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

"The Audio World Is Aroused"

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

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

"The Audio World Is Aroused"

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

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

In article , wrote:

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

"The Audio World Is Aroused"

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

Try the Audio Asylum Critic's Corner.

Stephen

See www.audioasylum.com for his responses.

Kal

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

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

"The Audio World Is Aroused"

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

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

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

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

"The Audio World Is Aroused"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh well...

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message ...

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

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

"Used intelligently and in the right places, the SHAKTI offers
a worthwhile and cost effective boost in sound quality."
- Stereophile, February 1996, Vol. 19 No. 2

"From the midrange on up, everything sounded cleaner, that
cool-breeze-after-a-hard-rain kind of cleaner.
....
I repeated the experiment with "Revolution" and "Someday Soon"
(and with plenty of other music since) and found that the effect
was repeatable and verifiable."
- Stereophile, April 1996, Vol. 19 No 4

So, the effect is said to be repeatable and verifiable, but no
one has time to collect a million dollars. It happens.

Lasse Ukkonen

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

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message ...

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

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

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

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

Kal

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh well...

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Yes, and it is because Mr. Atkinson can say he as a individual has not
endorsed them that he can now do his completely rhetorical defense not to
participate in a test. While he did not endorse them, neither did he damn
them and say that they represent a great many tweeks which have no effect;
many of which buy advertising space in his mag.


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

"Used intelligently and in the right places, the SHAKTI offers
a worthwhile and cost effective boost in sound quality."
- Stereophile, February 1996, Vol. 19 No. 2

"From the midrange on up, everything sounded cleaner, that
cool-breeze-after-a-hard-rain kind of cleaner.
...
I repeated the experiment with "Revolution" and "Someday Soon"
(and with plenty of other music since) and found that the effect
was repeatable and verifiable."
- Stereophile, April 1996, Vol. 19 No 4

So, the effect is said to be repeatable and verifiable, but no
one has time to collect a million dollars. It happens.

Lasse Ukkonen

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


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

Yes, and it is this very narrow rhetorical device by which Mr. Atkinson
speaks as though being above the question. He did not claim ability to
hear the "stones", but others in the mag did which puts Randi directly on
the money to include Stereophile in the same box as other
marketing/publishing folk. The real issue is the subjective claims to
have the exact same ability said to make possible the claim to hear or not
heart these or any other tweek, of which is common food for "audition" in
almost every issue. To evoke "opinion" does not provide salvation, the
mag is in the same identified box as the others for what is it's standard
practice and by which "stones" are created and propagated; but they and a
universe of same not yet demonstrated.



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

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

Kal

On 28 Nov 2004 23:47:47 GMT, wrote:

Yes, and it is this very narrow rhetorical device by which Mr. Atkinson
speaks as though being above the question. He did not claim ability to
hear the "stones", but others in the mag did which puts Randi directly on
the money to include Stereophile in the same box as other
marketing/publishing folk.

Then Randi should challenge with more care and point. Of course, his
demonstrated inability to discern who said exactly what makes that
unlikely.

Kal

wrote in message ...
John Atkinson wrote:
I have also pointed out to Randi that, contrary to the assertions he
has made on his website at various times, I have not written about the
Shakti Stones, nor have I recommended the Tice Clock.

But all of this avoids the core question and dwells on the rhetorical.
The "stones" as an example is not relevant, the whole subjective
enterprise is, of which they are but one expression.

No, the challenge posed by the Amazing Randi is not rhetorical but quite
specific in naming the Shakti Stones and the reviewers who have
recommended these accessories, among whom Randi incorrectly names Art
Dudley and myself. I repeat: neither of us has auditioned the Shakti
Stones, so it hardly seems appropriate for anyone to insist that Art
and myself respond to the Challenge? Randi might as well choose _you_ to
defend the Shakti devices, surely.

Pick wire, pick stands, pick vibration control tweeks, pick speaker
spikes, pick any number of things in the audio biz cosmos about which
endless "auditions" and reviews are the stuff of each issue.

Why do I have to pick _anything_? And please note that as I proved to
Tom Nousaine a few months back on the newsgroups, reviews of cables and
accessories are a relatively small part of Stereophile's content. Also
please note that in the laundry list of "tweaks" you quoted are some
that _have_ proved possible for listeners to discern in blind tests. That
you or James Randi don't believe so is irrelevant.

