On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 19:56:50 +0000 (UTC), (Stewart
Pinkerton) wrote:

However, I'm not surprised about much. I remember once when I was
younger, I checked out a Vanguard recording of Tibetian monks chanting
(during my John Cage phase). Some friends of mine and I were listening
to it and one of us thought that it would be funny to listen at 78
rpm, thinking that they might sound like chipmunks. Keep in mind that
this was pretty much random chanting with no musical content. We were
all completely flabbergasted to find that the chanting sounded
virtually the same. There was no real perceptual "speedup" of the
chanting and the pitch of the voices sounded almost the same as well.
We tried at 45 rpm and it was the same.

Perhaps you needed a better deck? :-)

Could you do this on your unmodified Gyrodeck?

I think not.

You lose.

Again.

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 21:07:01 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :

You are the *"smart-guy"* so it's not your role.
But you should note that I haven't any problem with homosexuals. ;-)


But of course he's the smart guy, and of course you have no problem
with homosexuals. You're French.......................

I don't remember that we have been introduce. ;-)

Don't try to pretend that you're gay NOW.

dave weil a écrit :

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 21:07:01 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :


You are the *"smart-guy"* so it's not your role.
But you should note that I haven't any problem with homosexuals. ;-)


But of course he's the smart guy, and of course you have no problem
with homosexuals. You're French.......................

I don't remember that we have been introduce. ;-)


Don't try to pretend that you're gay NOW.

I prefer you when you smile...
....But you oblige me to force for my talent. ;-)

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om
Tom Nousaine ) wrote in
message
(John Atkinson) wrote in
message :
And of course, elsewhere in this thread, as has been pointed out by
others, [Arny Krueger] has been selectively choosing among the data
I provided just those figures that support his predetermined
conclusion. "Data dredging" this is called in scientific circles,
or "pulling a Ferstler," here on r.a.o.

Sue me for picking on data for the last 4 years. The entire data set is
pretty clear - several years of increase, followed by several years of
decline. I guess how one interprets this depends on what one thinks is more
important - the more distant past or the more recent past.

It's also clearly a stable range with a single year spike. I hope "so
sue me" isn't your approach to all things in life.

Is what happens to a nice magazine's sales this millennium more important
than what happened last millennium?

You have a boundary problem there.

In Detroit, we've got a history of calling a spade a spade. The local car
companies have had a number of recent years when the sales decreased. In
Detroit we call that a "trend that shows decreasing automobile sales". Car
company executives try to explain how they will reverse this trend. Some of
them might lose their jobs, some have.

In the wacky world of high end audio ragazines, we have an editor who says
that his circulation isn't decreasing, because after all, it was increasing
5 years ago.

But it isn't JA...

Would that be similar to posting that showed a clearly null
experiment that subjects were able to reliably identify a single
electrolytic capacitor in a blind listening test, when even the
dredged data didn't support that case?

I appear to have amazing powers of prediction :-). First, I predicted
that Arny Krueger would remove a page from his website, which he did.
Then I predicted that Arny Krueger would reinstate the page with a
corrected graph, which he did. Then I predicted that Arny would claim
that the page had not been corrected and had been available all
along, which he did.

Since none of this happened in the time specified which was late last month,

Oh, my! An entirely different year! His prediction is invalid because
your cited message is from Jan 1?

Atkinson's powers of prediction are truly amazing, in that it is truly
amazing that he'd brag about them, based on events that never happened.
Perhaps that is what the smiley means - it's all a big joke.

Website AWOL, check; website with corrected graph, check; claim that the
graph hadn't been modified, check; "Captain Capacitor" Nousaine to the
rescue, check.

Is your argument that because JA made these predictions *last year* none
of this counts? Last year is a significantly long time ago? Less than a
week!

Stephen

(John Atkinson) wrote:

Tom Nousaine ) wrote in
message
(John Atkinson) wrote in
message :
And of course, elsewhere in this thread, as has been pointed out by
others, [Arny Krueger] has been selectively choosing among the data I
provided just those figures that support his predetermined conclusion.
"Data dredging" this is called in scientific circles, or "pulling a
Ferstler," here on r.a.o.

Would that be similar to posting that showed a clearly null experiment
that subjects were able to reliably identify a single electrolytic
capacitor in a blind listening test, when even the dredged data didn't
support that case?

