Don Pearce wrote:
On 26 Aug 2005 09:07:15 -0700, John Atkinson wrote:
I am not putting you down, Don. Only pointing out that your
assumptions about how publishing professionals behave are
incorrect.

But I am pointing out how publishing professionals *should*
behave.

In your lay opinion, Don. (Again, not a put-down.) I read
always read your Usenet postings with interest as you
clearly are an expert in your field. I am puzzled why, then,
you are not prepared to accept the expertise of other
posters in _their_ fields.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Don Pearce said:

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.

No, Don, you're wrong.

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 16:29:52 +0100, 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:

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,

You know what they say about people who assume, right.

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.

The fact that you are seemingly unaware of normal editing practices
seems *your* problem, not those of the publishing business.

I would maintain that you've NEVER read a book that hasn't been
changed by an editor. Don't you feel cheated?

Also, The Economist isn't exactly the model of transparency. Most
times, you don't even know who WROTE the article, and the editors have
traditionally been cloaked in secrecy. You should applaud the fact
that John Atkinson is willing to put his name and repuation on the
line by even addressing us peons here on USENET, much less putting his
name on the masthead. I'll bet that your friend was also cloaked. So
where's the accountability to the reader?

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.

If everyone operated like The Economist, magazines would be almost
unreadable, and most would be a joke. This doesn't mean that I'm
attacking The Economist, only addressing the realities of the world.

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.

How deceptive! Aren't you misrepresenting yourself? chuckle

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.

When you submit material to an edited publication, you assume that
it's always a possiblity. In fact, those who submit letters to the
editor are told THIS:

"Please note that letters are subject to editing..."

....right on the front Letters page. So nobody is being snookered or
being taken advantage of. If one doesn't want his letter edited, then
they can submit it to The Economist and take their chances getting it
published.

There are snips to leave just the key exchange on which I want to
comment:

John Atkinson wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
But I am pointing out how publishing professionals *should*
behave.

In your lay opinion,
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

It's unfair to blame Don alone. In his own business he is probably
competent. But, like so many engineers and hangers-on, he foolishly
assumes that he is also competent in everyone else's profession. He
isn't, as we have just seen.

I don't know John Atkinson, I have never corresponded with him, I have
never even seen his magazine, I have no reason to be partisan to him.

However, the professional practices of publishing are not so obvious
that Don should be expected to know them, though it fair to expect him
to proceed with more caution than he has hitherto displayed until he
discovers how much he doesn't know. I'm a professional writer, about
forty books, fiction and non-fiction, thousands of articles; I've been
a managing editor of a large newspaper and magazine group, a publisher
of various kinds of media, an advertising executive, and so on, in and
out of the communications industry all my life. Here are the basics I
am surprised to discover so many correspondents in this thread do not
know:

1. Each and every journal has some kind of a target audience which
shapes what the editor permits onto his pages.

2. All journals have a minimum standard of grammar, lucidity,
presentation, even plainness.

It follows from these two conditions of the trade that letters will not
appear if they do not enlighten or flatter the target audience or, even
better, create some controversy among them, pro and con. (Kruger is
doing John a huge favour which will send him laughing all the way to
the bank.) It follows furthermore that letters will be edited for space
and style. I imagine it says so right there on the letters page. Letter
writers who do not like the rules should refrain from wasting
everyone's time by writing in; see below about the difference between
amateurs and professionals with reference to letters to the editor.

3. The editor is in charge. If you don't like his vision, bring your
own money, advertisers, contributors, staff, office, printers, and
publish your own magazine to promote your own vision. One really
shouldn't have to tell adults something this simple.

After more than forty books and thousands of articles, films, radio and
television scripts, tens of millions of words, I have never, repeat
never, published anything that was not edited by at least two other
parties and usually many more. Professional writers, far from resenting
editors, insist on professional editing all the better to bring out
their meaning. If professionals want this service, imagine how much
more casual writers to the letters pages need it.

Writing to the letters page is in any event the mark of an amateur.
Professionals write for the editorial pages and are paid for their
work. Making an argument about what an editor does on his own patch is
more than the mark of an amateur, it is the mark of a public idiot.