And until James Randi removes the misleading comments on his website
about things I am supposed to have said but in actual fact didn't -- a
fundamental matter of journalistic honesty that, regardless of what you
think about me or about Stereophile, appears to be lacking in James
Randi -- I shall continue to regard the man as an attention-seeking
sensationalist no better than the most outrageous of the putative scam
artists he claims to debunk.

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

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

wrote in message ...
Lasse Ukkonen wrote:
here in Europe editor of a magazine is responsible for everything that
is written in the magazine. In my opinion it is therefore quite natural
to address Mr. Atkinson about the questionable content.

Yes, and it is because Mr. Atkinson can say he as a individual has not
endorsed them that he can now do his completely rhetorical defense not
to participate in a test.

I am not saying that my refusal to take part in the Amazing Randi's shell
game is due to my lack of endorsement, it is because I have never
auditioned the Shakti devices. I have persoanlly not made the claims for
them that Randi implicates me as making.

While he did not endorse them, neither did he damn them and say that
they represent a great many tweeks which have no effect...

I have no idea what effect they have nor if they have any effect at all,
so how on earth can I be expected to express an opinion either way? All
I am aware is that two of my reviewers did express positive opinions of
the devices in Stereophile 8 years ago.

many of which buy advertising space in his mag.

Email me your street address and I will send you a quarter to buy a clue.
As far as I am aware, Shakti has never advertised in Stereophile, or if
they have it was to such a small extent that I missed it. And talking
about advertising, after I auditioned the Tice Clock 1991, far from
endorsing it, as Randi has claimed for some time on his website, I
_didn't_ recommend it, with the result that Tice cancelled their
advertising and spent the money instead in Audio and The Absolute Sound.
Yet the Amazing Randi doesn't think the truth material to his claims,
and told me when I requested him, not unreasonably, to remove the
misleading comments from his website, "Oh, grow up. If you can..."

That you are taken in by this man's posturing is truly sad.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"No, the challenge posed by the Amazing Randi is not rhetorical but quite
specific in naming the Shakti Stones and the reviewers who have
recommended these accessories, among whom Randi incorrectly names Art"

Then if he picks some other tweek clearly supported in your mag, will you
then accept the test?

"please note that in the laundry list of "tweaks" you quoted are some
that _have_ proved possible for listeners to discern in blind tests. That
you or James Randi don't believe so is irrelevant."

I don't know to what you refer, please do provide an example.

"And until James Randi removes the misleading comments on his website
about things I am supposed to have said but in actual fact didn't -- a
fundamental matter of journalistic honesty that, regardless of what
youthink about me or about Stereophile, appears to be lacking in James
Randi -- I shall continue to regard the man as an attention-seeking
sensationalist no better than the most outrageous of the putative scam
artists he claims to debunk."

Now we are back to the rhetorical, from which point we began. It is clear
you will not participate in a test of audio tweeks regardless of whom
wrote about them for whatever reason; the entire edifice of the subjective
enterprise is too much to lose. His attention geting etc. is an
intresting spin on the topic, as the entire marketing/publishing arena is
about getting attention and of buffing the image of those holding yet
unsupported claims to abilities to discern things audio in audibility.
Until those kind of tests are done then we are well founded to see such
claims equal in nature as those made claiming esp.

"Lasse" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

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

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

"Used intelligently and in the right places, the SHAKTI offers
a worthwhile and cost effective boost in sound quality."
- Stereophile, February 1996, Vol. 19 No. 2

"From the midrange on up, everything sounded cleaner, that
cool-breeze-after-a-hard-rain kind of cleaner.
...
I repeated the experiment with "Revolution" and "Someday Soon"
(and with plenty of other music since) and found that the effect
was repeatable and verifiable."
- Stereophile, April 1996, Vol. 19 No 4

So, the effect is said to be repeatable and verifiable, but no
one has time to collect a million dollars. It happens.

