| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
THEY’RE STILL ON THE RUN
Do you remember the silly claims of Stereophile Magazine that prompted me to offer them a million dollars if they could prove any of the trash they were offering their readers? Well, they’re still hiding under the bed - or under that huge rock with Sylvia Browne - to avoid meeting the challenge. Just do a search on the main Swift page for "Stereophile," to refresh your memory on that brouhaha. Well, now reader John McKillop sends us to www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/110/index.html to find an article written back in 1987 by J. Gordon Holt, the man who founded Stereophile Magazine in 1962. Holt apparently had the present management beat for brains. The article is titled, "L'Affaire Belt," and refers to the ridiculous claims made back then by one Peter Belt, "inventor" of magical devices that improve everything from harmonics to hysterics. I have news: Mr. Belt is still making those silly claims, and is still getting rich by selling garbage to naïve audiophiles. We must wonder, as reader McKillop does, whether Art Dudley - a willingly flummoxed reviewer for Stereophile - and/or John Atkinson, present editor of the magazine - ever read this discussion by their founder, of the hilarious Peter Belt pretensions. Go there and see a thoughtful, well-reasoned, article that handles honestly what the present Stereophile management has chosen to igno blatant fakery, fraud, and swindling in the audio business. I’ll quote a pertinent section from the 18-year-old article here that should - but won’t - seriously embarrass Atkinson and Dudley. Holt recognized reality, and wasn’t reluctant to share it with his readers. Unfortunately, he sold the magazine in 1982, and the woo-woos immediately took over. Here’s the 1987 excerpt: For self-styled golden ears to be claiming, and trying, to be "objective" is to deny reality, because perception is not like instrumentation. Everything we perceive is filtered through a judgmental process which embodies all of our previous related experiences, and the resulting judgment is as much beyond conscious control as a preference for chocolate over vanilla. We cannot will ourselves to feel what we do not feel. Thus, when perceptions are so indistinct as to be wide open to interpretation, we will tend to perceive what we want to perceive or expect to perceive or have been told that we should perceive. This, I believe, explains the reports that Peter Belt's devices work as claimed. Perhaps what bothers me so much about the Belt affair is the alacrity with which supposedly rational, technically savvy individuals have accepted, on the basis of subjective observation alone, something which all their scientific and journalistic background should tell them warrants a great deal of skepticism. But then, perhaps I shouldn't be that surprised. Despite heroic efforts to educate our population, the US (and, apparently, the UK) has been graduating scientific illiterates for more than 40 years. And where knowledge ends, superstition begins. Without any concepts of how scientific knowledge is gleaned from intuition, hypothesis, and meticulous investigation, or what it accepts today as truth, anything is possible. Without the anchor of science, we are free to drift from one idea to another, accepting or "keeping an open mind about" as many outrageous tenets as did the "superstitious natives" we used to scorn 50 years ago. (We still do, but it's unfashionable to admit it.) Many of our beliefs are based on nothing more than a very questionable personal conviction that, because something should be true, then it must be. (Traditional religion is the best example of this.) The notion that a belief should have at least some objective support is scorned as being "closed-minded," which has become a new epithet. In order to avoid that dread appellation, we are expected to pretend to be open to the possibility that today's flight of technofantasy may prove to be tomorrow's truth, no matter how unlikely. Well, I don't buy that. Nor do we, Mr. Holt, but the suckers still buy the garbage... I am seldom presented with such a succinct, powerful, and to-the-point summary of what we at the JREF battle, every day. Our very own Kramer, who handles the claims for the JREF prize, has sterling expertise and experience in the audio field, as well; regarding the Stereophile matter, he offers this comment: As a recording engineer and producer of some notoriety, I am always shocked to see the level of gullibility among those allegedly trained in the Recording Arts and Sciences, where people who call themselves "professionals" willingly jettison all reason (along with everything they have learned about the physics of sound) in blind submission to these preposterous audio pseudo-products, the belief in which I can only compare to the belief in the miraculous, more akin to crying statues, bleeding icons, and flying carpets than to anything in the world of reason. It is the stuff of pure fiction, and worse (the word "fraud" comes to mind), and the support of these products renders any publication that champions their efficacy a permanent laughing stock, which is precisely what Stereophile Magazine has become. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