This thread is utterly amazing. Here you guys have John Atkinson, a
magazine publisher who has proven his worth by surviving in a Darwinian
environment, doing you a favour, coming on the net to explain how
magazines work. And do you learn from him? No, with a couple of
sensible exceptions who do honour to their upbringing and education,
you try tell him his business! My God, how foolishly wasteful can even
netwarriors become?

There are further implications. The people who started this profoundly
silly bunfight claim to have done it from scientific conviction. How
can people who behave so irrationally, who make bluntly unqualified,
uncompromising statements so at variance with the professional
realities in a huge swathe of world commerce (publishing is the 9th
largest industry in the world) without ever checking the facts, who try
to dictate to other professionals what they should do in their
business--how can such people ask the rest of us to accept them not
only as professionals but as scientists?

This entire thread is an example of why editors should never apologize
and never explain to the hoi polloi. It demeans them and it illuminates
nothing for the stubbornly ignorant.

Andre Jute

Andre Jute said:

[snipped for brevity]

There are further implications. The people who started this profoundly
silly bunfight claim to have done it from scientific conviction. How
can people who behave so irrationally, who make bluntly unqualified,
uncompromising statements so at variance with the professional
realities in a huge swathe of world commerce (publishing is the 9th
largest industry in the world) without ever checking the facts, who try
to dictate to other professionals what they should do in their
business--how can such people ask the rest of us to accept them not
only as professionals but as scientists?

This entire thread is an example of why editors should never apologize
and never explain to the hoi polloi. It demeans them and it illuminates
nothing for the stubbornly ignorant.

Well said. Much better than what I said. Glad you were here to explain fully how
foolish the 'borgs were acting in this thread. I especially liked your
suggestion of the best way the wannabes should counter the evil of Stereophile
-- by starting their own magazine. Never happen of course, but the suggestion
alone usually inflames Them.

(BTW, you may not have realized that the whiners' motivation for bitching at JA
is not really based on an intellectual disagreement with his editorial policy.
It's actually based on the politics of audio, with the matter of how letters are
edited being just another flashpoint in an ongoing skirmish. They despise and
fear everything JA does and says because they despise and fear his magazine.)

On 26 Aug 2005 09:50:15 -0700, John Atkinson wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On 26 Aug 2005 09:07:15 -0700, John Atkinson wrote:
I am not putting you down, Don. Only pointing out that your
assumptions about how publishing professionals behave are
incorrect.

But I am pointing out how publishing professionals *should*
behave.

In your lay opinion, Don. (Again, not a put-down.) I read
always read your Usenet postings with interest as you
clearly are an expert in your field. I am puzzled why, then,
you are not prepared to accept the expertise of other
posters in _their_ fields.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I'm afraid that publishing is a field in which everybody is an expert. We
all know what we want from a publication - maybe my wants are a bit
left-field for some. I like the straight goods, without meddling or
changing to make it "easier for me" - which I find patronising. The problem
is that the entire publishing industry appears to follow the same paradigm
which as I say is one I cannot get on with. Frustration is what it is all
about for me. Any time I find an opportunity to take a swipe and perhaps
make even a tiny difference, I will grab it.

d

Don Pearce said:

In your lay opinion, Don. (Again, not a put-down.) I read
always read your Usenet postings with interest as you
clearly are an expert in your field. I am puzzled why, then,
you are not prepared to accept the expertise of other
posters in _their_ fields.

I'm afraid that publishing is a field in which everybody is an expert.

uh-huh.

We all know what we want from a publication - maybe my wants are a bit
left-field for some.

If that's all it takes to make you an "expert", then how did you convince
people that your expertise in your field is worth paying for?

There is a word for the economic role you're describing, but it's not
"expert". The correct word is "consumer" or "purchaser".

I like the straight goods, without meddling or
changing to make it "easier for me" - which I find patronising.

Then you're not part of the target market, are you? If you want to do all
your own research, what's stopping you? Are you completely zoning out on
the entire purpose of specialized media?

The problem
is that the entire publishing industry appears to follow the same paradigm
which as I say is one I cannot get on with. Frustration is what it is all
about for me. Any time I find an opportunity to take a swipe and perhaps
make even a tiny difference, I will grab it.

You sound such a fool in this exchange.

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 16:48:52 +0100, Don Pearce
wrote:

No, George, you're wrong.

Sorry, but George is right.

dickless said:

No, George, you're wrong.

Sorry, but George is right.


Oops, I guess I was wrong. (Hey Phil -- get the hot water running in the
shower, OK?)

