| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#161
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:36:24 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: The problem with this statement is that Arnie is not a good reader of persons, at least from their posts. Several times I've posted seriously and politely to Arnie and received an insulting reply because he thought I was having a go at him. Well Paul when you wedge a rare serious post in among all of your usual insulting stuff, you run that risk.. Arnold is inching toward the realization about the reason that he's one of the most abused posters in the history of USENET. |
|
#162
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote...
Introspection and self-awareness = low. Arny, please don't admit this in public. After all, your introspection and self-awareness are no worse than mine or our other buddy, Richard Malesweski of Rogers AR. When you admit this of yourself, you admit it of all of us. |
|
#163
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote ...
dave weil wrote: Is bicycle season over so early in the Ozarks? Do butterflies drink red wine with the fish course? We'll take that as a "no". You're not counting the Arkansas MS 150 as a ride though, are you? Unless you count ride-alongs as rides. Are you striving to win the Shining Star award again this year? I bet "licking the honey pot" earns you a LOT of points, eh? Lisa has been a VERY interesting pen pal. |
|
#164
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in
message This former Seattlite thinks that SP is supposed to provide accurate reviews, as a subscriber, I find serious problems with the conclusions of the SP reviewers. Apparently, so do at least 25% of Stereophile's readers, and that's from JA's own mouth. Here's the opening paragraph from one (25%) of the 4 debate-related reader letters he recently published in SP, which JA has told us are reprresentative of all of the mail on the topic: http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit...si/index1.html "Editor: I'm very disappointed to discover John Atkinson's position on blind testing ("As We See It," July 2005, p.3). As he is the editor of Stereophile magazine, it is now even more difficult for me to respect anything that I read in the publication. To deny the validity of blind testing is to ignore science. Blind testing is objective science. To ignore its value is equivalent to believing that the world is flat, that there is no truth in evolution, that man didn't land on the moon." JA claims that I didn't lay a proper foundation for my 3 criticisms of Stereophile's equipment test methodology: 1) "Stereophile willfully ignores much that is known about reliably evaluating audio products"; 2) "Stereophile frequently reaches conclusions and makes recommendations that are improbable if not just completely wrong"; and 3) "Stereophile does not take enough pains to ensure that it is publishing correct information." Note that nowhere in my introductory comments did I mention DBTs or ABX. AFAIK, the first mention of them came from JA. I did mention the PCABX site - but only that I owned and built it. Yet JA correctly discerned that my comments related to blind testing in his response to my comments and his http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/705awsi/ article. Previously, Jason Victor Serinus heard me flesh my three points out out in the smaller, non-autobiographical portion of his recent Stereophile review of the HE2005 debate: http://stereophile.com/news/050905debate/ "Arny strongly emphasized that sighted listening as practiced by magazine and webzine reviewers fundamentally changes the listener's mental state and is therefore unreliable as a means of assessing sound quality." Looking at the http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit...si/index1.html we see that half of the readers letters clearly perceived that my comments related to blind tests. We don't know what the full text of the other two letters actually said. Bottom line, the claim that I didn't convey substantiation for my three main critcial points about Stereophile seems to be a lot like JA's claims that the highly-regarded (at the time) DAL Card Deluxe had audible jitter - a self-serving figment of JA's overheated imagination. |
|
#166
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article t, " wrote: You still employ a gang of hearing impaired reviewers, right? Wow, I didn't know that. Which of SP's reviewers are hearing impaired? (1) Strictly speaking-all of the SP writers are hearing-impaired due to their reliance on sighted listening. That would make them "listening impaired" rather than "hearing impaired". Yes, that would be a better choice of words. So my point is made; there is no evidence that the reviewing staff of SP is hearing impaired. No, you just get kudos for a better choice of words. Well, thanks, but again, there is no evidence of the SP staff actually being hard of hearing, objectively speaking. The problem there is that standard hearing tests are very much focussed on speech intelligibility, and generally only run up to 8 KHz. But they don't HAVE TO stop there. But they almost always do. The tests can extend higher in range. But they almost always don't. I presume that one could request a test that does. Jumbo Jacks come with pickles, unless one orders them without. Record companies often test their conductors who are under long term contract. I know, for example, that those who conducted for Mercury in the 50s and 60s were tested regularly. Probably, just up to 8 KHz. I have the report of such a test done on Frederick Fennell in, IIRC, 1960. I believe that it reported on higher frequencies. I'll look it up and report back. |
|
#167
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ups.com... Mr. Mc Kelvy says: "We're talking about SDP, they're not big on anything that has to do with science, in fact they seem adamantly opposed to it unless it's either bull**** or improbable. Anything that might actually help them do a better job and provide more accurate reviews is shunned." Sadly I must conclude that your messages are not the signposts to guide poor, science-deprived Mr. Atkinson. onto the royal road to "science" that you claim to be the spokesman for.. The science I was taught implies that a hypothesis can only be validated by properly designed experiment (s). Please provide evidence that an ABX DBT is not a properly designed experiment. If you said once that ABX is the right tool for showing differences between components you said it a dozen times in this thread and before. On one such occasion 9 months ago("RAHE challenges...) I asked you to give your reference ( Accepted meaning of "reference" in any research is: Journal, author(s), year, volume, number, pages) You said you had "many". I challenged you to quote JUST ONE component comparison that was done on ANYTHING in audio, including loudspeakers, and had a POSITIVE outcome. Naturally it should be controlled (preplanned protocol ), statistically valid (significant numbers), randomised and truly double blind.. You had no answer then and you won't have any now. That there are none that I could find should tell you something, obviously, you're missing it. All the published reports to date have had one result: NO DIFFERENCE.. IIRC there are some at the ABX web site, involving tube amps. When ABXing or DBTiing it all sounds the same , to a thumping majority of randomized audio fans.; Whatever is being tested including loudspeakers with very different frequency responses (See S. Olive, "Differences in performance...." , JAES, vol 51, # 9, 2003 , pps 806-825). I do not know why and I do not care to hear more off the top- of-the head speculations.. Consecutive A/B testing appears to disable most brains from hearing differences Keyword: MOST. between components unless disparities are huge (who needs ABX for that?) Nobody, as has been said. or one of them is malfunctioning.. You decided to stay silent in December but you revived by now and again shout "me is science". I decided to stay silent because you are a true believer and nothing that anybody says, nor all the revealed evidence in the world is going to change your mind. Sorry you're not. In fact you seem not to have the foggiest notion what validation of hypotheses and science are all about.. You worship a "test" that has had forty years to show that it works and failed to do so. . That is called "faith"- or blind faith if you'd rather. Then I ask again, why do people doing audio research on cel phones and hearing aids, not to mention the BBC rely on ABX DBT's? Did you read this? Carlstrom, David, Greenhill, Laurence, Krueger, Arnold, "Some Amplifiers Do Sound Different", The Audio Amateur, 3/82, p. 30, 31, also reprinted in Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Link House Magazines, United Kingdom, Dec 1982, p. 37. Or this: Buchlein, R., "The Audibility of Frequency Response Irregularities" (1962), reprinted in English in Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 29, pp. 126-131 (1981) |
|
#168
