| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Randi/Atkinson addendum
In a recent post I speculated about the web source of quotations Randi had
from Mr. Atkinson, here is the source, you may have to drill down a bit to find the specific posts: http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/cr...ages/4266.html And in response to randi's most recent commentary Mr. Atkinson replies: http://db.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/bbs.html It is intresting in both examples Mr. Atkinson avoids the audio question completely and dwells on keeping himself "above it all" on grounds of getting all the rhetorical ducks in a row. Which of course avoids the entire question of the audibility of "tweeky" items, which one might predict will be the course taken as the consequences are far more then a mere 1,000,000 dollars. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
B&D wrote:
On 11/27/04 10:47 PM, in article , " wrote: In a recent post I speculated about the web source of quotations Randi had from Mr. Atkinson, here is the source, you may have to drill down a bit to find the specific posts: http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/cr...ages/4266.html And in response to randi's most recent commentary Mr. Atkinson replies: http://db.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/bbs.html It is intresting in both examples Mr. Atkinson avoids the audio question completely and dwells on keeping himself "above it all" on grounds of getting all the rhetorical ducks in a row. Which of course avoids the entire question of the audibility of "tweeky" items, which one might predict will be the course taken as the consequences are far more then a mere 1,000,000 dollars. Attacking the editor of a magazine is rather misplaced, I think. And when under attack - Randi and his goons don't come around for a nice cup of tea - is likely to get everyone very concerned about the exact words used, and give as little infomration to them as possible because it can and will be used against you if there is a mistype or misstep of some kind. It is a shame. The only real shame is that audiophile culture adopts scientific jargon when it suits it, but avoids, and even militates against, established scientific *methods* of reality-testing claims of audible difference. That's called *pseudoscience* in case you didn't know. Stereophile is an example of a practitioner of same. Measuring differences, yes: double blind testing of audibility of differences, no. -- -S Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Attacking the editor of a magazine is rather misplaced, I think. And
when under attack - Randi and his goons don't come around for a nice cup of tea - is likely to get everyone very concerned about the exact words used, and give as little infomration to them as possible because it can and will be used against you if there is a mistype or misstep of some kind. It is a shame." The words are an excuse. The test, and it will never be done, is in the main designed by the person claiming some ability, in this case ability to hear tweeks. In fact, Randi is completely out of the loop in a real test for the money, third parties of mutual agreement are in control. Stereophile can silence all skeptics, win a million dollars, and have a marketing boon that no amount of money can buy by simply demonstrating the ability of those who do "auditions" in every issue and on which rests the basis for which the mag is said to exist,ie. to provide a source of the application of such ability to the benefit of the reader. Such ability should be easy to establish. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
"It seems to me that there is more than one agenda at work here - self
aggrandizement it seems to me!" The answer is to ask who has the most to lose, Randi a million bucks or Stereophile the entire subjective enterprise as valid. To make either work requires tooting one's horn of validity. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Nousaine" wrote in message
... wrote: "Attacking the editor of a magazine is rather misplaced, I think. And when under attack - Randi and his goons don't come around for a nice cup of tea - is likely to get everyone very concerned about the exact words used, and give as little infomration to them as possible because it can and will be used against you if there is a mistype or misstep of some kind. It is a shame." The words are an excuse. The test, and it will never be done, is in the main designed by the person claiming some ability, in this case ability to hear tweeks. In fact, Randi is completely out of the loop in a real test for the money, third parties of mutual agreement are in control. Stereophile can silence all skeptics, win a million dollars, and have a marketing boon that no amount of money can buy by simply demonstrating the ability of those who do "auditions" in every issue and on which rests the basis for which