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 13:18:44 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george
[at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Don Pearce said:

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.

No, Don, you're wrong.



Articles published in a magazine are almost always edited.

There are a few things, however, that are never edited... Peoples actual quotes
for one, and news photos for another...

As for 'letters to the editor', they are not articles, submitted to be edited,
but rather are submitted as the thoughts and opinions of the writer. They can be
corrected for extremely bad grammar, and spelling mistakes, but the original
text and the correction must be presented side by side. Normally the notation
"sic" is used.

No editor can edit an opinion. Changing the words and grammar amounts to
changing the actual meaning.

If I write to a magazine and use the expression "it t'ain't so", I do so for the
effect of the bad expression, and would not expect someone to 'correct' it,
which would lose my meaning.

Also, if I read a poorly written letter, I can better judge the education level
of the author, and better determine if I should listen to him or not. As a
technologist, I don't need to waste my time reading letters written by obvious
hacks, that have been sanitized by some editor. I would rather read the actual
output of the original author, complete with his mistakes, and his cleverness,
and his humor.

A magazine that re-writes letters to the editor is a 'rag', and not worth
reading.

Robert

"paul packer" wrote in message
...

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....

Heresy noted.



----== 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 =----

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
.. .

But if anybody changed one
of my documents without consulting me first I'd have his balls.


Do you have a substanial collection of clits, perchance?



----== 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 =----

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On 26 Aug 2005 09:50:15 -0700, John Atkinson wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On 26 Aug 2005 09:07:15 -0700, John Atkinson wrote:
I am not putting you down, Don. Only pointing out that your
assumptions about how publishing professionals behave are
incorrect.

But I am pointing out how publishing professionals *should*
behave.

In your lay opinion, Don. (Again, not a put-down.) I read
always read your Usenet postings with interest as you
clearly are an expert in your field. I am puzzled why, then,
you are not prepared to accept the expertise of other
posters in _their_ fields.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I'm afraid that publishing is a field in which everybody is an expert. We
all know what we want from a publication - maybe my wants are a bit
left-field for some. I like the straight goods, without meddling or
changing to make it "easier for me" - which I find patronising. The
problem
is that the entire publishing industry appears to follow the same paradigm
which as I say is one I cannot get on with. Frustration is what it is all
about for me. Any time I find an opportunity to take a swipe and perhaps
make even a tiny difference, I will grab it.

If I were an editor, and I wanted to slant my copy, I'd do it by exercising
my right to choose what goes into the publication and what doesn't. I
certainly wouldn't waste my time modifying minor grammatical solecisms.

Norm Strong

Mr. John Atkinson wrote:


http://tinyurl.com/c7896



wrote:


Articles published in a magazine are almost always edited.

There are a few things, however, that are never edited... Peoples actual quotes
for one, and news photos for another...

As for 'letters to the editor', they are not articles, submitted to be edited,
but rather are submitted as the thoughts and opinions of the writer. They can be
corrected for extremely bad grammar, and spelling mistakes, but the original
text and the correction must be presented side by side. Normally the notation
"sic" is used.

No editor can edit an opinion. Changing the words and grammar amounts to
changing the actual meaning.

If I write to a magazine and use the expression "it t'ain't so", I do so for the
effect of the bad expression, and would not expect someone to 'correct' it,
which would lose my meaning.

Also, if I read a poorly written letter, I can better judge the education level
of the author, and better determine if I should listen to him or not. As a
technologist, I don't need to waste my time reading letters written by obvious
hacks, that have been sanitized by some editor. I would rather read the actual
output of the original author, complete with his mistakes, and his cleverness,
and his humor.

A magazine that re-writes letters to the editor is a 'rag', and not worth
reading.

Robert

said:

As for 'letters to the editor', they are not articles, submitted to be edited,
but rather are submitted as the thoughts and opinions of the writer. They can be
corrected for extremely bad grammar, and spelling mistakes, but the original
text and the correction must be presented side by side. Normally the notation
"sic" is used.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

You are wrong beyond description. You're like Pearce in this respect --
not a ghost of a clue about publishing a magazine.

Go back to sleep.

Clyde Slick wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
.. .

But if anybody changed one
of my documents without consulting me first I'd have his balls.


Do you have a substanial collection of clits, perchance?