I appear to have amazing powers of prediction :-). First, I predicted
that Arny Krueger would remove a page from his website, which he did.
Then I predicted that Arny Krueger would reinstate the page with a
corrected graph, which he did. Then I predicted that Arny would claim that
the page had not been corrected and had been available all along, which
he did. Then, in message ,
I wrote:

Anyone care to lay a bet on how long it takes Tom Nousaine to show up
in order to try to take attention away from Mr. Krueger's embarrassment
with some nonsense about capacitors or somesuch.

And lo and behold, here _is_ Mr. Nousaine. And what is he writing about?
Why, capacitors. Just as I predicted.

But Mr Atkinson you did commit the offense of which you accused Arny. You
rummaged through your experimental data to search out bits of data that seemed
to support your initial hypothesis. Even then your analysis was unconvincing.
Yet, you failed to mention that the overall experiment was null and that there
was evidence of internal bias (reverse positives in the music-type scores)
when you claimed that your experiemnt showed that subjects were able to
identify capacitors by sound alone.

These two really do cut ridiculous
figures, with Tom apparently feeling he has to step in as relief pitcher
every time Arny Krueger works himself into a logical bind :-)

So let me address Tom's question, which, of course, being Tom and not
very bright, he has asked many times over the past several years yet
doesn't seem to have comprehended the answers.

First, Tom, I assume that you are referring, once again, to the blind
tests of capacitors I performed in the fall of 1985 and that were
reported on the January 1986 issue of Hi-Fi News. "Dredged data,"
you state, by which you mean I arbitrarily picked and chose among the
data just as Arny Krueger has just done with Stereophile's published
circulation figures over the past 10 years.

Yes, you did. But Anrny needed no picking and choosing to see that your
circulation figures show a 10% loss over the past 3 years or so and have
returned to a level of the mid-90s.


No, Tom, the test data were not "dredged" back in 1985. What I did in
the analysis for HFN/RR was a) to publish _all_ the data, and b) also
to examine the results on the basis of the specific music samples used.

Yes; and that data showed that either there was internal bias (reverse
positives) or that the "film" capacitor was MORE audible than the electrolytic.


All this would be fine IF you had disclosed this in your strong posting. But,
you did not.

As any statistics textbook will confirm, the music program in tests like
these is an independent variable. To examine the results on the basis of
that variable is therefore completely legitimate. If people doubt this,
then they should read any of the many papers published on blind testing
available in the AES archives. If they do, they will find many examples
where the overall listening test results have been broken down by the
music examples used. I assume Tom Nousaine is going to accuse those
experimenters of practicing "data dredging," also. :-)

Oh no; everybody analyzes all the data in every practical way. BUT, they DO NOT
declare positive results from piece-meal results. Especially those that don't
support the proposition.


You next used the phrase "a clearly null experiment." No, Tom. It
was not a "null experiment." That you so describe merely reveals that,
like Arny Krueger, you really don't have a good handle on statistical
analysis as you assume that, say, a 0/10 score does not indicate
identification. In actual fact, it is as significant as a 10/10 score,
but indicates that there must have been a systematic error in how the
test was performed, the operator mistaking A for B in that series of
ABX tests, for example.

Sure and your experimental results showed reverse positives too. Yet, you never
mentioned that; nor did you examine the experiment for internal bias ....yet,
you flatly stated that the experiment confirmed an hypothesis it did not.

Even at the time you called for further experimentation which you never
conducted. In the meantime others, such as me, conducted more experiments and
failed to find any audibility of capacitor dialectric. Those results never seem
to get mention.



To sum up: I fully described the experimental results in my January
1986 article and offered my opinion that some of the results indicated
possible identification. That is all. There was no "data dredging" of
the results on an arbitrary basis such as that performed by Arny Krueger.

Really; as far as I could see Kreuger simply pointed out that you circulation
figures has fallen by 10% during this decade. I didn't see any claims beyond
that relative to the data.



(Of course, if Tom is going to dive into a statistics textbook to try
to justify his idea that the music program used in blind listening tests
is not an independent variable, he will discover also that it doesn't
matter how many tests produce null results, all it takes to disprove
those null results is one positive result. Which is why, I conjecture,
having organized countless tests over the past 20 years that produced null
results and having staked his reputation on those null results, Tom has
spent almost as much energy over those 20 years criticizing any published
blind tests that possibly revealed identication of the DUTs!)

Now it's "possibly"? :-)


Or perhaps advertising to subscribers that a recommended component
list contained 700 components when it actually barely contained the
now advertised "500"?