Do you remember the silly claims of Stereophile Magazine that prompted me
to offer them a million dollars if they could prove any of the trash they were offering their readers? Well, they're still hiding under the bed -- or under that huge rock with Sylvia Browne -- to avoid meeting the challenge. The reason they'll never do it is because John Atkinson, et al., believe that careful and thoughtful listening -- even without controls -- is valid. This isn't my opinion or interpretation -- he told me so 20 years ago, and I know he sincerely felt so. (This occurred on the first occasion of my using bypass testing to evaluate a number of surround decoders. Though I could plainly hear differences among the DUTs, I felt uncomfortable. I wanted someone else to give a listen, to confirm or deny my conclusions. John asked me if I had listened carefully, for extended periods, etc, etc, which I had. He concluded that I had no reason to disbelieve my conclusions.) The fundamental issue is... "How do we _know_ that what we think we hear is what we really hear?" Or to put it more practically and less philosophically, "How to we know that apparent differences in sound truly correlate to physical and measurable differences in the DUTs?". This question has never been answered. Simply _attempting_ to answer it would consume a huge amount of work, time, and money. It's doable, but difficult. Unfortunately, people like John Atkinson and Arny Krueger think it quite unnecessary. I don't. There is a big difference between knowing and understanding. I want to _understand_ what's going on. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Amazing Stories (was misplaced rao post: Stereophile still underRandi's radar)
On 10/22/05 4:30 AM, in article CMm6f.54325$ir4.37266@edtnps90, "Chevdo"
wrote: As a recording engineer and producer of some notoriety, I am always shocked to see the level of gullibility among those allegedly trained in the Recording Arts and Sciences, Piddly stufff.. WAY better in the same article is Much more great reading there too over at http://www.randi.org/jr/200510/102105herbs.html#6 MUCH more entertaining is the following: QUACKERY THROUGH THE AGES There was an excellent article recently by Robert Gelfand, an American Reporter correspondent of San Pedro, California, about Gaetano Donizetti¹s opera ³L'Elisir D'Amore² (The Elixir of Love") composed in 1832. In the story, this magic elixir * suspiciously similar to a very mediocre red wine * is peddled by ³Doctor² Dulcamara to villagers who appear as naïve as parallel populaces of today. Two excerpts from the lyrics indicate that the quack-medicine picture hasn¹t changed much in more than 170 years: This huckleberry syrup Will positively clear up The mumps, the hives, and whooping cough in less than over night. You ladies of maturer years would like your youth recaptured? Apply this cream at night, my dears, your mates will be enraptured! What misses under twenty would like a peach complexion? What lads with prudish sweethearts, would win their quick affection? It kills the worst rheumatic pain Relieves a cough and muscle strain; No matter what your trouble is, it makes you feel like new. Though this may seem a paradox It also cures the chickenpox. It makes hysteric girls serene Makes thin men fat, and fat men lean. More gooder still is The Amazing Randi's grand stuff nailing all the Incredulous Design folks and other whacko things that are currently the rage. This sound scam stuff is dandy (and is meat-and-potatoes of rams of text in rao, but not here thank the maker) but the only important part worth the timeis the quote "Despite heroic efforts to educate our population, the US (and, apparently, the UK) has been graduating scientific illiterates for more than 40 years. And where knowledge ends, superstition begins. Without any concepts of how scientific knowledge is gleaned from intuition, hypothesis, and meticulous investigation, or what it accepts today as truth, anything is possible. Without the anchor of science, we are free to drift from one idea to another, accepting or "keeping an open mind about" as many outrageous tenets as did the "superstitious natives" we used to scorn 50 years ago. (We still do, but it's unfashionable to admit it.) " |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
Chevdo quoted the Amazing Randi as saying "Do you remember the silly claims of Stereophile Magazine that prompted me to offer them a million dollars if they could prove any of the trash they were offering their readers?" Randi writes so glibly, that it seems almost churlish for me to point out that he didn't actually invite "Stereophile Magazine" to take part in his million-dollar challenge. I was also amused to see that above the caption "Stereophile Magazine back when it was a dependable source of audio information" at http://www.randi.org/jr/200510/102105herbs.html is a picture of the front cover of our current issue! John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