the mag is said to exist,ie. to provide a source of the application of such ability to the benefit of the reader. Such ability should be easy to establish. You are exactly right. High-End magazine editors and contributors endorse and help maintain audio mythology but none of them has ever submitted a replicable experiment that shows they can actually "hear" the urban legends they claim are present. There is always some reason why they just can't do it "today' or that witnesses provide "pressure" and they always have a 'reason' why the extant evidence doesn't count. Yet they cannot produce a replicable experiment or bias-controlled public display that shows they are right. John Atkinson is the high-end myth Champion. That is your OPINION. But it is a FACT that you are trying to compete in his chosen line of business. So everything you say about Mr. Atkinson and his business is influenced by that. And anyone who reads your stuff needs to be keenly aware of it. I think you have been less than forward about that little FACT all along. Margaret |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: Steven Sullivan =20
Date: 11/28/2004 10:49 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: B&D wrote: On 11/27/04 10:47 PM, in article , " wrote: In a recent post I speculated about the web source of quotations Ran= di had from Mr. Atkinson, here is the source, you may have to drill down a = bit to find the specific posts: =20 http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/cr...ages/4266.html =20 And in response to randi's most recent commentary Mr. Atkinson repli= es: =20 http://db.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/bbs.html =20 It is intresting in both examples Mr. Atkinson avoids the audio ques= tion completely and dwells on keeping himself "above it all" on grounds o= f getting all the rhetorical ducks in a row. Which of course avoids t= he entire question of the audibility of "tweeky" items, which one might predict will be the course taken as the consequences are far more th= en a mere 1,000,000 dollars. Attacking the editor of a magazine is rather misplaced, I think. And = when under attack - Randi and his goons don't come around for a nice cup of= tea - is likely to get everyone very concerned about the exact words used, a= nd give as little infomration to them as possible because it can and will= be used against you if there is a mistype or misstep of some kind. It is a shame. The only real shame is that audiophile culture adopts scientific jargon = when it suits it, but avoids, and even militates against, =20 established scientific *methods* of reality-testing claims of audible difference. That's called *pseudoscience* in case you didn't know. No it's not. Main Entry: pseu=B7do=B7sci=B7ence Pronunciation: "s=FC-dO-'sI-&n(t)s Function: noun Date: 1844 : a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific=20 - pseu=B7do=B7sci=B7en=B7tif=B7ic /-"sI-&n-'ti-fik/ adjective - pseu=B7do=B7sci=B7en=B7tist /-'sI-&n-tist/ noun When the writers of Stereophile claim that their reviews and opinions are *scientific* then you can call it psuedoscience. You may as well call foo= d critics psuedoscientists. Stereophile is an example of a practitioner of same.=20 No they are not. Measuring differences, yes: double=20 blind testing of audibility of differences, no. That hardly makes the publication psuedoscientific. Not every opinion in = this world is or has to be supported by blind testing. They make no bones abou= t their procedures. They do not pretend to be scientific in their subjectiv= e reviews. If you are worried about biases affecting the reviews then take = that into consideration when reading those reviews. But jeez, do you think abo= ut this when speakers get reviewed? Can you cite any bias controlled listeni= ng evaluations of any speakers in any audio journal? This is the one compone= nt everybody agrees matters isn't it? |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt wrote:
"Nousaine" wrote in message ... wrote: "Attacking the editor of a magazine is rather misplaced, I think. And when under attack - Randi and his goons don't come around for a nice cup of tea - is likely to get everyone very concerned about the exact words used, and give as little infomration to them as possible because it can and will be used against you if there is a mistype or misstep of some kind. It is a shame." The words are an excuse. The test, and it will never be done, is in the main designed by the person claiming some ability, in this case ability to hear tweeks. In fact, Randi is completely out of the loop in a real test for the money, third parties of mutual agreement are in control. Stereophile can silence all skeptics, win a million dollars, and have a marketing boon that no amount of money can buy by simply demonstrating the ability of those who do "auditions" in every issue and on which rests the basis for which the mag is said to exist,ie. to provide