Have you actually ever touched a clit, Sack-O-****?

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:30:58 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:

dizzy said:

No, George, you're wrong.

Sorry, but George is right.

Oops, I guess I was wrong. (Hey Phil -- get the hot water running in the
shower, OK?)

2+2=4

Mr. Atkinson asks: ( Aug. 26, google thread # 452)
" I am puzzled why, then, you are not prepared to accept the experience
....etc " Mr. Atkinson. I wish to
congratulate you on your managing to preserve elementary courtesy and
equipoise dealing with the RAO posse. (Though I wonder why you bother.
I would not if I were not retired, with time on my hands)
As for the "Stereophile". It is a
mag. sold from the mag. stands like any other in the entertainment
business. Those who want engineering "facts" can reread their
engineering school introductory course. If you. want info about the
Best Buy in low- fi there is always "Consumer Reports". Many of
the "Stereophile" readers (or skimmers) are more sophisticated
than the usenet simpletons who want it to be an undergraduate
engineering review. (and if it were they would be even less likely to
subscribe to it than they are now.) Only simple minds look to
reviewers: of books ,movies, music, audio components, frying pans for
"truth". Beyond specifications what else is "true'? And even
the specs. (which to select, what relative importance?) ,changed a lot
in the last 30 years. Those who believe that specifications is all they
need can stop right there. The reviewers are human, with likes and
dislikes, different DNA brain structures and experience- just like you
and me. Some might even believe in green pens. Don't listen to them
if your ears tell you otherwise. Some love boom, boom car radio , some
prefer rap, a few relisten to Beethoven's last quartets and all
select equipment that best suits their preferences .
"Why don't they ABX?" goes the
pseudoscientists' parrot cry. One good reason is that instead of
hearing and describing ANY differences they would end up reporting that
everything sounds the same.
Including loudspeakers. Read Sean
Olive's article (JAES, vol. 51, #9, 2003, p. 807-825 ) You'll find
that most of his 300+ panelists (and reviewers too) couldn't tell
the very different speakers from each other in DBT tests BUT the same
people unerringly preferred the full frequency range speakers when
their attention was centered on like/dislike rather than
same/different. Blind testing protocol was a barrier to difference
recognition , not a help.
On the positive side but for the
"Stereophile" interviewing the truly creative audio engineers such
as D'Agostino of Krell and Meitner of Bryston one might believe the
web's own "scientists" that ALL the engineers worship at the CD
altar and think that all the amplifiers and CD players sound
alike...Apparently the best do not. D.Agostino, (The Stereophile, Dec
2003, p.78) says:: "With DVD-audio and SACD, I think there is a
possibility of equaling vinyl" Note: just *a possibility*! .And with
SACD! Did not our usenet scientists *prove* that SACD is no better
than CD and LP is worse than CD?
I know Mr. Atkinson that you do not
need my encouragement to carry on. But I just want to let you know that
some of us can tell science from dross and a mag. from an undergrad.
textbook.
Ludovic Mirabel

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:18:59 -0400, George M. Middius wrote:

Don Pearce said:

In your lay opinion, Don. (Again, not a put-down.) I read
always read your Usenet postings with interest as you
clearly are an expert in your field. I am puzzled why, then,
you are not prepared to accept the expertise of other
posters in _their_ fields.

I'm afraid that publishing is a field in which everybody is an expert.

uh-huh.

We all know what we want from a publication - maybe my wants are a bit
left-field for some.

If that's all it takes to make you an "expert", then how did you convince
people that your expertise in your field is worth paying for?

There is a word for the economic role you're describing, but it's not
"expert". The correct word is "consumer" or "purchaser".

I like the straight goods, without meddling or
changing to make it "easier for me" - which I find patronising.

Then you're not part of the target market, are you? If you want to do all
your own research, what's stopping you? Are you completely zoning out on
the entire purpose of specialized media?

The problem
is that the entire publishing industry appears to follow the same paradigm
which as I say is one I cannot get on with. Frustration is what it is all
about for me. Any time I find an opportunity to take a swipe and perhaps
make even a tiny difference, I will grab it.

You sound such a fool in this exchange.

Well there we go George. I guess I'm just going to have to face my shame
and try to move on. In the meantime I will be comforted by the thought that
your life procedes serenely undisturbed by any little rough edges of
reality. Valium must be a wonderful thing.

d

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 11:19:06 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

There's little to answer here, mercifully.