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote: Looking at the http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit...si/index1.html we see that half of the readers letters clearly perceived that my comments related to blind tests. We don't know what the full text of the other two letters actually said. Three of the four letters were published in full, edited for style, syntax, and punctuations, as are all letters published in Stereophile. I shortened the fourth letter, eliminating two paragraphs about the correspondent thinking he had the best system ever and about the brands he had owned, neither of which was germane to his criticisms of me or or Stereophile. I also eliminated a criticism he had made about audiophiles being recommended to change their cables every few years, as to the best of my knowledge, this was not a criticism of anything written in Stereophile. None of these cuts changed the meaning of the letter or of the argument. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#169
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jon Yaeger said: Arnold is inching toward the realization about the reason that he's one of the most abused posters in the history of USENET. Does anyone on R.A.T. care? ANYONE?? Other than you, maybe not. DO NOT CROSS-POST YOUR VAPID RANTS TO R.A.T. I disagree. dave's observation was succinct, albeit a little oblique, and it definitely wasn't a rant. Do you disagree with the contention that Arnii Krooborg is 98% pure feces? Why or why not? Please show your work. |
|
#171
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote: JA correctly discerned that my comments related to blind testing in his response to my comments and his http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/705awsi/ article. Thank you, Mr. Krueger. I have no idea why you didn't mention this at the time, which one reason is why I referred to you not "fleshing out" your argument. If your argument was indeed about Stereophile not practicing blind listeneing tests, why did you not clearly state that at the debate? Previously, Jason Victor Serinus heard me flesh my three points out out in the smaller, non-autobiographical portion of his recent Stereophile review of the HE2005 debate: http://stereophile.com/news/050905debate/ "Arny strongly emphasized that sighted listening as practiced by magazine and webzine reviewers fundamentally changes the listener's mental state and is therefore unreliable as a means of assessing sound quality." But so does blind listening "change the listener's mental state," which I seem to remember you agreeing with at the debate, Mr. Krueger. So, if sighted listening is invalid or "unreliable" because it changes the listener's mental state, so therefore must blind testing because it also changes the listener's mental state. Not a very fruitful argument for you to have pursued, in my opinion. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#172
|
|||
|
|||
|
Don Pearce wrote: On 25 Aug 2005 10:42:34 -0700, wrote: Three of the four letters were published in full, edited for style, syntax, and punctuations, as are all letters published in Stereophile. It is dishonest of you to represent your readers as literate if they clearly aren't. You should publish them verbatim or not at all. Thank you Mr. Pearce. Editing published letters in this manner is standard practice at magazines and newspapers. I am no different in this respect from any other professional editor. The reason this is done, BTW, is so that people's arguments are not confused by grammatical errors, that someone with poor grammar skills, or for whom English is not a first language, but who has a strong case is not put at a disadvantage. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#173
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 10:02:22 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote... Introspection and self-awareness = low. Arny, please don't admit this in public. After all, your introspection and self-awareness are no worse than mine or our other buddy, Richard Malesweski of Rogers AR. When you admit this of yourself, you admit it of all of us. Headers from this forged post: From: Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.misc,r ec.audio.tubes References: s.com Subject: Stereophile: not a shred of integrity Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 07:43:57 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response Message-ID: Lines: 11 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.9.70.239 X-Trace: sv3-aAYFCPGp64jqu4HxodMiaBMVYqsrS0g1waZFLD8Ray5dJV3S2X Nxdg2MaXTJ+N+Bn9NYK2tJ1OxWiSE!tCAt71hp1THXRJPGi07S qlPdfW+ubZfQTnYDtEQnBR/3aLLiZ8D52jd0kMf8SSOjTWbMKI0DX84J!xQ== X-Complaints-To: X-DMCA-Complaints-To: X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.audio.opinion:778388 rec.audio.tech:195960 rec.audio.misc:86251 rec.audio.tubes:304103 The posting host 24.9.70.239 has previously been traced to Tom Albertz. The most massively obvious part of this fraud is the complaints url which McKelvey should avail himself of forthwith. Headers from valid Mckelvey post: Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.gi ganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!elnk-atl-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthl ink.net!newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!91 085e73!not-for-mail From: " Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.misc,r ec.audio.tubes References: Subject: Stereophile Lines: 32 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response Message-ID: . net Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 04:45:53 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.231.163.8 X-Complaints-To: X-Trace: newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net 1124858753 4.231.163.8 (Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:45:53 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:45:53 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.audio.opinion:778307 rec.audio.tech:195921 rec.audio.misc:86225 rec.audio.tubes:304056 Gee, you don't think that the fact that the grammar was good, the words spelled correctly, and the punctuation in place wasn't enough of a tip-off that this wasn't REALLY Mr. McKelvy? But I guess that this effort kept you off the streets for a little while. |
|
#174
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 25 Aug 2005 11:01:37 -0700, John Atkinson wrote:
Don Pearce wrote: On 25 Aug 2005 10:42:34 -0700, wrote: Three of the four letters were published in full, edited for style, syntax, and punctuations, as are all letters published in Stereophile. It is dishonest of you to represent your readers as literate if they clearly aren't. You should publish them verbatim or not at all. Thank you Mr. Pearce. Editing published letters in this manner is standard practice at magazines and newspapers. I am no different in this respect from any other professional editor. The reason this is done, BTW, is so that people's arguments are not confused by grammatical errors, that someone with poor grammar skills, or for whom English is not a first language, but who has a strong case is not put at a disadvantage. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile In such a circumstance I would call them made up. But really I wouldn't expcect otherwise. At least readers' wives tend to be un-retouched. And of course, if somebody's arguments are confusing by virtue of poor writing, how do you know that you have interpreted them correctly? Patronizing is what I would call it. d |
|
#175
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
oups.com Arny Krueger wrote: JA correctly discerned that my comments related to blind testing in his response to my comments and his http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/705awsi/ article. Thank you, Mr. Krueger. I have no idea why you didn't mention this at the time, which one reason is why I referred to you not "fleshing out" your argument. If your argument was indeed about Stereophile not practicing blind listeneing tests, why did you not clearly state that at the debate? Given how widely my introductory comments were correctly perceived, there seemed to be no reason to reiterate that which everybody who spoke, seemed to think was obvious. I certainly heard no questions along the line of "exactly what you you mean by..."? Did I miss someone who had that question go unanswered? Previously, Jason Victor Serinus heard me flesh my three points out out in the smaller, non-autobiographical portion of his recent Stereophile review of the HE2005 debate: http://stereophile.com/news/050905debate/ "Arny strongly emphasized that sighted listening as practiced by magazine and webzine reviewers fundamentally changes the listener's mental state and is therefore unreliable as a means of assessing sound quality." But so does blind listening "change the listener's mental state," which I seem to remember you agreeing with at the debate, Mr. Krueger. Of course it does. But, that's not the point of this discussion. You made the claim that I didn't flesh out my claims, and here we see Jason Victor Serinus doing a great job of recounting the meat of my comments. If you want to discuss Jason's observation Atkinson, please start another top thread. It seems like rec.audio.opinion and rec.audio.tubes should be dropped as they only increase the noise level. |
|
#176