Chevdo wrote:
a bunch of crap that has less than nothing to do with this forum's intended focus. -- ha |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
|
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
|
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
Chevdo wrote: In article .com, says... Chevdo quoted the Amazing Randi as saying "Do you remember the silly claims of Stereophile Magazine that prompted me to offer them a million dollars if they could prove any of the trash they were offering their readers?" Randi writes so glibly, that it seems almost churlish for me to point out that he didn't actually invite "Stereophile Magazine" to take part in his million-dollar challenge. Well his commentary on Friday states that he did invite you, but either way, you surely understand by now that you are invited, right? What, though Randi hasn't actually invited me to take part in the challenge, you feel I should rush forward anyway, saying that I will accept a challenge to take part in a test auditioning products I haven't heard? A test, BTW, organized by someone who has already demonstrated his bad faith and antipathy toward me personally on his website by misrepresenting what I have said and written, fabricating quotes that were presented as being by me, confusing me with other reviewers and editors, etc etc? Sure, why not? Seriously, if you are so sure of Randi's position, tell me when Stereophile or me has promoted or recommended the Peter Belt devices that he is dissing in his current diatribe? And consider this: at the time Gordon Holt wrote the Stereophile article that Randi and you praise, he worked for me. I commissioned that article from him. So how can I be the one that Randi castigates? As others have complained that this thread is not appropriate for r.a.p., here's an audio question: Is anyone like me irritated by the USB dongle Bias now requires to be used with Peak 5? John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile PS: "Under the radar" means that the radar hasn't yet detected the subject. Given Randi's inability to follow normal journalistic practice of getting his facts correct, I think your usage appropriate with regard to Stereophile. :-) |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
In article nZG6f.54985$ir4.16953@edtnps90, Chevdo wrote:
How does Stereophile magazine have nothing to do with "this forum's focus"? This forum is called rec.audio.pro. A 'stereophile' is someone who takes their audio listening very seriously, and includes many 'professionals' in the audio industry. No, high end audio stuff belongs in rec.audio.high-end and flaming belongs in rec.audio.opinion. Check out the original CFV when all these groups split from the monolithic rec.audio. The reason rec.audio.opinion exists is to keep this trash out of the other audio groups. Please don't let it leak in here. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
|
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
|
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
In article .com,
says... What, though Randi hasn't actually invited me to take part in the challenge, you feel I should rush forward anyway, saying that I will accept a challenge to take part in a test auditioning products I haven't heard? A test, BTW, organized by someone who has already demonstrated his bad faith and antipathy toward me personally on his website by misrepresenting what I have said and written, fabricating quotes that were presented as being by me, confusing me with other reviewers and editors, etc etc? Sure, why not? Mr. Randi requested that I post this reply to your lies about his challenge to you: "If John Atkinson - or anyone at Stereophile Magazine - can show that the questioned goods they endorsed in the pages of Stereophile actually work as advertised, Mr. Atkinson, or any other person at Stereophile, or Stereophile Magazine itself, or ANY OTHER PERSON IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE - including those who offer the device(s) for sale - can and will win the million-dollar challenge as offered by the James Randi Educational Foundation at www.randi.org/research/index.html. As a reading of the rules will clearly show, such a test of any or all such devices would be designed in full co-operation with Mr. Atkinson, or any other person at Stereophile, or the inventors/vendors of the device(s), and any and all such tests would be carried out by an independent agency agreed to by all concerned. The immediately foregoing explanatory statement should not have been necessary, but Mr. Atkinson seems unable to read and understand simple, direct, assertions, so I have included this for his edification. I predict that John Atkinson - and all of the inventors/vendors of the device(s) - will choose to ignore, as always, this attractive offer. This, because they