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.

You mean as measured? Is that really all you believe in as far as
hi-fi goes, Arnie?

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.

I don't remember denying that.

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?

About their technical conclusions? Never have, never would. I only
question the measurements when told that they directly and predictably
translate into subject effects.

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?

No, bias. Simple fact.

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.

Now that's a fair point. I'll give you that one.

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.

Now where is the insult? I invite anyone reading this post to tell me
where I insulted you. Sorry, Arnie, that was not an insult. It wasn't
even the shadow of an insult. It was a philisophical reflection. Read
it again.

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.

Same again. There simply is no insult there. You're shadow boxing,
Arnie.

Sorry, I have some music makers to help. Bye!

Don't let me hold you up.

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 11:19:06 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

There's little to answer here, mercifully.

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.

You mean as measured?

This is typical of your complete and abject ignorance, Paul.

You obviously are more than a little unclear about what
"subjectively" means.

For your enlightenment Paul, as just about everybody else
who posts here already knows,

subjective testing involves judging things by listening and
not by measuring.

Or Paul, were you trying to emulate Art Sackman?

Not even Middius is as stupid as you, Paul.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message


wrote in message
oups.com

Arny Krueger wrote:


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.

Note that I made this offer on 8/25 but two days later
Atkinson does not seem to want to discuss Jason Victor
Seinus' interesting comment.

It was probably the thought of being separated from the
flaming trolls in RAO that scared Atkinson away.

Arny Krueger wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
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.

Note that I made this offer on 8/25 but two days later
Atkinson does not seem to want to discuss Jason Victor
[Serinus'] interesting comment.

I did comment on Jason's remark in the posting to which
you were responding, Mr. Krueger. The message ID was
.com.

Unfortunately, you snipped that comment from your response,
so perhaps you didn't read it.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Don Pearce wrote:
On 26 Aug 2005 09:50:15 -0700, John Atkinson wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
I am pointing out how publishing professionals *should*
behave.

In your lay opinion, Don. (Again, not a put-down.) I read
always read your Usenet postings with interest as you
clearly are an expert in your field. I am puzzled why, then,
you are not prepared to accept the expertise of other
posters in _their_ fields.

I'm afraid that publishing is a field in which everybody is an
expert. We all know what we want from a publication - maybe my
wants are a bit left-field for some.

It would appear so, Don. All I am pointing out is that to the
best of my knowledge, there isn't one professionally run
publication that will satisfy your needs, not even The
Economist.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 13:18:44 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr [underscore]
george
[at] comcast [dot] net wrote:


snip well established redundancy



No editor can edit an opinion. Changing the words and grammar amounts to
changing the actual meaning.

If I write to a magazine and use the expression "it t'ain't so", I do so
for the
effect of the bad expression, and would not expect someone to 'correct'
it,
which would lose my meaning.



"it isn't so" changes the meaning?

"it is not so" changes the meaning?


Also, if I read a poorly written letter, I can better judge the education
level
of the author, and better determine if I should listen to him or not. As a
technologist, I don't need to waste my time reading letters written by
obvious
hacks, that have been sanitized by some editor. I would rather read the
actual
output of the original author, complete with his mistakes, and his
cleverness,
and his humor.


That is clearly a class bias that confuses command of the language with
thinking. While their may be a correlation, it is not 1:1. If an editor
can help sharpen the thoughts expressed, it simply means they can be more
clearly understood by others. The thoughts should be judged on their own
merits. Clearly, for the editor to select this letter for publication means
that the editor thinks the writer has an illustrative point of view, worth
reading.


A magazine that re-writes letters to the editor is a 'rag', and not worth
reading.

So much for our press, I guess.

Andre Jute wrote:
It's unfair to blame Don alone. In his own business he is probably
competent. But, like so many engineers and hangers-on, he foolishly
assumes that he is also competent in everyone else's profession. He
isn't, as we have just seen.

I am not blaming Don, Mr. Jute. But yes, the syndrome you describe
is too familiar.

snip of important points

After more than forty books and thousands of articles, films, radio
and television scripts, tens of millions of words, I have never,
repeat never, published anything that was not edited by at least two
other parties and usually many more.

My experience also. At Stereophile, everything that is published
has been copy-edited by two people, and proofread by two different
people. This is the absolute minimum.