|
|||
|
|||
|
in article , Don Pearce at
wrote on 8/25/05 2:17 PM: On 25 Aug 2005 11:01:37 -0700, John Atkinson wrote: Don Pearce wrote: On 25 Aug 2005 10:42:34 -0700, wrote: Three of the four letters were published in full, edited for style, syntax, and punctuations, as are all letters published in Stereophile. It is dishonest of you to represent your readers as literate if they clearly aren't. You should publish them verbatim or not at all. Thank you Mr. Pearce. Editing published letters in this manner is standard practice at magazines and newspapers. I am no different in this respect from any other professional editor. The reason this is done, BTW, is so that people's arguments are not confused by grammatical errors, that someone with poor grammar skills, or for whom English is not a first language, but who has a strong case is not put at a disadvantage. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile In such a circumstance I would call them made up. But really I wouldn't expcect otherwise. At least readers' wives tend to be un-retouched. And of course, if somebody's arguments are confusing by virtue of poor writing, how do you know that you have interpreted them correctly? Patronizing is what I would call it. d Don: Cross-posting to an uninterested and uninvolved Newsgroup, in spite of many requests to stop? Arrogant and obnoxious is what I would call it. J |
|
#177
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 14:49:59 -0400, Jon Yaeger wrote:
in article , Don Pearce at wrote on 8/25/05 2:17 PM: On 25 Aug 2005 11:01:37 -0700, John Atkinson wrote: Don Pearce wrote: On 25 Aug 2005 10:42:34 -0700, wrote: Three of the four letters were published in full, edited for style, syntax, and punctuations, as are all letters published in Stereophile. It is dishonest of you to represent your readers as literate if they clearly aren't. You should publish them verbatim or not at all. Thank you Mr. Pearce. Editing published letters in this manner is standard practice at magazines and newspapers. I am no different in this respect from any other professional editor. The reason this is done, BTW, is so that people's arguments are not confused by grammatical errors, that someone with poor grammar skills, or for whom English is not a first language, but who has a strong case is not put at a disadvantage. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile In such a circumstance I would call them made up. But really I wouldn't expcect otherwise. At least readers' wives tend to be un-retouched. And of course, if somebody's arguments are confusing by virtue of poor writing, how do you know that you have interpreted them correctly? Patronizing is what I would call it. d Don: Cross-posting to an uninterested and uninvolved Newsgroup, in spite of many requests to stop? Arrogant and obnoxious is what I would call it. J Nobody has asked me to do anything. And I never interfere with the group choices in somebody else's thread - it is none of my business. d |
|
#178
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#179
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Jenn" wrote in message ... The problem there is that standard hearing tests are very much focussed on speech intelligibility, and generally only run up to 8 KHz. I presume that one could request a test that does. Jumbo Jacks come with pickles, unless one orders them without. Asking something NOT to be done is easy, but asking for something that the average audiologist may not be equipped to do is another matter entirely. However I'm sure there are some that could do the job properly, IF you seek them out and are prepared to pay for it. MrT. |
|
#180
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mr. Yaeger says:
" 426. Jon Yaeger Aug 25, 11:49 am hide options Don: Cross-posting to an uninterested and uninvolved Newsgroup, in spite of many requests to stop? Arrogant and obnoxious is what I would call it. Mr Yaeger- I agree with you 100%. The endless debate is boring in the extreme to an outsider.I also plead guilty for what happens out of my control. My postings are automatically crossposted to other forums by Google. I have no idea what I can do to prevent it. Can you contact Google about it ? Ludovic Mirabel J |
|
#181
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... The problem there is that standard hearing tests are very much focussed on speech intelligibility, and generally only run up to 8 KHz. I presume that one could request a test that does. Jumbo Jacks come with pickles, unless one orders them without. Asking something NOT to be done is easy, but asking for something that the average audiologist may not be equipped to do is another matter entirely. However I'm sure there are some that could do the job properly, IF you seek them out and are prepared to pay for it. MrT. And if I were a nationally distributed magazine like SP, or a major recording company like Mercury, I would seek them out and find them. I'm betting that it wouldn't be that hard to find in NYC. |
|
#182
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:36:24 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:45:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message The problem with this statement is that Arnie is not a good reader of persons, at least from their posts. Several times I've posted seriously and politely to Arnie and received an insulting reply because he thought I was having a go at him. Well Paul when you wedge a rare serious post in among all of your usual insulting stuff, you run that risk.. Proves my point. I don't post "insulting" stuff. Self-righteous stuff, too. If you read it that way, well, that's up to you. Introspection and self-awareness = low. Memory of intention and knowledge of mind set when making posts to you = high. I have no malice towards you, Arny. If you slip back to aus.hi-fi you'll find a post where I actually defended you, or at least maintained that you had positive qualities. However, I see you're working hard to change my opinion. But really, your day on Usenet must be like one of those courses for FBI trainees, where cardboard cutout criminals--plus the occasional little old lady--pop up in every window. Not at all. There are plenty of sane, intelligent people to converse with, just not many on RAO or AHF. It's not surprising you get confused sometimes and gun down the little old lady. Thanks Paul for admitting that you are the intellectual equivalent of a little old lady. Silly and childish, to quote one Arnold Krueger esq. I think the "Thanks for admitting..." gambit is just about exhausted. . Besides, your idea of a serious post has really been pretty threadbare. Define "threadbare". Totally sucked in by high end audio snake oil Totally sucked in by the "If I hear it, that is how it is" myth A poster child for high end deceptions and myths No snake oil in my bedroom, Arnie. I have nothing "tweaky" in my system. I don't subscribe to green pens or weird discs or stones or anything that isn't straightforward electronics. I do however believe that passing a signal through circuit boards packed with transistors, resistors and ICs can result in noticeable differences depending on the particular permutation. Is that belief in snake oil or high end myths? |
|
#183
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:36:24 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: A poster child for high end deceptions and myths Oh Arnie, I noticed you didn't address my suggestion of you taking a holiday. I'm serious. The Greeks used to have a saying: "Nothing too much." Don't you think it would do you the world of good? |
|
#184
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
ups.com... Before we go any further: Mr. McKelvy does not provide one single reference to a published ABX/DBT comparison of comparable audio components with a positive outcome: Yes , the panel heard a difference. Some "test" for detecting differences Ludovic Mirabel For those able to keep awake and with time to spare details follow. Mr. McKelvy quotes me: Mr. Mc Kelvy says: ( Google message 417, Aug. 25) "We're talking about SDP, they're not big on anything that has to do with science, in fact they seem adamantly opposed to it unless it's either bull**** or improbable. Anything that might actually help them do a better job and provide more accurate reviews is shunned. I commented: Sadly I must conclude that your messages are not the signposts to guide poor, science-deprived Mr. Atkinson. onto the royal road to "science" that you claim to be the spokesman for.. The science I was taught implies that a hypothesis can only be validated by properly designed experiment (s). And answers: "Please provide evidence that an ABX DBT is not a properly designed experiment." Mr. McKelvy ABX/DBT for distinguishing audio components is not an experiment. It is a proposal , a hypothesis to be validated by a properly designed experiment. You really should consult someone (Mr. Krueger?) before talking about things beyond your area of competence. You quote: If you said once that ABX is the right tool for showing differences between components you said it a dozen times in this thread and before. On one such occasion 9 months ago("RAHE challenges...) I asked you to give your reference ( :{Accepted meaning of "reference" in any research is: Journal, author(s), year, volume, number, pages) You said you had "many". I challenged you to quote JUST ONE component comparison that was done on ANYTHING in audio, including loudspeakers, and had a POSITIVE outcome. Naturally it should be controlled (preplanned protocol ), statistically valid (significant numbers), randomised and truly double blind.. You had no answer then and you won't have any now. That there are none that I could find should tell you something, obviously, you're missing it. I haven't a clue what exactly you're trying to say. Yes it does tell me something- there ARE none. You quote: "All the published reports to date have had one result: NO DIFFERENCE.. " And you answer: "IIRC there are some at the ABX web site, involving tube amps." I heard about this, what is it- thirty years old? experiment of Mr. Clarke's and a few friends , so many times that I can quote it back to you from memory. They compared an 8 watt Heathkit with 400 watt Dyna Transistor amp and... incredible as it may sound.. willl you believe it... they heard a difference.