Lasse Ukkonen


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

In article ,
(Lasse) wrote:

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

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

"Used intelligently and in the right places, the SHAKTI offers
a worthwhile and cost effective boost in sound quality."
- Stereophile, February 1996, Vol. 19 No. 2

"From the midrange on up, everything sounded cleaner, that
cool-breeze-after-a-hard-rain kind of cleaner.
...
I repeated the experiment with "Revolution" and "Someday Soon"
(and with plenty of other music since) and found that the effect
was repeatable and verifiable."
- Stereophile, April 1996, Vol. 19 No 4

So, the effect is said to be repeatable and verifiable, but no
one has time to collect a million dollars. It happens.

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

On 29 Nov 2004 04:12:34 GMT, (John
Atkinson) wrote:

I have no idea what effect they have nor if they have any effect at all,
so how on earth can I be expected to express an opinion either way? All
I am aware is that two of my reviewers did express positive opinions of
the devices in Stereophile 8 years ago.

That you are taken in by this man's posturing is truly sad.

We are improving, as we are not taken in by your posturing, nor by
your dodging of the issue. Do *you* believe that Shakti stones have
any audible effect? Indeed, would you care to name *any* such tweak,
for example 'audiophile cables', behind which you *would* be prepared
to stand?

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

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

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

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

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

Kal

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

wrote:
Yes, and it is because Mr. Atkinson can say he as a individual has not
endorsed them that he can now do his completely rhetorical defense not to
participate in a test. While he did not endorse them, neither did he damn
them and say that they represent a great many tweeks which have no effect;
many of which buy advertising space in his mag.


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

"Used intelligently and in the right places, the SHAKTI offers
a worthwhile and cost effective boost in sound quality."
- Stereophile, February 1996, Vol. 19 No. 2

"From the midrange on up, everything sounded cleaner, that
cool-breeze-after-a-hard-rain kind of cleaner.
...
I repeated the experiment with "Revolution" and "Someday Soon"
(and with plenty of other music since) and found that the effect
was repeatable and verifiable."
- Stereophile, April 1996, Vol. 19 No 4

So, the effect is said to be repeatable and verifiable, but no
one has time to collect a million dollars. It happens.

Lasse Ukkonen

Yes, Mt Atkinson does endorse these Opinions Stated As Facts and then dance
away claiming that he personally never said they were true.

Yet the myths appear in the Recommended Components List and in John Atkinson's
"As We See It" as "We HIGHLY Recommend ALL components listed in "Recommended
Components".

But he will rapidly hide behind the argument that he "personally" never said
this or that side-steping the issue even while the magazine he personally edits
is happy promoting mythology.

In my opinion, standing aside (and even engaging in promotion through positive
reviews and advertising) while others promote high margin products that supply
no sonic improvement (and even claiming naive innocence) is ethically
indefensible.

wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh well...

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


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

The below is the rhetorical dance. Repeat, the core issue is the
subjective enterprise based on untested claims to have abilities to detect
the audibility of difference in audio gear without constraint. This is a
prime mover in Stereophile, almost each "audition" being based on the
assumed ability not yet demonstrated. What in Randi's behavior or what he
has said to whom about what when is irrelevant to this core issue. Those
things to which you take exception, are equallyy irrelevant to this
question. Let us remove Randi and the rhetoric from the picture, will you
participate in a test of wire to be done by folk not associated with him?


"I am not saying that my refusal to take part in the Amazing Randi's shell
game is due to my lack of endorsement, it is because I have never
auditioned the Shakti devices. I have persoanlly not made the claims for
them that Randi implicates me as making.I have no idea what effect they
have nor if they have any effect at all,"

snip

"so how on earth can I be expected to express an opinion either way? All
I am aware is that two of my reviewers did express positive opinions of
the devices in Stereophile 8 years ago."

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

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

wrote in message
...
Yes, and it is because Mr. Atkinson can say he as a individual has
not
endorsed them that he can now do his completely rhetorical defense
not to
participate in a test. While he did not endorse them, neither did
he damn
them and say that they represent a great many tweeks which have no
effect;
many of which buy advertising space in his mag.

We saw lots of this before the recent election. Political ads that
are approved, but not written, by candidates. I assume--and I expect
the readers assume--that what's said in the editorial space of a
magazine meets with the approval of the editor. It's true that the
editor doesn't have to agree with the point of view of his
contributors, but he is responsible for what is presented on its
pages.