Professional writers, far from resenting editors, insist on
professional editing all the better to bring out their meaning.

Also at Stereophile, after the first two edits, a pdf of the article
or review is sent to the author, for him to chck that his meaning
has not inadvertently been changed.

This thread is utterly amazing. Here you guys have John Atkinson,
a magazine publisher who has proven his worth by surviving in a
Darwinian environment...

Increasingly Darwinian on the newsstands, these days :-)

doing you a favour, coming on the net to explain how magazines work.
And do you learn from him? No, with a couple of sensible exceptions
who do honour to their upbringing and education, you try tell him
his business! My God, how foolishly wasteful can even netwarriors
become?

Thank you, Mr. Jute. I believe that what you observe also an
element of contrarianism to it: that because I edit a magazine
devoted to audio opinion, the "scientists" feel that _whatever_
I say, it should be contradicted.

There are further implications. The people who started this profoundly
silly bunfight claim to have done it from scientific conviction. How
can people who behave so irrationally, who make bluntly unqualified,
uncompromising statements so at variance with the professional
realities in a huge swathe of world commerce (publishing is the 9th
largest industry in the world) without ever checking the facts, who try
to dictate to other professionals what they should do in their
business--how can such people ask the rest of us to accept them not
only as professionals but as scientists?

Yup.

This entire thread is an example of why editors should never
apologize and never explain to the hoi polloi. It demeans them
and it illuminates nothing for the stubbornly ignorant.

I take your point but I would disagree on the grounds that as editors
can only survive in a competitive world by being answerable to their
readers, they should take the effort to explain. I admit, though, that
I do cast the "reader" net somewhat wider than others might.

Again, thanks for your thoughts, Mr. Jute.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

wrote:
I know Mr. Atkinson that you do not need my encouragement to carry
on. But I just want to let you know that some of us can tell science
from dross and a mag. from an undergrad. textbook.

Thank you, Mr. Mirabel.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 07:12:17 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

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.

Note that I made this offer on 8/25 but two days later
Atkinson does not seem to want to discuss Jason Victor
Seinus' interesting comment.

It was probably the thought of being separated from the
flaming trolls in RAO that scared Atkinson away.

Oh, so THAT'S the reason that you never address any of my
observations.

Oh wait, I already said that you were scared. Thanks for confirming
it.

(Just waiting for "tor" to make a comment so that you CAN respond
through your nattering fear)

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 21:41:50 -0400, wrote:

If I write to a magazine and use the expression "it t'ain't so", I do so for the
effect of the bad expression, and would not expect someone to 'correct' it,
which would lose my meaning.

Well, most good editors would recognize that you were using that
expression for effect and leave it in. Same with obvious intentional
uses of "ain't" and the like.

However, if you accidentally use a double negative where it's obvious
that your meaning goes against against the useage, then that same
editor will probably clean it up.

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 21:41:50 -0400, wrote:

Also, if I read a poorly written letter, I can better judge the education level
of the author, and better determine if I should listen to him or not.

I meant to add that you generally won't read a "poorly written letter"
in the first place. That's also the job of an editor, to weed out
those obvious pieces of (qw)hackery.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
.. .

But if anybody changed one
of my documents without consulting me first I'd have his balls.


Do you have a substanial collection of clits, perchance?




Have you actually ever touched a clit, Sack-O-****?


Would you know what one looks like if it hit you in the nose?



----== 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 =----

In article .com,
wrote:


Including loudspeakers. Read Sean
Olive's article (JAES, vol. 51, #9, 2003, p. 807-825 ) You'll find
that most of his 300+ panelists (and reviewers too) couldn't tell
the very different speakers from each other in DBT tests BUT the same
people unerringly preferred the full frequency range speakers when
their attention was centered on like/dislike rather than
same/different. Blind testing protocol was a barrier to difference
recognition , not a help.

Does anyone know, is this piece available online?

dave weil said:

No matter what you've been told Paul, it turns out that ears
were designed to be used in conjunction with the brain.

I don't remember denying that.

They were also "designed" to be used with eyes as well.

Religious attack! Religious attack!

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 11:00:48 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:

No matter what you've been told Paul, it turns out that ears
were designed to be used in conjunction with the brain.

I don't remember denying that.

They were also "designed" to be used with eyes as well.