(inspite of ABX?) Also they compared something with an AR amp., which they said needed repairs and again, miraculously, they heard a difference. This is the best you can come up with for forty years of ABXing?And is this the premise for your question , eyes wide open at someone's astonishing stupidity (message: #354 , Aug.22): "You still deny the validity of ABX and audio DBT's, right?" You quote me: When ABXing or DBTiing it all sounds the same , to a thumping majority of randomized audio fans.; Whatever is being tested including loudspeakers with very different frequency responses (See S. Olive, "Differences in performance...." , JAES, vol 51, # 9, 2003 , pps 806-825). I do not know why and I do not care to hear more off the top- of-the head speculations.. Consecutive A/B testing appears to disable most brains from hearing differences You answer: "Keyword: MOST" Yes, Mr Mc. Kelvy MOST. That is how your kin, "Objecivist" moderators compiled the statistics in their cable, amplifiers, cdplayers reports. MOST panelists heard no difference, Ergo-there IS no difference. Freaks and "golden ears" do not count. Or do you have another protocol in mind? between components unless disparities are huge (who needs ABX for that?) Nobody, as has been said. or one of them is malfunctioning.. You decided to stay silent in December but you revived by now and again shout "me is science". You answer: "I decided to stay silent because you are a true believer and nothing that anybody says, nor all the revealed evidence in the world is going to change your mind." I am truly flattered to hear that you wrote just to convince little me. Wouldn't email serve the purpose.? As for me I write not for you but for anyone with a newly found interest in audio iwho could be impressed by your kind of "science". I continued: Sorry you're not. In fact you seem not to have the foggiest notion what validation of hypotheses and science are all about.. You worship a "test" that has had forty years to show that it works and failed to do so. . That is called "faith"- or blind faith if you'd rather. You answered: "Then I ask again, why do people doing audio research on cel phones and hearing aids, not to mention the BBC rely on ABX DBT's?" Did they tell you? They are keeping it a secret from me.and the rest of the world. Can you betray their confidence and quote details of ONE SINGLE ABX/DBT comparison of audio components performed by cell phone researchers and/or BBC. Fascinating. Did they find any that sounded different from any others? Mr. McKelvy do you know what constitutes a reference? I told you before but it doesn't seem to sink in: Journal, author(s), vol., year, #, page. Gossipy anecdotes are not enough You asked: "Did you read this? Carlstrom, David, Greenhill, Laurence, Krueger, Arnold, "Some Amplifiers Do Sound Different", The Audio Amateur, 3/82, p. 30, 31, also reprinted in Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Link House Magazines, United Kingdom, Dec 1982, p. 37". No: Vancouver Univ. Libr. and Public Libr. threw it out long ago. I tried to get Krueger to say something specific about it but he did not. I think since then he decided that amps. do not sound different after all. What do you believe? And what exactly- quote, quote, quote. did the article say? Which amps did they compare?. Are we again talking about an 8 watt Heathkit and 400 watt transistor and a malfunctioning AR? Your next question: "Or this: Buchlein, R., "The Audibility of Frequency Response Irregularities" (1962), reprinted in English in Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 29, pp. 126-131 (1981) " Which components did Mr. Buchlein compare? Nothing about that in the title you quote. Are you next going to send me and the patient reader to the "Old Farmer's Almanach" 1945? |
|
#185
|
|||
|
|||
|
"paul packer" wrote in message
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:36:24 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:45:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message The problem with this statement is that Arnie is not a good reader of persons, at least from their posts. Several times I've posted seriously and politely to Arnie and received an insulting reply because he thought I was having a go at him. Well Paul when you wedge a rare serious post in among all of your usual insulting stuff, you run that risk.. Proves my point. I don't post "insulting" stuff. Self-righteous stuff, too. If you read it that way, well, that's up to you. Introspection and self-awareness = low. Memory of intention and knowledge of mind set when making posts to you = high. Whatever that means. I have no malice towards you, Arny. If you slip back to aus.hi-fi you'll find a post where I actually defended you, or at least maintained that you had positive qualities. However, I see you're working hard to change my opinion. Paul, AFAIK you believe that all audio gear sounds different, and you base that belief on really crapply listening evaluations. But really, your day on Usenet must be like one of those courses for FBI trainees, where cardboard cutout criminals--plus the occasional little old lady--pop up in every window. Not at all. There are plenty of sane, intelligent people to converse with, just not many on RAO or AHF. It's not surprising you get confused sometimes and gun down the little old lady. Thanks Paul for admitting that you are the intellectual equivalent of a little old lady. Silly and childish, to quote one Arnold Krueger esq. I think the "Thanks for admitting..." gambit is just about exhausted. Pual, it hasn't stopped your patron Middius from picking it up. ;-) . Besides, your idea of a serious post has really been pretty threadbare. Define "threadbare". Totally sucked in by high end audio snake oil Totally sucked in by the "If I hear it, that is how it is" myth A poster child for high end deceptions and myths No snake oil in my bedroom, Arnie. I don't know about your bedroom Paul and its really none of my business. I have nothing "tweaky" in my system. Sure you do, you have these weird beliefs about magic amps and magic optical players. I do however believe that passing a signal through circuit boards packed with transistors, resistors and ICs can result in noticeable differences depending on the particular permutation. Not "can" Paul but in every case I can think of "must". Is that belief in snake oil or high end myths? As amended, yes. Several of us tried to straighten you out in that recent headphone amp thread, and we got nowhere due to your lack of understanding and overwhelming biases. Face it Paul you only understand audio at the magic level. Until you understand it better, you would do well to listen to credible, conservative sources. That means zero audiophool magazines, web sites, stores, etc. |
|
#186
|
|||
|
|||
|
"paul packer" wrote in message
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:36:24 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: A poster child for high end deceptions and myths Oh Arnie, I noticed you didn't address my suggestion of you taking a holiday. I'm serious. The Greeks used to have a saying: "Nothing too much." Don't you think it would do you the world of good? Speaks to your ignorance and self-righteousnesss, Paul. I've taken up to 3 week vacations in years past. Due to my wife's job I haven't taken any ones that long lately. However, I've taken 1-2 week vacations in the past few years. What happens is that the usual idiots fume and fuss about me online the whole time I'm gone. |
|
#187
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "paul packer" wrote in message I have no malice towards you, Arny. If you slip back to aus.hi-fi you'll find a post where I actually defended you, or at least maintained that you had positive qualities. However, I see you're working hard to change my opinion. Paul, AFAIK you believe that all audio gear sounds different, and you base that belief on really crapply listening evaluations. For Arny, making enemies is not work, it's his hobby. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#188
|
|||
|
|||
|
"dave weil" wrote ...