I am not sure I get your point, Tom. Stereophile's "Recommended
Components" list is dynamic. Products are dropped and added all the
time. Yes, it used to have around 700 components; the most recent edition
(in our October 2003 issue) had around 500. (We counted them.)

Perhaps it was only coincidental that you bothered to count after it was
pointed out on line that the RCL did not contain the advertised 700 components.

Are you
saying that Stereophile is obliged to included 700 components _every
time_ because we once did? Or are you saying that readers who expected
there to be 700 components in the October issue are owed a refund
because I deleted more products than I added, meaning there were only
500? (Just as we correctly advertised on that issue's cover?) What
_are_ you trying to say, Tom? Anything at all, other than attempting
to draw attention away from poor old Arny Krueger's continuing series
of technical gaffes?


No I'm simply pointing out that your RCL was advertised as containing 700
components over a period of time when it actually had just a few more than 500.

There's nothing in there except an apparent willingness to misrepresent the
size of the list. I'd call that data-hedging or just plain dishonesty. Small
matter; but what else have you not told us about the list? That many of the
products graded by sound quality actually sound exactly alike?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Krueger used your own data. It was all there; no-dredging required.

John Atkinson a écrit :


I appear to have amazing powers of prediction :-). First, I predicted
that Arny Krueger would remove a page from his website, which he did.
Then I predicted that Arny Krueger would reinstate the page with a
corrected graph, which he did. Then I predicted that Arny would claim that
the page had not been corrected and had been available all along, which
he did.

You have had requests for evidences of what you are saying above, you
have ignored them... ;-)
Are you only a prestidigitator of the pen ? I guess no.

Lionel Chapuis

George M. Middius a écrit :


dave weil said to La Salope:


What *is* your problem?


I bet he missed his regular Sunday enema.


I can tell you what a "sewer worker" use to do during his week-end but
I'm afraid that too much triviality could be fatal for you. ;-)

Scott "I'm smart, just ask me" Wheeler scrawled:


Congradulations

and

explination

and then, again

explination?

ESL, Scotty? ;-)

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om
Tom Nousaine ) wrote in
message
(John Atkinson) wrote in
message :
And of course, elsewhere in this thread, as has been pointed out by
others, [Arny Krueger] has been selectively choosing among the data
I provided just those figures that support his predetermined
conclusion. "Data dredging" this is called in scientific circles,
or "pulling a Ferstler," here on r.a.o.

Sue me for picking on data for the last 4 years. The entire data set is
pretty clear - several years of increase, followed by several years of
decline. I guess how one interprets this depends on what one thinks is
more
important - the more distant past or the more recent past.

Is what happens to a nice magazine's sales this millennium more important
than what happened last millennium?

In Detroit, we've got a history of calling a spade a spade. The local car
companies have had a number of recent years when the sales decreased. In
Detroit we call that a "trend that shows decreasing automobile sales".
Car
company executives try to explain how they will reverse this trend. Some
of
them might lose their jobs, some have.

In the wacky world of high end audio ragazines, we have an editor who says
that his circulation isn't decreasing, because after all, it was
increasing
5 years ago.

Would that be similar to posting that showed a clearly null
experiment that subjects were able to reliably identify a single
electrolytic capacitor in a blind listening test, when even the
dredged data didn't support that case?

I appear to have amazing powers of prediction :-). First, I predicted
that Arny Krueger would remove a page from his website, which he did.
Then I predicted that Arny Krueger would reinstate the page with a
corrected graph, which he did. Then I predicted that Arny would claim
that the page had not been corrected and had been available all
along, which he did.

Since none of this happened in the time specified which was late last
month,
Atkinson's powers of prediction are truly amazing, in that it is truly
amazing that he'd brag about them, based on events that never happened.
Perhaps that is what the smiley means - it's all a big joke.


You are just too plain STUPID to recognize that the one year spike
in year 2000 should be considered an anomaly, rather than be considered
as your base reference point.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :

You are the *"smart-guy"* so it's not your role.
But you should note that I haven't any problem with homosexuals. ;-)


But of course he's the smart guy, and of course you have no problem
with homosexuals. You're French.......................

I don't remember that we have been introduce. ;-)


Too bad, Lionel, that you are not a sheep.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...


Krueger used your own data. It was all there; no-dredging required.

no dredging required, only a good bit of spin
nixed with a damn poor selelection of the
base year. Pick the one high anomaly, and slide downhill from there.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"MINe 109" wrote in message


Website AWOL, check;

Never happened for most of the web.