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

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.

Note that I made this offer on 8/25 but two days later
Atkinson does not seem to want to discuss Jason Victor
[Serinus'] interesting comment.

I did comment on Jason's remark in the posting to which
you were responding, Mr. Krueger. The message ID was
.com.

Never said you didn't comment on Jason's remark.


Unfortunately, you snipped that comment from your
response, so perhaps you didn't read it.

Unfortunately Atkinson, you can't understand from what I
said that I read it, declared it off-topic in the the
current context, and offered to discuss it with you in a new
top thread.

Actually Atkinson, you probably can, you seem to just not
want to talk about it, and are being obtuse as you often are
when you don't really want to discuss an issue.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote
Note that I made this offer on 8/25 but two days later
Atkinson does not seem to want to discuss Jason Victor
[Serinus'] interesting comment.

I did comment on Jason's remark in the posting to which
you were responding, Mr. Krueger. The message ID was
.com.

Never said you didn't comment on Jason's remark.

Okay, if you want to split hairs, Mr. Krueger, you said
"discuss," not comment. I thought I _had_ discussed this
subject by pointing out that not only does sighted listening
change the listener's state of mind, so does blind listening,
something with which you have already expressed agreement.
As we agree on both these facts, I fail to see what's left
to discuss.

Unfortunately, you snipped that comment from your
response, so perhaps you didn't read it.

Unfortunately Atkinson, you can't understand from what I
said that I read it, declared it off-topic in the the
current context, and offered to discuss it with you in a
new top thread.

With all due respect, Mr. Krueger, it is not up to you to
"declare" something off-topic. You may feel that it is
off-topic, but as you have no control over Usenet, no-one is
obliged to do what you say. As I said, I discussed the comment
of Jason's -- which I should remind you, _you_ introduced in
_this_ thread -- in the message I referenced above.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote
Note that I made this offer on 8/25 but two days later
Atkinson does not seem to want to discuss Jason Victor
[Serinus'] interesting comment.

I did comment on Jason's remark in the posting to which
you were responding, Mr. Krueger. The message ID was
.com.

Never said you didn't comment on Jason's remark.

Okay, if you want to split hairs, Mr. Krueger, you said
"discuss," not comment. I thought I _had_ discussed this
subject by pointing out that not only does sighted
listening change the listener's state of mind, so does
blind listening, something with which you have already
expressed agreement.
As we agree on both these facts, I fail to see what's left
to discuss.

There's the slight matter of the differences thetwo
different changes in the listener's mind and their
consequences. However, its quite clear that you already
realize that further exposure of these issues would be very
disadvantageous to you Atkinson, and therefore you don't
want to discuss them.

Fine with me Atkinson, unless you make the indicated top
thread posting, I won't bother to respond to your
self-serving attempts to mention this issue without
discussing it further.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote
Note that I made this offer on 8/25 but two days later
Atkinson does not seem to want to discuss Jason Victor
[Serinus'] interesting comment.

I did comment on Jason's remark in the posting to which
you were responding, Mr. Krueger. The message ID was
.com.

Never said you didn't comment on Jason's remark.

Okay, if you want to split hairs, Mr. Krueger, you said
"discuss," not comment. I thought I _had_ discussed this
subject by pointing out that not only does sighted
listening change the listener's state of mind, so does
blind listening, something with which you have already
expressed agreement.
As we agree on both these facts, I fail to see what's left
to discuss.

There's the slight matter of the differences thetwo different changes in
the listener's mind and their consequences. However, its quite clear that
you already realize that further exposure of these issues would be very
disadvantageous to you Atkinson, and therefore you don't want to discuss
them.

Fine with me Atkinson, unless you make the indicated top thread posting, I
won't bother to respond to your self-serving attempts to mention this
issue without discussing it further.





----== 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 =----

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message

Fine with me Atkinson, unless you make the indicated top thread posting, I
won't bother to respond to your self-serving attempts to mention this
issue without discussing it further.



I see. So, you two are not discussing the issue,
you are merely discussing mentioning a discussion of the issue.
Oh boy!



----== 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 =----

Jenn asks: Does anyone know, is this piece available online

Go to Journ. audio eng. Ass website. I think you have to pay for a
reprint. S.Olive (Harman Kardon website) may send you a reprint if you
ask nicely.
L. Mirabel