Arnyk wrote: The most massively obvious part of this fraud is the complaints url which McKelvey should avail himself of forthwith. Gee, you don't think that the fact that the grammar was good, the words spelled correctly, and the punctuation in place wasn't enough of a tip-off that this wasn't REALLY Mr. McKelvy? But I guess that this effort kept you off the streets for a little while. Thanks for admitting mR..Weeel that you didn't notice the most massively obvious distinction of the post in kwestion forthwith, LoT;S! not... Thanks for admitting that it would have taken you off the streets for a little while mR. Waael. Perhaps you should avail yourself of some komputer training Mr Wehel forthwith! I can distinctuate a forged post in massively less than a little while and forthwith demonstrate my massive komputer knowlij forthwith, mrWeiel. Can you say the same mrRWaele? |
|
#189
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 08:12:15 -0600, dave weil wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 19:17:06 +0100, Don Pearce wrote: On 25 Aug 2005 11:01:37 -0700, John Atkinson wrote: Don Pearce wrote: On 25 Aug 2005 10:42:34 -0700, wrote: Three of the four letters were published in full, edited for style, syntax, and punctuations, as are all letters published in Stereophile. It is dishonest of you to represent your readers as literate if they clearly aren't. You should publish them verbatim or not at all. Thank you Mr. Pearce. Editing published letters in this manner is standard practice at magazines and newspapers. I am no different in this respect from any other professional editor. The reason this is done, BTW, is so that people's arguments are not confused by grammatical errors, that someone with poor grammar skills, or for whom English is not a first language, but who has a strong case is not put at a disadvantage. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile In such a circumstance I would call them made up. But really I wouldn't expcect otherwise. At least readers' wives tend to be un-retouched. And of course, if somebody's arguments are confusing by virtue of poor writing, how do you know that you have interpreted them correctly? Patronizing is what I would call it. No, editing is what you SHOULD call it. That's the job of an editor. Virtually EVERYTHING written for magazines is edited for those values, articles, letters, etc. An editor is chosen EXACTLY for the ability to "interpret correctly", which is after all the main function of the editing process. It's the same reason someone hires YOU to do your job. You do your job correctly and you'll be hired by someone else. If an editor does HIS or HER job correctly, they'll advance to eventually edit an entire magazine. I wouldn't necessarily use "Reader's Wives" as a counter-example chuckle. And I would "expcect" that you can use some editing from time to time, as can we all. I disagree, as you would expect. The job of the letters editor is to choose the letters - not to alter them. He should have a sane set of parameters by which he chooses, which should result in the letters page being a fair representation of the distribution of topics and numbers in the mail bag. If interpretation is called for it should be in the form of a provenenced editorial insertion after the letter. As for editors changing anything, a friend of mine, now sadly dead, used to be the overseas editor of The Economist - a rather more august and well respected periodical than even SP. The policy then, and the policy right now, was that every article is published exactly as it arrives from the journalist. Not a word is ever changed. OK, this implies a high degree of trust in the contributors, but it guarantees that there will never be any irate phone calls of the "that is NOT what I said" variety. I support this position entirely as it reflects a fundamental honesty of approach. d |
|
#190
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 19:17:06 +0100, Don Pearce
wrote: On 25 Aug 2005 11:01:37 -0700, John Atkinson wrote: Don Pearce wrote: On 25 Aug 2005 10:42:34 -0700, wrote: Three of the four letters were published in full, edited for style, syntax, and punctuations, as are all letters published in Stereophile. It is dishonest of you to represent your readers as literate if they clearly aren't. You should publish them verbatim or not at all. Thank you Mr. Pearce. Editing published letters in this manner is standard practice at magazines and newspapers. I am no different in this respect from any other professional editor. The reason this is done, BTW, is so that people's arguments are not confused by grammatical errors, that someone with poor grammar skills, or for whom English is not a first language, but who has a strong case is not put at a disadvantage. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile In such a circumstance I would call them made up. But really I wouldn't expcect otherwise. At least readers' wives tend to be un-retouched. And of course, if somebody's arguments are confusing by virtue of poor writing, how do you know that you have interpreted them correctly? Patronizing is what I would call it. No, editing is what you SHOULD call it. That's the job of an editor. Virtually EVERYTHING written for magazines is edited for those values, articles, letters, etc. An editor is chosen EXACTLY for the ability to "interpret correctly", which is after all the main function of the editing process. It's the same reason someone hires YOU to do your job. You do your job correctly and you'll be hired by someone else. If an editor does HIS or HER job correctly, they'll advance to eventually edit an entire magazine. I wouldn't necessarily use "Reader's Wives" as a counter-example chuckle. And I would "expcect" that you can use some editing from time to time, as can we all. |
|
#191
|
|||
|
|||
|
paul packer said to the Krooborg: Oh Arnie, I noticed you didn't address my suggestion of you taking a holiday. I'm serious. The Greeks used to have a saying: "Nothing too much." Don't you think it would do you the world of good? Experience has shown that the opposite is true. Whenever Arnii takes a holiday, he comes back snarling and nastier than ever. It turns out that the everyday version of Mr. **** is his best side. When he's torn away from his computer and his make-believe world of the All-Knowing Audio Eckthpurt, he stresses out and turns into the Kroo-monster. The same phenomenon obtains to a lesser degree when Turdy goes to church on some Sundays. You can tell he's been to church because he's extra-snotty on those Sundays. |
|
#192
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 08:02:10 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Introspection and self-awareness = low. Memory of intention and knowledge of mind set when making posts to you = high. Whatever that means. It means what it says. I know what my attitude toward you has been when I've posted, and it was not one of malice. So I'm pretty sure I never made any deliberately "insulting" posts. Of course, your definition of that word may differ from mine. I have no malice towards you, Arny. If you slip back to aus.hi-fi you'll find a post where I actually defended you, or at least maintained that you had positive qualities. However, I see you're working hard to change my opinion. Paul, AFAIK you believe that all audio gear sounds different, and you base that belief on really crapply listening evaluations. Comparative (but non A/B) listening to familiar recordings at leisure is not a "crapply" evaluation. It strikes me as utterly sensible. But really, your day on Usenet must be like one of those courses for FBI trainees, where cardboard cutout criminals--plus the occasional little old lady--pop up in every window. Not at all. There are plenty of sane, intelligent people to converse with, just not many on RAO or AHF. It's not surprising you get confused sometimes and gun down the little old lady. Thanks Paul for admitting that you are the intellectual equivalent of a little old lady. Silly and childish, to quote one Arnold Krueger esq. I think the "Thanks for admitting..." gambit is just about exhausted. Pual, it hasn't stopped your patron Middius from picking it up. ;-) I don't know who "Pual" is, but I know who Middius is and he's not my patron. At least, I haven't received any commissions from him yet. . Besides, your idea of a serious post has really been pretty threadbare. Define "threadbare". Totally sucked in by high end audio snake oil Totally sucked in by the "If I hear it, that is how it is" myth A poster child for high end deceptions and myths No snake oil in my bedroom, Arnie. I don't know about your bedroom Paul and its really none of my business. The stereo system part is. I have nothing "tweaky" in my system. Sure you do, you have these weird beliefs about magic amps and magic optical players. An audible difference is magic? I do however believe that passing a signal through circuit boards packed with transistors, resistors and ICs can result in noticeable differences depending on the particular permutation. Not "can" Paul but in every case