Only person reporting: JA.

website with corrected graph, check;

Never happened.

Only person reporting: JA.

claim that the graph hadn't been modified, check; "

Just the truth.

Is your argument that because JA made these predictions *last year*
none of this counts?

None of it happened. Neither the LynxTWO web page, nor any of the files
associated with it have been altered since early last year.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


Website AWOL, check;

Never happened for most of the web.

Only person reporting: JA.

website with corrected graph, check;

Never happened.

Only person reporting: JA.

claim that the graph hadn't been modified, check; "

Just the truth.

Is your argument that because JA made these predictions *last year*
none of this counts?

None of it happened. Neither the LynxTWO web page, nor any of the files
associated with it have been altered since early last year.

Let's accept this for the sake of argument. How about Captain Capacitor?

Stephen

Sockpuppet Yustabe a écrit :

You are just too plain STUPID to recognize that the one year spike
in year 2000 should be considered an anomaly, rather than be considered
as your base reference point.


It could be true if the trend before this point was regressing or
stagnating.
It was increasing :-(...
So for statistic interpretation you should come for an other round.

Sockpuppet Yustabe a écrit :

"Lionel" wrote in message
...

Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :


You are the *"smart-guy"* so it's not your role.
But you should note that I haven't any problem with homosexuals. ;-)


But of course he's the smart guy, and of course you have no problem
with homosexuals. You're French.......................

I don't remember that we have been introduce. ;-)



Too bad, Lionel, that you are not a sheep.


Too bad Yustabe that you are not a real wolf.

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Sockpuppet Yustabe a écrit :

You are just too plain STUPID to recognize that the one year spike
in year 2000 should be considered an anomaly, rather than be considered
as your base reference point.


It could be true if the trend before this point was regressing or
stagnating.
It was increasing :-(...
So for statistic interpretation you should come for an other round.

The average for the three years 2001-2003 is approximately the same as for
the average of years 1994-1999




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Sockpuppet Yustabe a écrit :

"Lionel" wrote in message
...

Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :


You are the *"smart-guy"* so it's not your role.
But you should note that I haven't any problem with homosexuals. ;-)


But of course he's the smart guy, and of course you have no problem
with homosexuals. You're French.......................

I don't remember that we have been introduce. ;-)



Too bad, Lionel, that you are not a sheep.


Too bad Yustabe that you are not a real wolf.


Too bad that you haven't been around here long enough to understand what I
said.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"S888Wheel" wrote in message


1994: 71,040
1995: 79,332
1996: 85,808
1997: 87,219
1998: 83,921
1999: 85,224
2000: 91,384
2001: 84,987
2002: 82,932
2003: 81,668

Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the
magazine's circulation is shrinking?


you are wrong.

Let me guess. In sockpuppet math, 81,668 91,384

Hey, that's why you are the boy with the high IQ!

LOL!

Arny's new math is that 81,688 71,040!!!
LOL!

It's less than 91,384 the highpint reached in 2000. Since then the
numbers are clearly falling. Perhaps this is a good sign and people
are wising up to the fact that most of what passes for high end
exists only in the mind of some unreliable reviewer or salesman.

It's obviously a combination of things.

Speaking of unreliable not to mention insane, I wonder what Fremer's
doing these days.

Testing out jackets where the sleeves fasten in the back?

Hopefully not having screaming fits at people who
point out he doesn't know what he's talking about like he did with
Nousaine, years back.

If RAO had a sound track, most of the Atkinson supporters would be
screaming
most of the time.


And they'd be saying: " I don't want to know this!" "Please don't make me
learn." Etc.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote:




"Arny Krueger" wrote in message


"Michael McKelvy" wrote

1994: 71,040
1995: 79,332
1996: 85,808
1997: 87,219
1998: 83,921
1999: 85,224
2000: 91,384
2001: 84,987
2002: 82,932
2003: 81,668

Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the
magazine's circulation is shrinking?

Looks clearly like the magazine was 'growing' for a few years and has fallen
back to the levels that Mr Atkinson has said were the peak years of the audio
industry in the mid-90s.

And it seems clear that subscription has been falling over the past 3 years.

What's to argue over?

Sue me for picking on data for the last 4 years. The entire data set is
pretty clear - several years of increase, followed by several years of
decline. I guess how one interprets this depends on what one thinks is more
important - the more distant past or the more recent past.

You can't stop making a fool of yourself can you?