a source of the application of such ability to the benefit of the reader. Such ability should be easy to establish. You are exactly right. High-End magazine editors and contributors endorse and help maintain audio mythology but none of them has ever submitted a replicable experiment that shows they can actually "hear" the urban legends they claim are present. There is always some reason why they just can't do it "today' or that witnesses provide "pressure" and they always have a 'reason' why the extant evidence doesn't count. Yet they cannot produce a replicable experiment or bias-controlled public display that shows they are right. John Atkinson is the high-end myth Champion. That is your OPINION. But it is a FACT that you are trying to compete in his chosen line of business. So everything you say about Mr. Atkinson and his business is influenced by that. And anyone who reads your stuff needs to be keenly aware of it. I think you have been less than forward about that little FACT all along. Margaret I'm pretty sure most posters here know that Tom Nousaine is an audio journalist. AFAIK that's his real name, btw -- is yours really 'Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt'? 'Cos if not, by the same logic that dismisses James Randi's arguments based on him using a stage name, one should dismiss yours too. -- -S Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
That is your OPINION. But it is a FACT that you are trying to compete in his chosen line of business. So everything you say about Mr. Atkinson and his business is influenced by that. And anyone who reads your stuff needs to be keenly aware of it. I think you have been less than forward about that little FACT all along. Margaret I have found one difference between Mr Nousainne's magazine and Mr. Atkinson's. Stereophile, in my not so humble opinion, is all for perpetuating an industry. They seem to me to have both the manufacturers and bricks and mortar dealers interests at heart. Mr. Noussaine's magazine, The Sensible Sound, is geared more towards me being able to get the best quality of sound in my home for my money. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt" wrote: You are exactly right. High-End magazine editors and contributors endorse and help maintain audio mythology but none of them has ever submitted a replicable experiment that shows they can actually "hear" the urban legends they claim are present. There is always some reason why they just can't do it "today' or that witnesses provide "pressure" and they always have a 'reason' why the extant evidence doesn't count. Yet they cannot produce a replicable experiment or bias-controlled public display that shows they are right. John Atkinson is the high-end myth Champion. That is your OPINION. But it is a FACT that you are trying to compete in his chosen line of business. So everything you say about Mr. Atkinson and his business is influenced by that. And anyone who reads your stuff needs to be keenly aware of it. I think you have been less than forward about that little FACT all along. Hilarious. Yeah it's a big secret that Nousaine is an audio journalist with views at odds with Atkinson's. zzzzzzzzzzzz.......... |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 12/1/04 7:55 PM, in article , "Billy Shears"
wrote: In article , (S888Wheel) wrote: They do not pretend to be scientific in their subjective reviews. No, but they are pretending nevertheless. I do not understand what you are saying - what are they pretending? To be scientific? They generally don't - so I am not sure what the point is? |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , B&D
wrote: On 12/1/04 7:55 PM, in article , "Billy Shears" wrote: In article , (S888Wheel) wrote: They do not pretend to be scientific in their subjective reviews. No, but they are pretending nevertheless. I do not understand what you are saying - what are they pretending? To be scientific? They generally don't - so I am not sure what the point is? Well take a look at http://www.stereophile.com/accessory...s/1004siltech/, which was mentioned by outsor earlier. Some spectacular claims and some spectacular money on the line - on a type of component that is, to say the least, controversial. Let's assume the reviewer has made no attempt to scientifically validate whether even an audible difference between this $4000/2m pair speaker cable (or other high-end speaker cable in this stratospheric price range) and ordinary lampcord exists. Then I would say the reviewer is pretending when he writes that these cables are "open, extended, and smooth ... The midrange was voluptuous and rounded, with superior detail retrieval. The Siltechs' top end was beautifully extended (after some break-in), and they had a particularly engaging holographic quality." |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Billy Shears" wrote in message