I can think of "must". Of course, since there's no such thing as a wire with gain. But the key word is "differences". The change (or degree of divergence from perfection, if you like) varies with each permutation. This doesn't mean that no two amps sound alike, because many do. But it does mean there are endless fairly easily detectable subjective differences between amps (and less so, I believe, between CD players). One only needs trust one's ears, which after all were designed by the greatest Scientist of them all. Right, Arnie? Is that belief in snake oil or high end myths? As amended, yes. No, Arnie. The answer is a simple no. Several of us tried to straighten you out in that recent headphone amp thread, and we got nowhere due to your lack of understanding and overwhelming biases. If you mean I didn't understand your technical arguments, I fully admit I have no technical knowledge. However, I have nearly 40 years experience comparing components and what you and others had to say about driving headphones didn't accord with that or my present listening experience. I still say my current Marantz amp (and the budget version I had previously) sounds better than any low impedance source I've heard, and is certainly better than the MF X-Can v2 tube HP amp. This doesn't mean that every integrated amp driving phones through resistors from the power amp stage sounds better than every dedicated HP amp, but it does suggest to me that the technical arguments you advanced don't in practise translate to overwhelmingly better sound as you suggested. In short, technical theory doesn't always pay off at the eardrum. Face it Paul you only understand audio at the magic level. Until you understand it better, you would do well to listen to credible, conservative sources. That means zero audiophool magazines, web sites, stores, etc. Have you ever considered that every hobby has and needs its "magic"? Stamp collecting, bird watching and train spotting may seem very straightforward, even boring activities to us, but to their enthusiastic practitioners there is indeed real magic in them. They clearly see what we don't, and who's to say what they see isn't real? Maybe you need to let your imagination soar a little, Arnie. Leave that dusty test bench behind....feel your feet lifting off the ground...don't bump your head on the ceiling now.... |
|
#193
|
|||
|
|||
|
"paul packer" wrote in message
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 08:02:10 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Paul, AFAIK you believe that all audio gear sounds different, and you base that belief on really crappy listening evaluations. Comparative (but non A/B) listening to familiar recordings at leisure is not a "crappy" evaluation. It strikes me as utterly sensible. The inability to understand why it is totally insensible would be your major problem. . Besides, your idea of a serious post has really been pretty threadbare. Define "threadbare". Totally sucked in by high end audio snake oil Totally sucked in by the "If I hear it, that is how it is" myth A poster child for high end deceptions and myths No snake oil in my bedroom, Arnie. I don't know about your bedroom Paul and its really none of my business. The stereo system part is. I have nothing "tweaky" in my system. Sure you do, you have these weird beliefs about magic amps and magic optical players. An audible difference is magic? What audible difference? I do however believe that passing a signal through circuit boards packed with transistors, resistors and ICs can result in noticeable differences depending on the particular permutation. Not "can" Paul but in every case I can think of "must". Of course, since there's no such thing as a wire with gain. Subjectively, there are a ton of them. But it does mean there are endless fairly easily detectable subjective differences between amps (and less so, I believe, between CD players). One only needs trust one's ears, which after all were designed by the greatest Scientist of them all. No matter what you've been told Paul, it turns out that ears were designed to be used in conjunction with the brain. Is that belief in snake oil or high end myths? As amended, yes. No, Arnie. The answer is a simple no. Then let's agree to disagree and I'll append the opposing viewpoint to yours as I see fit. Several of us tried to straighten you out in that recent headphone amp thread, and we got nowhere due to your lack of understanding and overwhelming biases. If you mean I didn't understand your technical arguments, I fully admit I have no technical knowledge. Then why try to tell people with considerable technical knowlege that they are wrong? However, I have nearly 40 years experience comparing components and what you and others had to say about driving headphones didn't accord with that or my present listening experience. Bias, anyone? I still say my current Marantz amp (and the budget version I had previously) sounds better than any low impedance source I've heard, and is certainly better than the MF X-Can v2 tube HP amp. This doesn't mean that every integrated amp driving phones through resistors from the power amp stage sounds better than every dedicated HP amp, but it does suggest to me that the technical arguments you advanced don't in practise translate to overwhelmingly better sound as you suggested. Obviously my suggestions flew way over your head, Paul. In short, technical theory doesn't always pay off at the eardrum. Now that I can agree with. Face it Paul you only understand audio at the magic level. Until you understand it better, you would do well to listen to credible, conservative sources. That means zero audiophool magazines, web sites, stores, etc. Have you ever considered that every hobby has and needs its "magic"? Most people seem to think that the magic of audio is in listening to music, not playing musical chairs with amplifiers and CD players. Stamp collecting, bird watching and train spotting may seem very straightforward, even boring activities to us, but to their enthusiastic practitioners there is indeed real magic in them. They clearly see what we don't, and who's to say what they see isn't real? Maybe you need to let your imagination soar a little, Insult noted. Leave that dusty test bench behind....feel your feet lifting off the ground...don't bump your head on the ceiling now.... Thanks for the insults, Paul. Sorry, I have some music makers to help. Bye! |
|
#194
|
|||
|
|||
|
Don Pearce said: That's the job of an editor. Virtually EVERYTHING written for magazines is edited for those values, articles, letters, etc. An editor is chosen EXACTLY for the ability to "interpret correctly", which is after all the main function of the editing process. It's the same reason someone hires YOU to do your job. I disagree, as you would expect. The job of the letters editor is to choose the letters - not to alter them. He should have a sane set of parameters by which he chooses, which should result in the letters page being a fair representation of the distribution of topics and numbers in the mail bag. If interpretation is called for it should be in the form of a provenenced editorial insertion after the letter. You are completely wrong. This is absolute nonsense in every respect. You clearly don't understand the editorial mission. Abuse of language is not "style", it's abuse. It interferes with communication. It detracts from the quality of the publication. The editor adds value by improving the quality of communication. As JA said, and as you should heed, when the message is obscured by the language, the value of the message is diminished. As for editors changing anything, a friend of mine, now sadly dead, used to be the overseas editor of The Economist - a rather more august and well respected periodical than even SP. The policy then, and the policy right now, was that every article is published exactly as it arrives from the journalist. Not a word is ever changed. OK, this implies a high degree of trust in the contributors, but it guarantees that there will never be any irate phone calls of the "that is NOT what I said" variety. I support this position entirely as it reflects a fundamental honesty of approach. If this example is the entire foundation of your nonsensical opinion, consider the difference in the mission of a general circulation pub and a highly technical journal that is produced by and for a select group of specialists. When an economist writes a letter, he is presumably offering his own credentials in support of his opinion. This is precisely the reason why professionals with standing might be accorded the courtesy of having their words presented without editing. Such an individual, by virtue of his credentials, is presumed to be an expert in his field. This is not the case for Stereophile's letters. Furthermore, I don't believe that what you say is true. In the real world, professional journals edit articles to an exacting standard, far more thoroughly than newspapers or most trade mags do. No editor wants to be associated with poorly written content, whether it's written by paid correspondents or by members of a professional community. If there's any truth to your story, it's probably based on letters being accepted *or rejected* without editing. If a letter is submitted with unacceptable errors, the editor might choose simply to reject it, pending improvement, rather than editing it himself. This kind of choice is typically driven by a policy set by the publisher. |