know full well that the device(s) cannot and would not, pass simple, direct, definitive, tests - though they easily passed Atkinson’s scrutiny. They have no refuge but to evade, avoid, and ignore this genuine offer, backed by a special million-dollar account held by a major investment firm specifically for this purpose. Proof of this - and of any other - statements made by me on behalf of the James Randi Educational Foundation - may be obtained by simply asking. The gauntlet is down. What is John Atkinson’s response?" Seriously, if you are so sure of Randi's position, tell me when Stereophile or me has promoted or recommended the Peter Belt devices that he is dissing in his current diatribe? And consider this: at the time Gordon Holt wrote the Stereophile article that Randi and you praise, he worked for me. I commissioned that article from him. So how can I be the one that Randi castigates? I think you just answered your question. Because you comissioned the article. PS: "Under the radar" means that the radar hasn't yet detected the subject. It means the subject keeps squirming away, doesn't it? |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
In article xQY6f.28447$y_1.6918@edtnps89, Chevdo wrote:
John Atkinson is not expressing 'opinion' in Stereophile when he allows the publication of articles which claim that magic stones and tice clocks work. That is a misrepresentation of fact, not opinion. It's also known as fraud. Well, if you want to do a CFV for rec.audio.fraud, I will be happy to put in my 'yes' vote for you. Until then, rec.audio.opinion is as close as we have. --scott So, didn't you say you were going away, not too long ago? -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
|
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
Chevdo wrote:
kludge says... Chevdo wrote: John Atkinson is not expressing 'opinion' in Stereophile when he allows the publication of articles which claim that magic stones and tice clocks work. That is a misrepresentation of fact, not opinion. It's also known as fraud. Well, if you want to do a CFV for rec.audio.fraud, I will be happy to put in my 'yes' vote for you. Until then, rec.audio.opinion is as close as we have. No, rec.audio.pro is as close as we have. Not for consumer audio as you so detest in _Stereophile that you must surely have to read every issue cover to cover to make sure you're logging the fraud. BTW, can you reference a _Stereophile_ _article_, not an advertisement, that touts those magic stones? -- ha |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
Chevdo wrote:
Mr. Randi requested that I post this reply to your lies about his challenge to you: I'm sure you mother cares deeply and is very proud of you. Now hit RAO where this is the stuff they do. Were your word worth one issue of _Stereophile_ you would already be out of here. -- ha |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
In article ,
says... BTW wank. is this you? http://www.indianvalley.net/music-festival-05.htm please tell me this acid casualty is you, it would make my day! |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message The fundamental issue is... "How do we _know_ that what we think we hear is what we really hear?" Or to put it more practically and less philosophically, "How to we know that apparent differences in sound truly correlate to physical and measurable differences in the DUTs?". This question has never been answered. Simply _attempting_ to answer it would consume a huge amount of work, time, and money. It's doable, but difficult. Unfortunately, people like John Atkinson and Arny Krueger think it quite unnecessary. Illustration of one more reason why Sommerwerck isn't my press agent - he hasn't a clue about much of what I believe and think. To further clarify: I'm quite sure that it is necesary to know more about "How to we know that apparent differences in sound truly correlate to physical and measurable differences in the DUTs?". Or, as I would state it: We need to know more about how apparent differences in sound correlate with physical and measurable differences of the DUT(s). |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
In article nZG6f.54985$ir4.16953@edtnps90, Chevdo wrote: How does Stereophile magazine have nothing to do with "this forum's focus"? This forum is called rec.audio.pro. A 'stereophile' is someone who takes their audio listening very seriously, and includes many 'professionals' in the audio industry. No, high end audio stuff belongs in rec.audio.high-end and flaming belongs in rec.audio.opinion. Check out the original CFV when all these groups split from the monolithic rec.audio. The reason rec.audio.opinion exists is to keep this trash out of the other audio groups. Please don't let it leak in here. --scott Totally agreed. This forum is for people who are actively engaged in producing recordings, not people who just buy recordings and l gear that is limited to reproduction of pre-recorded sounds. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