Is what happens to a nice magazine's sales this millennium more important
than what happened last millennium?

You are really obssessed with this millennium division. Were you one of the
bozos stalking up on a 20 year supply of cornnuts?


In Detroit, we've got a history of calling a spade a spade.

Do you also have a history of cherry picking data and then misinterpreting it?



In the wacky world of high end audio ragazines, we have an editor who says
that his circulation isn't decreasing, because after all, it was increasing
5 years ago.

You are amazingly clueless. Try to figure out the difference between the past
and the present. Try to understand the implications of data showing sales that
have gone up and down and up and down over the years. Try to understand the
difference between a projection of sales based on trends and a declaration of
the state of sales like the one you made. If you had half a brain you would get
the fact that the data does not show that subscriptions "are shrinking" as you
said but that they have shrunk over the past three years and only a little bit
from 2002 to 2003. Given the history over the past ten years, data you continue
to ignore, one can conclude that the circulation could very easily be
increasing at this very time. To draw any conclusion one way or another based
on all the data given is idiotic. It could easily be going either way. DO YOU
GET IT NOW?

But Mr Atkinson you did commit the offense of which you accused Arny. You
rummaged through your experimental data to search out bits of data that
seemed
to support your initial hypothesis. Even then your analysis was unconvincing.
Yet, you failed to mention that the overall experiment was null and that
there
was evidence of internal bias (reverse positives in the music-type scores)
when you claimed that your experiemnt showed that subjects were able to
identify capacitors by sound alone.

One has to wonder if Nousaine thinks that all people have one testicle and one
ovary given the data.

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:




"Arny Krueger" wrote in message


"Michael McKelvy" wrote

1994: 71,040
1995: 79,332
1996: 85,808
1997: 87,219
1998: 83,921
1999: 85,224
2000: 91,384
2001: 84,987
2002: 82,932
2003: 81,668

Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the
magazine's circulation is shrinking?

Looks clearly like the magazine was 'growing' for a few years and has
fallen
back to the levels that Mr Atkinson has said were the peak years of the
audio
industry in the mid-90s.

And it seems clear that subscription has been falling over the past 3
years.

What's to argue over?

PLENTY!!!

Sure, when measured from the one highest year, everything else is less!
But there was only one outstandingly high year, out of thirteen years.
The next highest year of the reamining twelve years was not nearly
as strong, and was more proximate to the amounts of the other years.
The one high year was 91,384. the next highest year was 87, 219.
The six next highest years ranged from 81,668 to 85,808, which is a pretty
narrow range. So, it is quite evident that the preponderance of the
circulation
amounts ranged in the low to mid eighty thousands. One year stuck
out like a sore thumb, and peaked ain the low ninety thousands.
If you care to do some analysis with standard deviations, those statistics
will support my contentions.

You do a disservice to your reputation as an unbiased scientist by
clinging to your notion. Obviously, it is colored by your long standing
disputes with JA and Stereophile. But you do strive to be the
'good scientist', don't you? Please show us that you really are the
'good scientist' by agreeing that your analysis is based upon
the baseline of the one significantly high year, among thirteen years
of data. I think tha a fair assessment of the data would suggest that
the previous three years of sales (avg 83,196) are stable, but slightly
below the average for the five preceding years (Avg 86,711). just to show
you how the consideration of the one high year can skew the analysis,
the average for the most recent four years (85,243) is is about the
same as the average for the preceding four years (85,543).
So, this just goes to show how one can 'use' that one high
aberration, even in an inclusive and cumulative manner,
to bring the statiscs inline with one's possible biases. What you do
is even worse. You use that one high abberation as
your entire baseline.

The 'fair' assessment is that sales for the previous three
years are stable, but slightly lower (4.05%) than those for the
preceding five years, even considering that the one year
with the high abberation is lumped into those
preceding five years.

If you want to compare four years to four years, the drop off
is only 0.0365%, but that is not too fair an anlysis, though it is
absolutely true.

So, you need to be careful with those statistics, if you are truly
interested
in finding the truth.





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On 06 Jan 2004 04:04:43 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

"Michael McKelvy" wrote:




"Arny Krueger" wrote in message


"Michael McKelvy" wrote

1994: 71,040
1995: 79,332
1996: 85,808
1997: 87,219
1998: 83,921
1999: 85,224
2000: 91,384
2001: 84,987
2002: 82,932
2003: 81,668

Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the
magazine's circulation is shrinking?