|
#195
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:14:18 -0600, dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:21:34 +0100, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote: I disagree, as you would expect. The job of the letters editor is to choose the letters - not to alter them. That's only your opinion. He should have a sane set of parameters by which he chooses, which should result in the letters page being a fair representation of the distribution of topics and numbers in the mail bag. If interpretation is called for it should be in the form of a provenenced editorial insertion after the letter. Are you a professional in the publishing business? Should a publisher be scolding YOU on how you consult? No - I am a reader; a far more important entity in my books (pun not intended, unless it was funny). If I am reading a letter purported to be sent in by a reader, than I assume I am reading a verbatim quotation, not somebody else's interpretation. If it isn't the actual letter, unchanged, then don't print the sender's name on the by line. As for editors changing anything, a friend of mine, now sadly dead, used to be the overseas editor of The Economist - a rather more august and well respected periodical than even SP. The policy then, and the policy right now, was that every article is published exactly as it arrives from the journalist. Not a word is ever changed. OK, this implies a high degree of trust in the contributors, but it guarantees that there will never be any irate phone calls of the "that is NOT what I said" variety. I support this position entirely as it reflects a fundamental honesty of approach. The Economist doesn't hew to normal "journalistic standards". They are their own entity that flouts MANY conventions of the publishing business. It doesn't reflect the normal realities of the "written word business", if I can coin an awkward phrase. Even the most erudite writers utilize the services of an editor. And even your own website has minor grammatical problems and confused language that could easily be fixed by an editor. I know. The Econmist stands like a beacon of how things could be done if only the industry had the balls. And before you decide to say something about people in glass houses, yes, I fully realize that my written work oftentimes needs the work of a good editor. My web site was thrown together very quickly, and I'm fully aware that it has many faults. As for using editors - I've just finished writing several documents, the last stage of which was to distribute them around a few trusted guys who are well versed in both the subject and in proof reading. We had a Skype conference call that leasted three hours going through them line by line to fix them. That is good editing. But if anybody changed one of my documents without consulting me first I'd have his balls. d |
|
#196
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 26 Aug 2005 08:20:43 -0700, George Middius wrote:
Don Pearce said: That's the job of an editor. Virtually EVERYTHING written for magazines is edited for those values, articles, letters, etc. An editor is chosen EXACTLY for the ability to "interpret correctly", which is after all the main function of the editing process. It's the same reason someone hires YOU to do your job. I disagree, as you would expect. The job of the letters editor is to choose the letters - not to alter them. He should have a sane set of parameters by which he chooses, which should result in the letters page being a fair representation of the distribution of topics and numbers in the mail bag. If interpretation is called for it should be in the form of a provenenced editorial insertion after the letter. You are completely wrong. This is absolute nonsense in every respect. You clearly don't understand the editorial mission. Abuse of language is not "style", it's abuse. It interferes with communication. It detracts from the quality of the publication. The editor adds value by improving the quality of communication. As JA said, and as you should heed, when the message is obscured by the language, the value of the message is diminished. As for editors changing anything, a friend of mine, now sadly dead, used to be the overseas editor of The Economist - a rather more august and well respected periodical than even SP. The policy then, and the policy right now, was that every article is published exactly as it arrives from the journalist. Not a word is ever changed. OK, this implies a high degree of trust in the contributors, but it guarantees that there will never be any irate phone calls of the "that is NOT what I said" variety. I support this position entirely as it reflects a fundamental honesty of approach. If this example is the entire foundation of your nonsensical opinion, consider the difference in the mission of a general circulation pub and a highly technical journal that is produced by and for a select group of specialists. When an economist writes a letter, he is presumably offering his own credentials in support of his opinion. This is precisely the reason why professionals with standing might be accorded the courtesy of having their words presented without editing. Such an individual, by virtue of his credentials, is presumed to be an expert in his field. This is not the case for Stereophile's letters. Furthermore, I don't believe that what you say is true. In the real world, professional journals edit articles to an exacting standard, far more thoroughly than newspapers or most trade mags do. No editor wants to be associated with poorly written content, whether it's written by paid correspondents or by members of a professional community. If there's any truth to your story, it's probably based on letters being accepted *or rejected* without editing. If a letter is submitted with unacceptable errors, the editor might choose simply to reject it, pending improvement, rather than editing it himself. This kind of choice is typically driven by a policy set by the publisher. No, George, you're wrong. d |
|
#197
|
|||
|
|||
|
Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:14:18 -0600, dave weil wrote: On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:21:34 +0100, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote: The job of the letters editor is to choose the letters - not to alter them. I must point out that in no way does a good editor change the meaning of the correspondent's thoughts. By editing in the manner I described, he (or she) more clearly, more powerfully presents those thoughts. He should have a sane set of parameters by which he chooses, which should result in the letters page being a fair representation of the distribution of topics and numbers in the mail bag. Of course. If interpretation is called for it should be in the form of a provenanced editorial insertion after the letter. Are you a professional in the publishing business? Should a publisher be scolding YOU on how you consult? No - I am a reader; a far more important entity in my books (pun not intended, unless it was funny). If I am reading a letter purported to be sent in by a reader, than I assume I am reading a verbatim quotation, not somebody else's interpretation. If it isn't the actual letter, unchanged, then don't print the sender's name on the by line. Hi Don, all I have been doing is to point out that you're incorrect in this assumption, not just with respect to Stereophile but to _all_ professionally published magazines and newspapers that publish letters. In fact, at some journalism schools, they teach that all published letters should be cut to 100 words or less, which even I think extreme. As for editors changing anything, a friend of mine, now sadly dead, used to be the overseas editor of The Economist - a rather more august and well respected periodical than even SP. The policy then, and the policy right now, was that every article is published exactly as it arrives from the journalist. Not a word is ever changed. OK, this implies a high degree of trust in the contributors, but it guarantees that there will never be any irate phone calls of the "that is NOT what I said" variety. I support this position entirely as it reflects a fundamental honesty of approach. The Economist doesn't hew to normal "journalistic standards". They are their own entity that flouts MANY conventions of the publishing business. It doesn't reflect the normal realities of the "written word business", if I can coin an awkward phrase. Even the most erudite writers utilize the services of an editor. And even your own website has minor grammatical problems and confused language that could easily be fixed by an editor. I know. The Econmist stands like a beacon of how things could be done if only the industry had the balls. Hmm. To the best of my knowledge, the Economist (to which I have been subscribing for a quarter century) edits its letters column in the identical manner that I practise. A few years ago, I corresponded with the Economist's letters page editor who wrote me a testimonial on my editing of readers' letters in Stereophile. I am not putting you down, Don. Only pointing out that your assumptions about how publishing professionals behave are incorrect. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#198