Chevdo wrote: In article .com, says... What, though Randi hasn't actually invited me to take part in the challenge, you feel I should rush forward anyway, saying that I will accept a challenge to take part in a test auditioning products I haven't heard? A test, BTW, organized by someone who has already demonstrated his bad faith and antipathy toward me personally on his website by misrepresenting what I have said and written, fabricating quotes that were presented as being by me, confusing me with other reviewers and editors, etc etc? Sure, why not? Mr. Randi requested that I post this reply to your lies about his challenge to you: You've achieved the remarkable feat of making Atkinson look rational and making Kruger look conciliatory. Please desist before you damage the cause of science in audio any further. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
Chevdo wrote:
In article , says... BTW wank. is this you? http://www.indianvalley.net/music-festival-05.htm please tell me this acid casualty is you, it would make my day! Yep, that's me, and as for being an acid casualty, I rose early, oversaw the staging, shade netting and PA setup, and played with five of the bands, playing music from bluegrass on mandolin to jazz standards on bass guitar. Then I oversaw the dismantling of the sound system, staging and shade. Nine bands in eight hours. "Oversaw" means I led by example and worked my ass off. Kurt Albershardt mixed the whole thing but for a lunch break, and Barney Harchis recorded it all so the bands could have a CDR of their performance. One of us reads _Stereophile_ and finds crap over which to obsess. Nuff said. Your day is cheap and easily made. -- ha |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
Chevdo wrote:
says... BTW, can you reference a _Stereophile_ _article_, not an advertisement, that touts those magic stones? Of course, but after I do, you should admit you are a moron who has no business challenging me until he learns at least one iota about the subject. I admit to not reading _Stereophile_, which is apparently published for the likes of you. The Shakti Stones were defended vehemently in an editorial by reviewer Art Dudley in the November 2004 issue of Stereophile magazine. You probably read every word of the article, too. Figures. Why should they change anything at all? Their **** sticks to you. -- ha |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
Chevdo wrote: In article .com, says... What, though Randi hasn't actually invited me to take part in the challenge, you feel I should rush forward anyway, saying that I will accept a challenge to take part in a test auditioning products I haven't heard? A test, BTW, organized by someone who has already demonstrated his bad faith and antipathy toward me personally on his website by misrepresenting what I have said and written, fabricating quotes that were presented as being by me, confusing me with other reviewers and editors, etc etc? Sure, why not? Mr. Randi requested that I post this reply to your lies about his challenge to you... What lies? I was correct about his misrepresentations, and he admitted making the mistakes to which I referred above on his website. And I was correct that while he had issued the Million-dollar challenge to a number of audio writers, he ahd not done so to me or to Stereophile. "If John Atkinson - or anyone at Stereophile Magazine - can show that the questioned goods they endorsed in the pages of Stereophile actually work as advertised, Mr. Atkinson, or any other person at Stereophile, or Stereophile Magazine itself, or ANY OTHER PERSON IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE - including those who offer the device(s) for sale - can and will win the million-dollar challenge as offered by the James Randi Educational Foundation at www.randi.org/research/index.html." And he _has_ apparently done so, using you, "Chevdo," as his agent. Well done. But please note that that fact that Randi _has_ now issued the challenge to me can't be used retroactively to prove that I was lying earlier about his not having done so. The arrow of time is _so_ inconvenient when it flows only in one direction, eh. I predict that John Atkinson - and all of the inventors/vendors of the device(s) - will choose to ignore, as always, this attractive offer. This, because they know full well that the device(s) cannot and would not, pass simple, direct, definitive, tests... I cannot speak for the vendors of the devices in question, but I most certainly will turn down Mr. Randi's offer, "Chevdo." Randi has already lied to me and publicly misrepresented what I am supposed to have said or written, yet _now_ he wants me to _trust_ his integrity? Yeah, right! The guy is just an old carnie, looking for free publicity. In my opinion. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