Looks clearly like the magazine was 'growing' for a few years and has fallen
back to the levels that Mr Atkinson has said were the peak years of the audio
industry in the mid-90s.

And it seems clear that subscription has been falling over the past 3 years.

What's to argue over?

Maybe the fact that there are now TWO separate magazines maybe?

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

One has to wonder if Nousaine thinks that all people have one testicle and
one
ovary given the data.

Well, not everybody, just the 'average' person. I am sure the
ratio of testicles to ovaries for individuals in any given
population will resemble a bell shaped curve!!!





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe a écrit :
"Lionel" wrote in message
...

Sockpuppet Yustabe a écrit :


You are just too plain STUPID to recognize that the one year spike
in year 2000 should be considered an anomaly, rather than be considered
as your base reference point.


It could be true if the trend before this point was regressing or
stagnating.
It was increasing :-(...
So for statistic interpretation you should come for an other round.


The average for the three years 2001-2003 is approximately the same as for
the average of years 1994-1999


Yes but the average temperature was higher. ;-)

Sockpuppet Yustabe a écrit :

"Lionel" wrote in message
...

Sockpuppet Yustabe a écrit :


"Lionel" wrote in message
...


Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :



You are the *"smart-guy"* so it's not your role.
But you should note that I haven't any problem with homosexuals. ;-)


But of course he's the smart guy, and of course you have no problem
with homosexuals. You're French.......................

I don't remember that we have been introduce. ;-)



Too bad, Lionel, that you are not a sheep.


Too bad Yustabe that you are not a real wolf.



Too bad that you haven't been around here long enough to understand what I
said.


To bad that you think obliged to write something for your friends on a
message you address to me. :-(

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 18:36:46 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote:


"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :

You are the *"smart-guy"* so it's not your role.
But you should note that I haven't any problem with homosexuals. ;-)


But of course he's the smart guy, and of course you have no problem
with homosexuals. You're French.......................

I don't remember that we have been introduce. ;-)

Too bad, Lionel, that you are not a sheep.

Lessee now: miserable flocker who runs at the first sign of danger.
Sheep or Frenchman? It's so hard to tell......................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 14:12:10 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 19:56:50 +0000 (UTC), (Stewart
Pinkerton) wrote:

On an LP, of course there *is* no difference. Why would there be?

Because the velocity is constant, but the distance travelled per
revolution gets smaller and smaller the closer to the center?

So what? The rpm remains the same.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 14:10:38 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 19:56:49 +0000 (UTC), (Stewart
Pinkerton) wrote:

Well, anyone would explain it better than Gorge. Most of us would
simply refer to the inner grooves of the same 12" LP..............

How would *that* explain anything?

Oh, well, I guess some people never understand even the simplest of
explanations...
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton said:

Well, anyone would explain it better than Gorge. Most of us would
simply refer to the inner grooves of the same 12" LP..............

How would *that* explain anything?

Oh, well, I guess some people never understand even the simplest of
explanations...

Pukey, I can't believe you're envious of my little explanation. Would
you like to hide behind Arnii now?

Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 18:36:46 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote:


"Lionel" wrote in message
...

Stewart Pinkerton a écrit :


You are the *"smart-guy"* so it's not your role.
But you should note that I haven't any problem with homosexuals. ;-)


But of course he's the smart guy, and of course you have no problem
with homosexuals. You're French.......................

I don't remember that we have been introduce. ;-)


Too bad, Lionel, that you are not a sheep.


Lessee now: miserable flocker who runs at the first sign of danger.
Sheep or Frenchman? It's so hard to tell......................

--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering - Stupidity is
my business


Sir Pinkerton is also one of these "salon warriors" who vote for the war
that Mexican emmigrants will do for them.

http://www.ifrance.com/letunnel/Verdun/battle.html
I guess that 163,000 of them haven't running fast enough...

:-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-( :-(

"dave weil" wrote in message

On 06 Jan 2004 04:04:43 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

"Michael McKelvy" wrote:




"Arny Krueger" wrote in message


"Michael McKelvy" wrote

1994: 71,040
1995: 79,332
1996: 85,808
1997: 87,219
1998: 83,921
1999: 85,224
2000: 91,384
2001: 84,987
2002: 82,932
2003: 81,668

Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the
magazine's circulation is shrinking?

Looks clearly like the magazine was 'growing' for a few years and
has fallen back to the levels that Mr Atkinson has said were the
peak years of the audio industry in the mid-90s.