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:21:34 +0100, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
I disagree, as you would expect. The job of the letters editor is to choose the letters - not to alter them. That's only your opinion. He should have a sane set of parameters by which he chooses, which should result in the letters page being a fair representation of the distribution of topics and numbers in the mail bag. If interpretation is called for it should be in the form of a provenenced editorial insertion after the letter. Are you a professional in the publishing business? Should a publisher be scolding YOU on how you consult? As for editors changing anything, a friend of mine, now sadly dead, used to be the overseas editor of The Economist - a rather more august and well respected periodical than even SP. The policy then, and the policy right now, was that every article is published exactly as it arrives from the journalist. Not a word is ever changed. OK, this implies a high degree of trust in the contributors, but it guarantees that there will never be any irate phone calls of the "that is NOT what I said" variety. I support this position entirely as it reflects a fundamental honesty of approach. The Economist doesn't hew to normal "journalistic standards". They are their own entity that flouts MANY conventions of the publishing business. It doesn't reflect the normal realities of the "written word business", if I can coin an awkward phrase. Even the most erudite writers utilize the services of an editor. And even your own website has minor grammatical problems and confused language that could easily be fixed by an editor. And before you decide to say something about people in glass houses, yes, I fully realize that my written work oftentimes needs the work of a good editor. |
|
#199
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... " wrote in message This former Seattlite thinks that SP is supposed to provide accurate reviews, as a subscriber, I find serious problems with the conclusions of the SP reviewers. Apparently, so do at least 25% of Stereophile's readers, and that's from JA's own mouth. Here's the opening paragraph from one (25%) of the 4 debate-related reader letters he recently published in SP, which JA has told us are reprresentative of all of the mail on the topic: http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit...si/index1.html "Editor: I'm very disappointed to discover John Atkinson's position on blind testing ("As We See It," July 2005, p.3). As he is the editor of Stereophile magazine, it is now even more difficult for me to respect anything that I read in the publication. To deny the validity of blind testing is to ignore science. Blind testing is objective science. To ignore its value is equivalent to believing that the world is flat, that there is no truth in evolution, that man didn't land on the moon." JA claims that I didn't lay a proper foundation for my 3 criticisms of Stereophile's equipment test methodology: 1) "Stereophile willfully ignores much that is known about reliably evaluating audio products"; 2) "Stereophile frequently reaches conclusions and makes recommendations that are improbable if not just completely wrong"; and 3) "Stereophile does not take enough pains to ensure that it is publishing correct information." Note that nowhere in my introductory comments did I mention DBTs or ABX. AFAIK, the first mention of them came from JA. I did mention the PCABX site - but only that I owned and built it. Yet JA correctly discerned that my comments related to blind testing in his response to my comments and his http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/705awsi/ article. Previously, Jason Victor Serinus heard me flesh my three points out out in the smaller, non-autobiographical portion of his recent Stereophile review of the HE2005 debate: http://stereophile.com/news/050905debate/ "Arny strongly emphasized that sighted listening as practiced by magazine and webzine reviewers fundamentally changes the listener's mental state and is therefore unreliable as a means of assessing sound quality." Looking at the http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit...si/index1.html we see that half of the readers letters clearly perceived that my comments related to blind tests. We don't know what the full text of the other two letters actually said. Bottom line, the claim that I didn't convey substantiation for my three main critcial points about Stereophile seems to be a lot like JA's claims that the highly-regarded (at the time) DAL Card Deluxe had audible jitter - a self-serving figment of JA's overheated imagination. I expected as much, it's been his M.O. for years. |
|
#200
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 26 Aug 2005 09:07:15 -0700, John Atkinson wrote:
Don Pearce wrote: On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:14:18 -0600, dave weil wrote: On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:21:34 +0100, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote: The job of the letters editor is to choose the letters - not to alter them. I must point out that in no way does a good editor change the meaning of the correspondent's thoughts. By editing in the manner I described, he (or she) more clearly, more powerfully presents those thoughts. He should have a sane set of parameters by which he chooses, which should result in the letters page being a fair representation of the distribution of topics and numbers in the mail bag. Of course. If interpretation is called for it should be in the form of a provenanced editorial insertion after the letter. Are you a professional in the publishing business? Should a publisher be scolding YOU on how you consult? No - I am a reader; a far more important entity in my books (pun not intended, unless it was funny). If I am reading a letter purported to be sent in by a reader, than I assume I am reading a verbatim quotation, not somebody else's interpretation. If it isn't the actual letter, unchanged, then don't print the sender's name on the by line. Hi Don, all I have been doing is to point out that you're incorrect in this assumption, not just with respect to Stereophile but to _all_ professionally published magazines and newspapers that publish letters. In fact, at some journalism schools, they teach that all published letters should be cut to 100 words or less, which even I think extreme. As for editors changing anything, a friend of mine, now sadly dead, used to be the overseas editor of The Economist - a rather more august and well respected periodical than even SP. The policy then, and the policy right now, was that every article is published exactly as it arrives from the journalist. Not a word is ever changed. OK, this implies a high degree of trust in the contributors, but it guarantees that there will never be any irate phone calls of the "that is NOT what I said" variety. I support this position entirely as it reflects a fundamental honesty of approach. The Economist doesn't hew to normal "journalistic standards". They are their own entity that flouts MANY conventions of the publishing business. It doesn't reflect the normal realities of the "written word business", if I can coin an awkward phrase. Even the most erudite writers utilize the services of an editor. And even your own website has minor grammatical problems and confused language that could easily be fixed by an editor. I know. The Econmist stands like a beacon of how things could be done if only the industry had the balls. Hmm. To the best of my knowledge, the Economist (to which I have been subscribing for a quarter century) edits its letters column in the identical manner that I practise. A few years ago, I corresponded with the Economist's letters page editor who wrote me a testimonial on my editing of readers' letters in Stereophile. I am not putting you down, Don. Only pointing out that your assumptions about how publishing professionals behave are incorrect. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile But I am pointing out how publishing professionals *should* behave. d |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Stereophile: not a shred of integrity | General | |||
| Stereophile...source of all this bitterness?...Not! | Audio Opinions | |||
| Stereophile Tries To Come Clean About The DiAural Fiasco | Audio Opinions | |||
| Integrity (was Steely Dan The Absolute Sound) | High End Audio | |||
| Note to the Idiot | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