... In article , (S888Wheel) wrote: They do not pretend to be scientific in their subjective reviews. No, but they are pretending nevertheless. If you are worried about biases affecting the reviews then take that into consideration when reading those reviews. But jeez, do you think about this when speakers get reviewed? Can you cite any bias controlled listening evaluations of any speakers in any audio journal? This is the one component everybody agrees matters isn't it? Speakers are an area where there is no disagreement that audible differences exist. So if a reviewer says "more air" and "breathtaking midrange" about a speaker, it's at least plausible. Although if that same reviewer has exclaimed breathlessly on speaker cables, what should we think about his speaker reviews? I really wonder if you folks actually read the publications you criticize. It has been a long, long time since I have read in Stereophile or TAS a review that was "breathless" over speaker cables or anything else, for that matter. Usually the reviewer does his best to describe the differences he does hear in context, and words like "subtle" or "only upon repeat listening" or "only on direct comparison" are used. In the latest two-part survey of interconnects that TAS ran (I believe it was TAS, if not my apologies Mr. Atkinson) the authors talked about how difficult it was to discern differences, mentioned that a great many of the cables could not be differentiated, and discussed the differences of those that they felt could be as subtle. They described the fatigue and strain of trying to determine the differences. This is hardly "exclaiming breathlessly". My feeling is that a lot of strawmen are being burned here by people with preconceived notions of subjective reviewing from the very early days of Stereophile and TAS when the "subjective review" magazines were in their infancy. If I am right, the critics are hardly being objective or scientific. And to the degree that the critics simply disagree with the right of a magazine to feature subjective reviews, show me one that doesn't rely on same, including Mr. Nousaine's "Sound and Vision" (not even done well) and "Sensible Sound". The fact that you think everything these days short of speakers and cartridges pretty much sounds the same and should not be reviewed, reviewed only on features, or reviewed only via blind comparison testing is your personal bias....it is a view that flies in the face of the ordinary experience of the ordinary audiophile and is a minority position. The mainstream audio review magazines are crafted to serve the interests and needs of the audiophile community and they succeed on that basis quite nicely, judging by their current circulations. It is a hobby, after all, and these magazines do not need to duplicate the Journal of the AES. |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote: "Billy Shears" wrote in message ... In article , (S888Wheel) wrote: They do not pretend to be scientific in their subjective reviews. No, but they are pretending nevertheless. If you are worried about biases affecting the reviews then take that into consideration when reading those reviews. But jeez, do you think about this when speakers get reviewed? Can you cite any bias controlled listening evaluations of any speakers in any audio journal? This is the one component everybody agrees matters isn't it? Speakers are an area where there is no disagreement that audible differences exist. So if a reviewer says "more air" and "breathtaking midrange" about a speaker, it's at least plausible. Although if that same reviewer has exclaimed breathlessly on speaker cables, what should we think about his speaker reviews? I really wonder if you folks actually read the publications you criticize. It has been a long, long time since I have read in Stereophile or TAS a review that was "breathless" over speaker cables or anything else, for that matter. Usually the reviewer does his best to describe the differences he does hear in context, and words like "subtle" or "only upon repeat listening" or "only on direct comparison" are used. In the latest two-part survey of interconnects that TAS ran (I believe it was TAS, if not my apologies Mr. Atkinson) the authors talked about how difficult it was to discern differences, mentioned that a great many of the cables could not be differentiated, and discussed the differences of those that they felt could be as subtle. They described the fatigue and strain of trying to determine the differences. This is hardly "exclaiming breathlessly". Read the Stereophile review of the Siltech G5 Classic speaker cable at http://www.stereophile.com/accessory...s/1004siltech/. This is from Oct. 2004. There you'll read "open, extended, and smooth ... The midrange was voluptuous and rounded, with superior detail retrieval. The Siltechs' top end was beautifully extended (after some break-in), and they had a particularly engaging holographic quality." |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ...