And it seems clear that subscription has been falling over the past
3 years.

What's to argue over?

Maybe the fact that there are now TWO separate magazines maybe?

There had been two separate magazines for years and years before the
fall-off.

"MINe 109" wrote in message


In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

None of it happened. Neither the LynxTWO web page, nor any of the
files associated with it have been altered since early last year.

Let's accept this for the sake of argument. How about Captain
Capacitor?

Who is he? There are two obvious candidates in this thread.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

But Mr Atkinson you did commit the offense of which you accused
Arny. You rummaged through your experimental data to search out bits
of data that seemed
to support your initial hypothesis. Even then your analysis was
unconvincing. Yet, you failed to mention that the overall experiment
was null and that there
was evidence of internal bias (reverse positives in the music-type
scores) when you claimed that your experiemnt showed that subjects
were able to identify capacitors by sound alone.

One has to wonder if Nousaine thinks that all people have one
testicle and one ovary given the data.

Note that both of our sockpuppets (wheel and yustabe) are making
autobiographical comments these days.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 14:10:38 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 19:56:49 +0000 (UTC),
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

Well, anyone would explain it better than Gorge. Most of us would
simply refer to the inner grooves of the same 12" LP..............

How would *that* explain anything?

Oh, well, I guess some people never understand even the simplest of
explanations...

Watching these jerks bobble the difference between CAV and CLV explains a
lot about their inability to understand other equally simple concepts, like
the need for level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled listening tests.

"dave weil" wrote in message


On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 19:56:50 +0000 (UTC), (Stewart
Pinkerton) correctly wrote:

On an LP, of course there *is* no difference. Why would there be?

Because the velocity is constant, but the distance traveled per
revolution gets smaller and smaller the closer to the center?

On an LP, the linear velocity isn't constant. The RPM is constant. That's
the leading reason why we say we play LP's at 33 1/3 RPM instead of say, 1
foot per second. That's one of two major reasons why there are unresolved
issues with audible distortion on the inner grooves, particularly at high
frequencies.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


You are amazingly clueless.

Really sockpuppet? I'm not the one who brags about having an old-tech,
low-tech audio system with thermonic noise and distortion enhancers combined
with an electromechical noise and distortion generator.

Try to figure out the difference between the past and the present.

That seems to be what I've done, and you've missed, sockpuppet

Try to understand the implications of data
showing sales that have gone up and down and up and down over the
years.

Something like a plane that takes off and then lands, eh?

Try to understand the difference between a projection of sales
based on trends and a declaration of the state of sales like the one
you made.

What's unclear about significantly dropping circulation every year since the
year 2000?

If you had half a brain you would get the fact that the
data does not show that subscriptions "are shrinking" as you said but
that they have shrunk over the past three years

Yup.

and only a little bit from 2002 to 2003.

About 2/3 as much as they did from 2001 to 2002. Not a tiny bit, just a
coincidental collection of digits that mislead your unpracticed eye,
sockpppet.


Given the history over the past ten years, data
you continue to ignore, one can conclude that the circulation could
very easily be increasing at this very time.

Given enough hand-waving one could conclude just about anythhing.

To draw any conclusion
one way or another based on all the data given is idiotic.

Typical of the sockpuppet's intolerance for contrary opinion.

It could easily be going either way.

It has been going down for the last three years straight.

DO YOU GET IT NOW?

What is it that you sell again, sockpuppet? Amway?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om
And of course, elsewhere in this thread, as has been pointed out by
others, [Arny Krueger] has been selectively choosing among the data
I provided just those figures that support his predetermined
conclusion. "Data dredging" this is called in scientific circles,
or "pulling a Ferstler," here on r.a.o.

Sue me for picking on data for the last 4 years.

No Mr. Krueger. When I sue you it won't be something as trivial as your
habit of arbitrarily picking data that fits your predetermined thesis. :-)

The entire data set is pretty clear - several years of increase,
followed by several years of decline.