Chevdo wrote: John Atkinson is not expressing 'opinion' in Stereophile when he allows the publication of articles which claim that magic stones and tice clocks work. When did I do that, Chevdo? Following Stereophile's coverage of the Tice Clock, Tice canceled all of its advertising and has had nothing to do with the magazine since. Regarding the Shakti Stone, I had it reviewed by two people, one a high-end true believer, the other a skeptic. Both reported similar impressions, which I admit I found surprising. You can find the entirety of Stereophile's coverage of these products in the magazine's free on-line archives at www.stereophile.com, BTW.. That is a misrepresentation of fact, not opinion. Nope, it is quite definitely the publishing of opinion. It's also known as fraud. Nope, you are wrong on that too. And yes, why _are_ you doing this in r.a.p.? I have crossposted this response to r.a.o. where this thread belongs, in my opinion. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
Chevdo wrote: The Shakti Stones were defended vehemently in an editorial by reviewer Art Dudley in the November 2004 issue of Stereophile magazine. Good grief, "Chevdo," it's hard keeping up with your mistakes in this thread. No. Art Dudley did not "defend" the "Shakti Stones," vehemently or otherwise, in his column in the November 2004 issue of Stereophile (which you can read at http://www.stereophile.com/artdudley...ng/index1.html). Instead, poked fun at James Randi (nee Randall Zwinge) by issuing his own challenge and upping the ante from Randi's "million dollars" to "a hundred billion zillion dollars." Strangely, Randi has yet to accept this challenge. :-) John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile PS: Again, I have crossposted this response to r.a.o. Please delete r.a.p. from the header when responding. |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
wrote in message oups.com... Chevdo wrote: John Atkinson is not expressing 'opinion' in Stereophile when he allows the publication of articles which claim that magic stones and tice clocks work. When did I do that, Chevdo? Following Stereophile's coverage of the Tice Clock, Tice canceled all of its advertising and has had nothing to do with the magazine since. Regarding the Shakti Stone, I had it reviewed by two people, one a high-end true believer, the other a skeptic. Where can we find the measurements taken that demonstrate that Shakti Stones have any real effect on an audio system? Both reported similar impressions, Which one has the measurements? |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
wrote in message
oups.com Chevdo wrote: John Atkinson is not expressing 'opinion' in Stereophile when he allows the publication of articles which claim that magic stones and tice clocks work. When did I do that, Chevdo? Following Stereophile's coverage of the Tice Clock, Tice canceled all of its advertising and has had nothing to do with the magazine since. Regarding the Shakti Stone, I had it reviewed by two people, one a high-end true believer, the other a skeptic. Given the low standards demonstrated by Stereophile when it comes to audio skepticism... Both reported similar impressions, which I admit I found surprising. (1) If a so-called skeptic reports similar impressions to a non-skeptic, then he's obviously not really a skeptic. (2) A true skeptic does not believe in anything but skepticism, and he should be in doubt about that. (3) A true skeptic will not affirm anything, he'll just report his momentary inability to find any definate reason to say that its all in error. You can find the entirety of Stereophile's coverage of these products in the magazine's free on-line archives at www.stereophile.com, BTW.. FWIW... |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
The fundamental issue is... "How do we _know_ that what
we think we hear is what we really hear?" Or to put it more practically and less philosophically, "How to we know that apparent differences in sound truly correlate to physical and measurable differences in the DUTs?". This question has never been answered. Simply _attempting_ to answer it would consume a huge amount of work, time, and money. It's doable, but difficult. Unfortunately, people like John Atkinson and Arny Krueger think it quite unnecessary. Illustration of one more reason why Sommerwerck isn't my press agent -- he hasn't a clue about much of what I believe and think. You have generally (as I see it) defended ABX testing as the be-all and end-all of listening tests. I've heard little from you that represents any other point of view. And as I can't read minds, and you've never called me to discuss your views... To further clarify: I'm quite sure that it is necesary to know more about "How to we know that apparent differences in sound truly correlate to physical and measurable differences in the DUTs?". Or, as I would state it: We need to know more about how apparent differences in sound correlate with physical and measurable differences of the DUT(s). If you can find someone to put up the big wad o' money it would require to do such research, I'd be delighted to work with you on it. But I'm not holding my breath. |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
Arny.. Dump this over to RAO only.. PLEEEEZE!
