big hand in designing
the test to their best advantage. Has Mr. Atkinson presented his side of
the nov. issue here and the broadside that was made against Randi? Will
he discuss his objections to doing this test and what continuing same
could remain after this latest installment in the discussion? Were the
quotes from Mr. Atkinson made here or elsewhere, has this matter also been
addressed other places on the net?

"The Audio World Is Aroused"

http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4

See www.audioasylum.com for his responses.

Kal

On 27 Nov 2004 17:41:31 GMT, wrote:

As he mentioned was forthcoming, Randi has taken up the discussion with
Mr. Atkinson of Stereophile, making clear his challenge to doing a test
for the audibility of "stones" etc. in a test. He mentions once again
that he will pay 1,000,000 Us dollars if such can be demonstrated in a
double blind test, in which the mag gets to have a big hand in designing
the test to their best advantage. Has Mr. Atkinson presented his side of
the nov. issue here and the broadside that was made against Randi? Will
he discuss his objections to doing this test and what continuing same
could remain after this latest installment in the discussion? Were the
quotes from Mr. Atkinson made here or elsewhere, has this matter also been
addressed other places on the net?

"The Audio World Is Aroused"

http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4

wrote in message ...
Has Mr. Atkinson presented his side of the nov. issue here and the
broadside that was made against Randi?

You will be able to read Art Dudley's comments tomorrow on the Amazing
Randi's "Million-Dollar Challenge" in the free on-line archives at
www.stereophile.com.

Will he discuss his objections to doing this test...

As I have never auditioned, nor written about the Shakti Stones, nor,
to the best of my knowledge, has Art Dudley, I am mystified about a)
why the Amazing R. has issued his challenge to the two of us and b)
why anyone feels we should take part.

Were the quotes from Mr. Atkinson made here or elsewhere?

As I have pointed put to Mr. Randi, other than the first text quoted,
which was taken from a posting I made on www.audioasylum.com, every
other quote he attributes to me at http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4
was _not_ written by me. I have also pointed out to Randi that, contrary to
the assertions he has made on his website at various times, I have not
written about the Shakti Stones, nor have I recommended the Tice Clock.
His e-mailed response consisted of "It's hard to sort out the nuts..."
followed by "Oh, grow up. If you can..."

Oh well...

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

But all of this avoids the core question and dwells on the rhetorical.
The "stones" as an example is not relevant, the whole subjective
enterprise is, of which they are but one expression. Pick wire, pick
stands, pick vibration control tweeks, pick speaker spikes, pick any
number of things in the audio biz cosmos about which endless "auditions"
and reviews are the stuff of each issue. That is the basis of Randi's
approach, to devide the sheep from the goats on such proposed abilities as
are said to be the reason for individual ability to "hear" the
introduction of such tweeks into an audio system. Personalities and
individual reactions are irrelevant and look to the observer as a dodge to
avoid this core question, which is not of Randi's invention but is widely
held among audiophiles who want reality to be the measure of the day and
not subjective unrepeatable unsupportable testimonial reactions of the
few.

Has Mr. Atkinson presente
You will be able to read Art Dudley's comments tomorrow on the Amazing
Randi's "Million-Dollar Challenge" in the free on-line archives at
www.stereophile.com.

Will he discuss his objections to doing this test...

As I have never auditioned, nor written about the Shakti Stones, nor,
to the best of my knowledge, has Art Dudley, I am mystified about a)
why the Amazing R. has issued his challenge to the two of us and b)
why anyone feels we should take part.

Were the quotes from Mr. Atkinson made here or elsewhere?

As I have pointed put to Mr. Randi, other than the first text quoted,
which was taken from a posting I made on www.audioasylum.com, every
other quote he attributes to me at http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4
was _not_ written by me. I have also pointed out to Randi that, contrary to
the assertions he has made on his website at various times, I have not
written about the Shakti Stones, nor have I recommended the Tice Clock.
His e-mailed response consisted of "It's hard to sort out the nuts..."
followed by "Oh, grow up. If you can..."

Oh well...

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

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. 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 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

"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.

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.

On 29 Nov 2004 01:21:42 GMT, (John
Atkinson) wrote:

Regarding the comment made by another poster that I am obliged to accept
Randi's challnge because I published a review of the Shakti devices,
please note that Stereophile is a magazine of _opinion_. As editor, I
choose the magazine's content on the basis that the writer has something
to say, not whether or not I agree with it.

So, are we clear that you personally do *not* believe that Shakti
stones have any audible effect? Alternatively, is there *one*
particular item, say one outstanding speaker cable, behind which you
*are* prepared to place your name?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message
...
On 29 Nov 2004 01:21:42 GMT,
(John Atkinson) wrote:
Regarding the comment made by another poster that I am obliged to accept
Randi's challnge because I published a review of the Shakti devices,
please note that Stereophile is a magazine of _opinion_. As editor, I
choose the magazine's content on the basis that the writer has something
to say, not whether or not I agree with it.

So, are we clear that you personally do *not* believe that Shakti
stones have any audible effect?

No, as I am getting tired of saying, I have never auditioned the devices.
I therefore have opinion either way. I remain agnostic on the matter.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

On 30 Nov 2004 04:43:39 GMT, (John
Atkinson) wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message
...
On 29 Nov 2004 01:21:42 GMT,
(John Atkinson) wrote:
Regarding the comment made by another poster that I am obliged to accept
Randi's challnge because I published a review of the Shakti devices,
please note that Stereophile is a magazine of _opinion_. As editor, I
choose the magazine's content on the basis that the writer has something
to say, not whether or not I agree with it.