I hardly think so. First you only select those data that you think support
your predetermined case. Then when you try to interpret the complete data
set, you _still_ get it wrong. Here again are Stereophile's circulation
data for the past 10 years, as quoted in the message that started this
thread ):

1994: 71,040
1995: 79,332
1996: 85,808
1997: 87,219
1998: 83,921
1999: 85,224
2000: 91,384
2001: 84,987
2002: 82,932
2003: 81,668

Do you see "several years of increase" followed by a "several years of
decline," Mr. Krueger? I don't. I do see 3 years' growth to a plateau,
with then a considerable amount of variation, followed by a small decline
2001-2003. To take the peak of 2000 as the base number for a supposed
10% decline, as you and now Tom Nousaine have done, is both misleading
and an example of "data dredging." And as I have repeatedly pointed out
to you, Mr. Krueger, the 2001-2003 decline doesn't support your original
comments (in message ) that you
thought "there is plenty of evidence that Stereophile's magazine sales
are shrinking at a rate that should and probably does greatly concern
[John] Atkinson" and that you'd "heard that Atkinson admits it privately."

Both these comments of yours are, not to put too fine a point on it, lies.
I am not bothered by the small decline and you have not heard from _anyone_
that I "admit privately" that I _am_ so bothered. This was merely a throwaway
remark of yours a) to make it look to newbies that you _did_ have some
evidence and b) to make it look as if you have high-level contacts in the
world of magazine publishing. You have neither, Mr. Krueger.

I guess how one interprets this depends on what one thinks is more
important - the more distant past or the more recent past.

As far as I'm concerned, I think it's all important, just not equally so.

Is what happens to a nice magazine's sales this millennium more
important than what happened last millennium?

Why are you defining time in millennia, Mr. Krueger? What's important
depends on the question being asked. A magazine's financial performance
is generally judged on a month-by-month basis, for example. With
advertising sales, year-to-year analysis is appropriate. And with
circulation, it's the long-term trend that matters, due to the presence
of _many_ variables. As I explained in a message a couple of days back,
Stereophile's circ _has_ declined slightly. But with the state of the
economy over the past 3 years, the massive competition for 2-channel
audio from other leisure interests, the sucking sound as flat-panel TVs
use up people's disposable income in the past 9 months, the lack of good
new music -- pace Marc Phillips -- competition from new media like the
Web, and the fact that Americans work longer hours now than they have
for generations, are all factors that a magazine like Stereophile has
to cope with. It would be surprising if Stereophile had _not_ been
affected. But it has not been affected to the point that the magazine
has failed to meet its ratebase or that I am "greatly concerned," as
you claimed you had evidence for.

And as I have also said, other magazines are also affected. Sound &
Vision has actually reduced its ratebase, for example. For you to try
to pick out one factor as the cause for Stereophile's small decline
in circulation, such as the rise of interest in home theater, is thus
also wrong. (A relevant datapoint is that, Sound & Vision and Home
Theater aside, Stereophile has around twice the circulation of _any_
of the other magazines devoted to home theater.)

In the wacky world of high end audio ragazines, we have an editor who
says that his circulation isn't decreasing, because after all, it was
increasing 5 years ago.

I have no idea to whom you are referring, Mr. Krueger. I haven't said
anything like this. Here is what I said about Stereophile's circulation
figures, in message :

Yes, Stereophile's circ has declined slightly.

And here's what I wrote in message


hardly a major drop, IMO.

How do the voices in your head interpret these as my saying what you
appear to have me saying, Mr. Krueger? Or are you now going to pretend
you were talking about the editor of _another_ high-end audio magazine?

And you have snipped or ignored the rest of my comments regarding the
growth of Web readers. When Stereophile launched its website in December
1997 it initially reached around 20,000 unique visitors per month, if I
remember correctly. The current figure is 200,000 unique visitors per
month. So if you want to look at Stereophile's "mindshare" (which is
what editors are also concerned with), the 10x growth in Web readership
1997-2004 has to be taken into account. Or are you now going to argue
that Web publishing is not important? It may not be to you, Mr. Krueger,
but it is to me. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
"MINe 109" wrote in message

Website AWOL, check;

Never happened for most of the web.
Only person reporting: JA.

So why then, Mr. Krueger, are you arguing with another poster in another
thread over the fact that they couldn't access the page?

I guess it must be hard for you to keep track of what you have said
to different people at different times. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 08:00:29 +0000 (UTC), (Stewart
Pinkerton) wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 14:12:10 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 19:56:50 +0000 (UTC), (Stewart
Pinkerton) wrote:

On an LP, of course there *is* no difference. Why would there be?

Because the velocity is constant, but the distance travelled per
revolution gets smaller and smaller the closer to the center?

So what? The rpm remains the same.

This is the sticking point for me, I guess. It's hard for me to see
why the rpm stays the same at all points of the disk.

It's just one of those mental blocks I guess. I see a constant speed
but a different distance travelled at diferent points of the disk.

shrug