Thanks! On 10/24/05 2:35 PM, in article , " wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Chevdo wrote: John Atkinson is not expressing 'opinion' in Stereophile when he allows the publication of articles which claim that magic stones and tice clocks work. When did I do that, Chevdo? Following Stereophile's coverage of the Tice Clock, Tice canceled all of its advertising and has had nothing to do with the magazine since. Regarding the Shakti Stone, I had it reviewed by two people, one a high-end true believer, the other a skeptic. Where can we find the measurements taken that demonstrate that Shakti Stones have any real effect on an audio system? Both reported similar impressions, Which one has the measurements? |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
|
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
wrote in message oups.com... I predict that John Atkinson - and all of the inventors/vendors of the device(s) - will choose to ignore, as always, this attractive offer. This, because they know full well that the device(s) cannot and would not, pass simple, direct, definitive, tests... I cannot speak for the vendors of the devices in question, but I most certainly will turn down Mr. Randi's offer, "Chevdo." Randi has already lied to me and publicly misrepresented what I am supposed to have said or written, yet _now_ he wants me to _trust_ his integrity? Yeah, right! The guy is just an old carnie, looking for free publicity. In my opinion. Successfully too, I see. :-) Norm |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
"Chevdo" wrote:
BTW wank. is this you? http://www.indianvalley.net/music-festival-05.htm please tell me this acid casualty is you, it would make my day! If it is acid that is responsible for Hank's character, wit, ethics, practical knowledge, generosity, perception and just unbelievably cool beard, I would like to immediately place an order for as much purple mic as can be flurbled without neebslup dob pindrookle. Fub. Oh oh, that wasn't a Listerine lozenge... here we go again... Oh wow... the colors these keys make in my ears when they click are FAR OUT man! ****... anybody got any reds? I gotta go to work... -- "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!" - Lorin David Schultz in the control room making even bad news sound good (Remove spamblock to reply) |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message The fundamental issue is... "How do we _know_ that what we think we hear is what we really hear?" Or to put it more practically and less philosophically, "How to we know that apparent differences in sound truly correlate to physical and measurable differences in the DUTs?". This question has never been answered. Simply _attempting_ to answer it would consume a huge amount of work, time, and money. It's doable, but difficult. Unfortunately, people like John Atkinson and Arny Krueger think it quite unnecessary. Illustration of one more reason why Sommerwerck isn't my press agent -- he hasn't a clue about much of what I believe and think. You have generally (as I see it) defended ABX testing as the be-all and end-all of listening tests. That would be wrong, as well. I've heard little from you that represents any other point of view. Just for grins, try asking a direct question. And as I can't read minds, and you've never called me to discuss your views... I'm not really that fond of discussing views. My views are kinda boring to me, After all, I already know them! ;-) For example, to get me to discuss my views in public John Atkinson had to give me an all-expenses paid trip to HE2005 in NYC. I'd previously asked for cash over and above, but this time I had the time, it was a different city, and I felt like seeing that old city again. Yes, I did the HE2005 thing because it was a free trip to NYC and I was a little sentimental and lonely to spend a few days in NYC since the weirdness. To further clarify: I'm quite sure that it is necesary to know more about "How to we know that apparent differences in sound truly correlate to physical and measurable differences in the DUTs?". Or, as I would state it: We need to know more about how apparent differences in sound correlate with physical and measurable differences of the DUT(s). If you can find someone to put up the big wad o' money it would require to do such research, I'd be delighted to work with you on it. But I'm not holding my breath. Put up *my* money? Right now I'm putting that time and money part of my personal budget into doing live sound and recording. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