"It seems to me that there is more than one agenda at work here - self aggrandizement it seems to me!" The answer is to ask who has the most to lose, Randi a million bucks or Stereophile the entire subjective enterprise as valid. To make either work requires tooting one's horn of validity. Randi won't lose a million bucks for 2, possibly 3 reasons. The money is in escrow and he can't touch it. He can't lose the challenges he's made because the things he's talking about make no difference that anyone can hear. Probably nobody that he's challenged will take him up on the comparisons. You can speculate on the reasons why. |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... "Billy Shears" wrote in message ... In article , (S888Wheel) wrote: They do not pretend to be scientific in their subjective reviews. No, but they are pretending nevertheless. If you are worried about biases affecting the reviews then take that into consideration when reading those reviews. But jeez, do you think about this when speakers get reviewed? Can you cite any bias controlled listening evaluations of any speakers in any audio journal? This is the one component everybody agrees matters isn't it? Speakers are an area where there is no disagreement that audible differences exist. So if a reviewer says "more air" and "breathtaking midrange" about a speaker, it's at least plausible. Although if that same reviewer has exclaimed breathlessly on speaker cables, what should we think about his speaker reviews? I really wonder if you folks actually read the publications you criticize. It has been a long, long time since I have read in Stereophile or TAS a review that was "breathless" over speaker cables or anything else, for that matter. One would guess that the reason they don't is because they have been hammered hard about such nonsense. Usually the reviewer does his best to describe the differences he does hear in context, and words like "subtle" or "only upon repeat listening" or "only on direct comparison" are used. In the latest two-part survey of interconnects that TAS ran (I believe it was TAS, if not my apologies Mr. Atkinson) the authors talked about how difficult it was to discern differences, mentioned that a great many of the cables could not be differentiated, and discussed the differences of those that they felt could be as subtle. ONe would suspect that the reason is because they have been hammered hard about such nonsense. They described the fatigue and strain of trying to determine the differences. This is hardly "exclaiming breathlessly". My feeling is that a lot of strawmen are being burned here by people with preconceived notions of subjective reviewing from the very early days of Stereophile and TAS when the "subjective review" magazines were in their infancy. If I am right, the critics are hardly being objective or scientific. And to the degree that the critics simply disagree with the right of a magazine to feature subjective reviews, Nobody I know of says they don't have the right to publish those kind of reviews, they simply disagree over their usefullness. show me one that doesn't rely on same, including Mr. Nousaine's "Sound and Vision" (not even done well) and "Sensible Sound". The fact that you think everything these days short of speakers and cartridges pretty much sounds the same and should not be reviewed, reviewed only on features, or reviewed only via blind comparison testing is your personal bias... It is however a bias built on a foundation of reason. Subjective comparisons without the ability to compare to a level matched, bias controlled entity have been demonstrated to be unreliable and discerning differences other than very gross ones. ..it is a view that flies in the face of the ordinary experience of the ordinary audiophile and is a minority position. Which is pretty sad. Why wouldn't an audiophile want the most reliable comparisons made? The mainstream audio review magazines are crafted to serve the interests and needs of the audiophile community and they succeed on that basis quite nicely, judging by their current circulations. My suspiscion is, that most readers know enough about what they are reading to discern the meat from the b.s. It is a hobby, after all, and these magazines do not need to duplicate the Journal of the AES. They only need to serve their readership, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't offer the most reliable information they possibly can. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Craig Ellsworth" wrote in message
... That is your OPINION. But it is a FACT that you are trying to compete in his chosen line of business. So everything you say about Mr. Atkinson and his business is influenced by that. And anyone who reads your stuff needs to be keenly aware of it. I think you have been less than forward about that little FACT all along. Margaret I have found one difference between Mr Nousainne's magazine and Mr. Atkinson's. Stereophile, in my not so humble opinion, is all for perpetuating an industry. They seem to me to have both the manufacturers and bricks and mortar dealers interests at heart. Mr. Noussaine's magazine, The Sensible Sound, is geared more towards me being able to get the best quality of sound in my home for my money. Speaking for myself, I want an advocate for my wallet and my pleasure that I derive from high quality audio. If something that costs $10,000.00 doesn't sound different than something that costs $1000.00, I most definitely want to know that. I want it to be determined in the most reliable way possible. If I choose the more expensive device for other reasons than sound quality, that's up to me. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 3 Dec 2004 00:55:41 GMT, Billy Shears wrote:
Well take a look at http://www.stereophile.com/accessory...s/1004siltech/, which was mentioned by outsor earlier. Some spectacular claims and some spectacular money on the line - on a type of component that is, to say the least, controversial. Let's assume the reviewer has made no attempt to scientifically validate whether even an audible difference between this $4000/2m pair speaker cable (or other high-end speaker cable in this stratospheric price range) and ordinary lampcord exists. Then I would say the reviewer is pretending when he writes that these cables are "open, extended, and smooth ... The midrange was voluptuous and rounded, with superior detail retrieval. The Siltechs' top end was beautifully extended (after some break-in), and they had a particularly engaging holographic quality." Was footnote 1 there when you looked before? Quoting the page: ''Siltech's website makes much of their "zero crossing recognition theory" and how their cables are engineered to implement it: "Signal conductance requires a minimum amount of energy expenditure. The distortion this expenditure causes is small but in fact occurs a few thousand times per second, deteriorating the authenticity of the musical signal. Siltech has succeeded in reducing this micro-level distortion by a ten-fold minimum." (footnote 1)'' again quoting the page: ''Footnote 1: It is fair to point out that if this effect exists, the distortion it introduces in conventional cables is below the resolution of my test equipment to measure.--John Atkinson'' -alan -- Alan Hoyle - - http://www.alanhoyle.com/ "I don't want the world, I just want your half." -TMBG Get Horizontal, Play Ultimate. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Billy Shears" wrote in message
... In article , "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Billy Shears" wrote in message ... In article , (S888Wheel) wrote: They do not pretend to be scientific in their subjective reviews. No, but they are pretending nevertheless. If you are worried about biases affecting the reviews then take that into consideration when reading those reviews. But jeez, do you think about this when speakers get reviewed? Can you cite any bias controlled listening evaluations of any speakers in any audio journal? This is the one component everybody agrees matters isn't it? Speakers are an area where there is no disagreement that audible differences exist. So if a reviewer says "more air" and "breathtaking midrange" about a speaker, it's at least plausible. Although if that same reviewer has exclaimed breathlessly on speaker cables, what should we think about his speaker reviews? I really wonder if you folks actually read the publications you criticize. It has been a long, long time since I have read in Stereophile or TAS a review that was "breathless" over speaker cables or anything else, for that matter. Usually the reviewer does his best to describe the differences he does hear in context, and words like "subtle" or "only upon repeat listening" or "only on direct comparison" are used. In the latest two-part survey of interconnects that TAS ran (I believe it was TAS, if not my apologies Mr. Atkinson) the authors talked about how difficult it was to discern differences, mentioned that a great many of the cables could not be differentiated, and discussed the differences of those that they felt could be as subtle. They described the fatigue and strain of trying to determine the differences. This is hardly "exclaiming breathlessly". Read the Stereophile review of the Siltech G5 Classic speaker cable at http://www.stereophile.com/accessory...s/1004siltech/. This is from Oct. 2004. There you'll read "open, extended, and smooth ... The midrange was voluptuous and rounded, with superior detail retrieval. The Siltechs' top end was beautifully extended (after some break-in), and they had a particularly engaging holographic quality." Have you ever heard differences in high-end equipment in their ability to create/pass a "holographic image". I have, and it is one of the attributes that I look for in audio equipment (it is also one of the characteristics that seems to disappear in A-B comparative test, a function, I suspect, of left brain rationality overcoming right-brain perception). If I were in the market for cables, I would definitely want to audition the Siltechs in my system. Would I compare them to my existing cables and to Radio Shack speaker zip cord (which I also use in places)..I sure would. Without going back and reading this particular review (which I did not since I have no current interest in adding speaker cables to my system) I wouldn't say the prose is outlandish...the reviewer is giving a subjective impression which he likes, which can then be looked for and either confirmed/denied by audiophiles who rate similar characteristics high in their pantheon of sound values. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