So, are we clear that you personally do *not* believe that Shakti
stones have any audible effect?

No, as I am getting tired of saying, I have never auditioned the devices.
I therefore have opinion either way. I remain agnostic on the matter.

Very well. In that case, is there *any* 'tweak', or is there *any*
cable, which you would personally recommend? As editor of Stereophile,
a widely read mainstream 'audiophile' publication, have you *no*
opinions whatever on the sonic value of devices which are highly
recommended in your magazine, but fly in the face of common
engineering knowledge - such as expensive cabling? If you have no
opinions on this subject, why are you there?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

(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?

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

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.

(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?

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

"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.

wrote:

But all of this avoids the core question and dwells on the rhetorical.
The "stones" as an example is not relevant, the whole subjective
enterprise is, of which they are but one expression. Pick wire, pick
stands, pick vibration control tweeks, pick speaker spikes, pick any
number of things in the audio biz cosmos about which endless "auditions"
and reviews are the stuff of each issue. That is the basis of Randi's
approach, to devide the sheep from the goats on such proposed abilities as
are said to be the reason for individual ability to "hear" the
introduction of such tweeks into an audio system. Personalities and
individual reactions are irrelevant and look to the observer as a dodge to
avoid this core question, which is not of Randi's invention but is widely
held among audiophiles who want reality to be the measure of the day and
not subjective unrepeatable unsupportable testimonial reactions of the
few.

Has Mr. Atkinson presente
You will be able to read Art Dudley's comments tomorrow on the Amazing
Randi's "Million-Dollar Challenge" in the free on-line archives at
www.stereophile.com.

Will he discuss his objections to doing this test...

As I have never auditioned, nor written about the Shakti Stones, nor,
to the best of my knowledge, has Art Dudley, I am mystified about a)
why the Amazing R. has issued his challenge to the two of us and b)
why anyone feels we should take part.

Were the quotes from Mr. Atkinson made here or elsewhere?

As I have pointed put to Mr. Randi, other than the first text quoted,
which was taken from a posting I made on www.audioasylum.com, every
other quote he attributes to me at http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4
was _not_ written by me. I have also pointed out to Randi that, contrary to
the assertions he has made on his website at various times, I have not
written about the Shakti Stones, nor have I recommended the Tice Clock.
His e-mailed response consisted of "It's hard to sort out the nuts..."
followed by "Oh, grow up. If you can..."

Oh well...

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


Actually Mr Atkinson may not have personally written about the Tice Clock nor
the Stones but it seems that both were recommended in the magazine he edits and
was editing at the time. I simply do not understand how he can claim that he
has no stake in the issue unless he made a disclaimer in the magazine when the
assertion was published....the first time.

(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. 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.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

On 30 Nov 2004 04:44:08 GMT, (John
Atkinson) wrote:
that then-bastion of objectivity, Audio magazine.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Sorry, but John Atkinson lost credibility with me years ago on
the TAN network (does it still exist ?). Now he makes snide remarks
about Audio magazine. Audio magazine was the only publication in this
country that supported DIY with projects occasionally.
When reading remarks by Mr. Atkinson, please bear in mind that
his ego will not allow him to admit a mistake, nor even admit the
possibility.


-=Bill Eckle=-

Vanity Web Page at:
http://www.wmeckle.com

"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?

Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused"
From:
Date: 11/28/2004 11:28 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

But all of this avoids the core question and dwells on the rhetorical.
The "stones" as an example is not relevant, the whole subjective
enterprise is, of which they are but one expression. Pick wire, pick
stands, pick vibration control tweeks, pick speaker spikes, pick any
number of things in the audio biz cosmos about which endless "auditions"
and reviews are the stuff of each issue. That is the basis of Randi's
approach, to devide the sheep from the goats on such proposed abilities as
are said to be the reason for individual ability to "hear" the
introduction of such tweeks into an audio system. Personalities and
individual reactions are irrelevant and look to the observer as a dodge to
avoid this core question, which is not of Randi's invention but is widely
held among audiophiles who want reality to be the measure of the day and
not subjective unrepeatable unsupportable testimonial reactions of the
few.

Has Mr. Atkinson presente
You will be able to read Art Dudley's comments tomorrow on the Amazing
Randi's "Million-Dollar Challenge" in the free on-line archives at
www.stereophile.com.

Will he discuss his objections to doing this test...

As I have never auditioned, nor written about the Shakti Stones, nor,
to the best of my knowledge, has Art Dudley, I am mystified about a)
why the Amazing R. has issued his challenge to the two of us and b)
why anyone feels we should take part.

Were the quotes from Mr. Atkinson made here or elsewhere?

As I have pointed put to Mr. Randi, other than the first text quoted,
which was taken from a posting I made on www.audioasylum.com, every
other quote he attributes to me at http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4
was _not_ written by me. I have also pointed out to Randi that, contrary to
the assertions he has made on his website at various times, I have not
written about the Shakti Stones, nor have I recommended the Tice Clock.
His e-mailed response consisted of "It's hard to sort out the nuts..."
followed by "Oh, grow up. If you can..."

Oh well...

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile







Vibration control devices? If Randi wants to offer the challenge to the
audibility of vibration control devices I will happily take the million
dollars.

On 30 Nov 2004 04:43:22 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

Vibration control devices? If Randi wants to offer the challenge to the
audibility of vibration control devices I will happily take the million
dollars.

Make it USD 500.000 for you and 500.000 for me. never had a better
change of earning some money so easily.

Ernesto.

"You don't have to learn science if you don't feel
like it. So you can forget the whole business if
it is too much mental strain, which it usually is."

Richard Feynman