wrote in message oups.com... Chevdo wrote: John Atkinson is not expressing 'opinion' in Stereophile when he allows the publication of articles which claim that magic stones and tice clocks work. When did I do that, Chevdo? Following Stereophile's coverage of the Tice Clock, Tice canceled all of its advertising and has had nothing to do with the magazine since. Regarding the Shakti Stone, I had it reviewed by two people, one a high-end true believer, the other a skeptic. Both reported similar impressions, which I admit I found surprising. You can find the entirety of Stereophile's coverage of these products in the magazine's free on-line archives at www.stereophile.com, BTW.. That is a misrepresentation of fact, not opinion. Nope, it is quite definitely the publishing of opinion. It's also known as fraud. You allowed to be printed, priase for a device for which you have (allegedly) the capability to measure the effects of, but did not do so. The fact that it's efficacy was never verified is at the very least stupid and sloppy, and at worst an endorsement of snake oil, not that that's anything new. |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
You have generally (as I see it) defended ABX
testing as the be-all and end-all of listening tests. That would be wrong, as well. Ya coulda fooled _me_... I've heard little from you that represents any other point of view. Just for grins, try asking a direct question. All right. Briefly (because I don't expect you to spend time writing an essay)... What do you think remains to be done (broadly) to put our "understanding" of subjective reactions to audio equipment on a firm scientific basis? Up to now, I assumed your answer would be "ABX testing tells us everything we need to know." So, surprise me with some thoughtful insights into the issue. If you can find someone to put up the big wad o' money it would require to do such research, I'd be delighted to work with you on it. But I'm not holding my breath. Put up *my* money? Read what I wrote (qv). It's right above. Right now I'm putting that time and money part of my personal budget into doing live sound and recording. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stereophile still under Randi's radar
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message All right. Briefly (because I don't expect you to spend time writing an essay)... What do you think remains to be done (broadly) to put our "understanding" of subjective reactions to audio equipment on a firm scientific basis? Who is the "our"? (1) If the "our" is audiophiles, the first thing to do is chase the charlatans that dominate the high end consumer press out of the *room*. (2) If the "our" is working audio pros, then the first thing to do is educate them better about acoustics, psychoacoustics and experimental design. (3) If the "our" is Science, then work is needed on many fronts. The span of technology from psychoacoustics to microphone specs is huge, and very fragementary at both ends. Up to now, I assumed your answer would be "ABX testing tells us everything we need to know." ABX is like this narrow little tool - good for resolving controversies about whether things actually sound different, but with no abilties to directly quantify the "size" of audible differences, other than go, no-go. It's good for (1) above, and goes down hill after that. For example ABC/hr addresses a lot of the inherent weaknesses of ABX. However, the interesting part of audio are the parts that are clearly audible, and whose audibility has no controversy attached to it. For example while there may be some controversy over how different mic preamps sound, there's no controversy over the idea that mics sound different and a given mic sounds different as you make slight changes in its orientation and position. In practice we throw mics around the room, almost with total abandon. So, surprise me with some thoughtful insights into the issue. Bite me! ;-) I don't think anybody understands mics and mixing with anything like the precision with which we understand say, solid state power amps. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Does anyone know of this challenge? | High End Audio | |||
| Need your opinion re; Otari Radar 1 | Tech | |||
| Radar with ProTools | Pro Audio | |||
| What Digital I/O would YOU choose for RADAR - PC - 02R | Pro Audio | |||
| Radar Differences...Otari vs IZ | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