... "Craig Ellsworth" wrote in message ... That is your OPINION. But it is a FACT that you are trying to compete in his chosen line of business. So everything you say about Mr. Atkinson and his business is influenced by that. And anyone who reads your stuff needs to be keenly aware of it. I think you have been less than forward about that little FACT all along. Margaret I have found one difference between Mr Nousainne's magazine and Mr. Atkinson's. Stereophile, in my not so humble opinion, is all for perpetuating an industry. They seem to me to have both the manufacturers and bricks and mortar dealers interests at heart. Mr. Noussaine's magazine, The Sensible Sound, is geared more towards me being able to get the best quality of sound in my home for my money. Speaking for myself, I want an advocate for my wallet and my pleasure that I derive from high quality audio. If something that costs $10,000.00 doesn't sound different than something that costs $1000.00, I most definitely want to know that. I want it to be determined in the most reliable way possible. If I choose the more expensive device for other reasons than sound quality, that's up to me. Fine, that's what Sensible Sound is there for. Why belabor Stereophile because they have a different editorial philosophy. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... "Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ... "Craig Ellsworth" wrote in message ... That is your OPINION. They seem to me to have both the manufacturers and bricks and mortar dealers interests at heart. Mr. Noussaine's magazine, The Sensible Sound, is geared more towards me being able to get the best quality of sound in my home for my money. Speaking for myself, I want an advocate for my wallet and my pleasure that I derive from high quality audio. If something that costs $10,000.00 doesn't sound different than something that costs $1000.00, I most definitely want to know that. I want it to be determined in the most reliable way possible. If I choose the more expensive device for other reasons than sound quality, that's up to me. Fine, that's what Sensible Sound is there for. Why belabor Stereophile because they have a different editorial philosophy. Because they promote snake oil. Because allowing reviews like the one on Shakti Stones to pass without technical oversight, and putting them on the RCL is just plain old fashioned B.S. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... "Billy Shears" wrote in message ... In article , "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Billy Shears" wrote in message ... In article , (S888Wheel) wrote: They do not pretend to be scientific in their subjective reviews. No, but they are pretending nevertheless. If you are worried about biases affecting the reviews then take that into consideration when reading those reviews. But jeez, do you think about this when speakers get reviewed? Can you cite any bias controlled listening evaluations of any speakers in any audio journal? This is the one component everybody agrees matters isn't it? Speakers are an area where there is no disagreement that audible differences exist. So if a reviewer says "more air" and "breathtaking midrange" about a speaker, it's at least plausible. Although if that same reviewer has exclaimed breathlessly on speaker cables, what should we think about his speaker reviews? I really wonder if you folks actually read the publications you criticize. It has been a long, long time since I have read in Stereophile or TAS a review that was "breathless" over speaker cables or anything else, for that matter. Usually the reviewer does his best to describe the differences he does hear in context, and words like "subtle" or "only upon repeat listening" or "only on direct comparison" are used. In the latest two-part survey of interconnects that TAS ran (I believe it was TAS, if not my apologies Mr. Atkinson) the authors talked about how difficult it was to discern differences, mentioned that a great many of the cables could not be differentiated, and discussed the differences of those that they felt could be as subtle. They described the fatigue and strain of trying to determine the differences. This is hardly "exclaiming breathlessly". Read the Stereophile review of the Siltech G5 Classic speaker cable at http://www.stereophile.com/accessory...s/1004siltech/. This is from Oct. 2004. There you'll read "open, extended, and smooth ... The midrange was voluptuous and rounded, with superior detail retrieval. The Siltechs' top end was beautifully extended (after some break-in), and they had a particularly engaging holographic quality." Have you ever heard differences in high-end equipment in their ability to create/pass a "holographic image". Only from speakers. You're changing the subject. A Shakti Stone is not high end equipment. I have, and it is one of the attributes that I look for in audio equipment (it is also one of the characteristics that seems to disappear in A-B comparative test, a function, I suspect, of left