Norm Strong

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

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

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

Kal

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

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

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

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

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

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh well...

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile







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

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

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

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

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

(Nousaine) wrote in message
...
I have also pointed out to Randi that, contrary to the assertions he
has made on his website at various times, I have not written about
the Shakti Stones, nor have I recommended the Tice Clock. His
e-mailed response consisted of "It's hard to sort out the nuts..."
followed by "Oh, grow up. If you can..."

Actually Mr Atkinson may not have personally written about the Tice
Clock nor the Stones but it seems that both were recommended in the
magazine he edits...

I really wish you, like James Randi, would take the care to get your
facts correct, Mr. Nousaine. No I have not written about the Shakti
Stones, not have I personally recommended them, though 2 of my reviewers,
Jonathan Scull and Barry Willis did do so, back in 1996. But yes, I
have written about Tice Ckock and did not recommend it, an act which
resulted in Tice cancelling all their advertising in Stereophile and
moving it TAS and that then-bastion of objectivity, Audio magazine.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Perhaps what he needs
to
do is like those infomercials about which tv/radio say at the beginning,
"this program should not be seen as an endorsement ...", and has no
reality beyond the testament of the writer and has no external
confirmation.

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

Which begs the core question and turns it on it's head, are the abilities
assumed for the reviewers to have, a product of perception process in the
brain alone or does it have reality in the signal as it enters the ear.
In some things both are no doubt the answer, while in "stones" etc. most
likely a brain product alone. The middle ground is assumed uncritically
to be an analog of the real world in the subjective enterprise, and as you
note, must be by definition a product of a series of testimonial
based experiences with no benchmark in reality.

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

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

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

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

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


-=Bill Eckle=-

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

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message ...

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

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

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

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

bob

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

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

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

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

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

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

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

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

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

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

If I actually thought I could tell when Shakti stones were in use (as
opposed to rocks out of the garden) I'd be on the phone immediately,
making arrangements to be tested. The exact conditions of the test
would be known, and any waffling would be advertised. If it turned
out that Randi's challenge was bogus, that fact would be documented
thoroughly.

$1,000,000 is a lot of money to me. I'd certainly be willing to go to
some effort to retrieve the prize. Of course, if I really didn't
think I could pass a blind test, I'd be doing and saying the same
things Atkinson and his writers are saying!

Norm Strong

Kalman Rubinson wrote:



On 28 Nov 2004 23:47:47 GMT, wrote:

Yes, and it is this very narrow rhetorical device by which Mr. Atkinson
speaks as though being above the question. He did not claim ability to
hear the "stones", but others in the mag did which puts Randi directly on
the money to include Stereophile in the same box as other
marketing/publishing folk.

Then Randi should challenge with more care and point. Of course, his
demonstrated inability to discern who said exactly what makes that
unlikely.

Kal

I agree with the original poster. If Mr Atkinson did not specifically distance
himself from questionable statements made in the publication he edits at the
time of publication it is then unfair to distance himself from them later.

Further I think this discussion is useful for potential readers in that it is
clear that the magazine is simply a set of often unsubstantiated opinions when
challenged the editors will use the "I didn't personally say that" defense.

In the October issue the pull quote for the As We See It definitively says "We
Highly recommend All components listed in "Recommended Components."" which must
mean even those components such as cones and isolation devices which are said
to produce "greater perceived detail and "faster" Bass." Or that produce sound
that "just tightens up, cleans up, clears up. I hear more low level
information. Imaging improves. Timing too. Transients are crisper. I hear
improvements in just about every respect."

And interconnects that "Gave me the color, air, transparency and liveliness I
so enjoy while banishing any and all mechanical/electronic effects,"

None of these few quotes sounds anything like there is any doubt at all about
any of these dubious claims which have never been publically documented in any
replicable experiment. But there is no mention in As We See It that there's the
slightest doubt that these effects WERE NOT verifiable or HAD NOT been
personally accepted by the Editor of the RCL and the magazine. No disclaimers.

So IMO it seems entirely likely that the Editor can be considered to have
personal responsibility for any of the the outrageous claims that he published
unless he makes a specific disclaimer at the time of original publication.