brain rationality overcoming right-brain perception). Unfortunately there is ample evidence that your suspicion is groundless. If I were in the market for cables, I would definitely want to audition the Siltechs in my system. Having some backround in electronics, I know that wire is wire. Would I compare them to my existing cables and to Radio Shack speaker zip cord (which I also use in places)..I sure would. Without going back and reading this particular review (which I did not since I have no current interest in adding speaker cables to my system) I wouldn't say the prose is outlandish... Of course it is since wire can't have that effect. the reviewer is giving a subjective impression which he likes, which can then be looked for and either confirmed/denied by audiophiles who rate similar characteristics high in their pantheon of sound values. The reviewer is giving an opinion on something which can't happen. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Have you ever heard differences in high-end equipment in their ability to
create/pass a "holographic image". I have, and it is one of the attributes that I look for in audio equipment (it is also one of the characteristics that seems to disappear in A-B comparative test, a function, I suspect, of left brain rationality overcoming right-brain perception). snip the reviewer is giving a subjective impression which he likes, which can then be looked for and either confirmed/denied by audiophiles who rate similar characteristics high in their pantheon of sound values." Here we have in one example two of the most oft repeated notions of the subjective enterprise. "I hear it, I really really do, don't you believe me, don't you hear it too?" While confirming no difference when which active gear is unknown, the usual "testing destroys what is there by (fill in favorite speculation). A test suggestion, while changing nothing but wire, for 4 weeks randomly change the wire a week at a time, at the end of each week a report is made if the holographical perception was present that week or not. If the poor brain finds a week too stressing, do a month at a time. Then we slide into the assumed, but as of yet not demonstrated reality, of applying the ability of revviewers to "hear" and others to confirm, which of course is begging the question. Why not use taro cards, can anyone prove it doesn't work and if it doesn't it is because it stresses the brain and obscures reality? |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Billy Shears" wrote in message
... In article , "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Billy Shears" wrote in message ... In article , (S888Wheel) wrote: They do not pretend to be scientific in their subjective reviews. No, but they are pretending nevertheless. If you are worried about biases affecting the reviews then take that into consideration when reading those reviews. But jeez, do you think about this when speakers get reviewed? Can you cite any bias controlled listening evaluations of any speakers in any audio journal? This is the one component everybody agrees matters isn't it? Speakers are an area where there is no disagreement that audible differences exist. So if a reviewer says "more air" and "breathtaking midrange" about a speaker, it's at least plausible. Although if that same reviewer has exclaimed breathlessly on speaker cables, what should we think about his speaker reviews? I really wonder if you folks actually read the publications you criticize. It has been a long, long time since I have read in Stereophile or TAS a review that was "breathless" over speaker cables or anything else, for that matter. Usually the reviewer does his best to describe the differences he does hear in context, and words like "subtle" or "only upon repeat listening" or "only on direct comparison" are used. In the latest two-part survey of interconnects that TAS ran (I believe it was TAS, if not my apologies Mr. Atkinson) the authors talked about how difficult it was to discern differences, mentioned that a great many of the cables could not be differentiated, and discussed the differences of those that they felt could be as subtle. They described the fatigue and strain of trying to determine the differences. This is hardly "exclaiming breathlessly". Read the Stereophile review of the Siltech G5 Classic speaker cable at http://www.stereophile.com/accessory...s/1004siltech/. This is from Oct. 2004. There you'll read "open, extended, and smooth ... The midrange was voluptuous and rounded, with superior detail retrieval. The Siltechs' top end was beautifully extended (after some break-in), and they had a particularly engaging holographic quality." I notice that Atkinson includes a disclaimer about "microlevel distortion", which he's never been able to measure. Apparently, even John Atkinson has an bull**** overload point (about time, wouldn't you say.) Norm Strong |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: Billy Shears
Date: 12/1/2004 4:55 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: In article , (S888Wheel) wrote: They do not pretend to be scientific in their subjective reviews. No, but they are pretending nevertheless. Oh? Did they tell you so? Or are you reading thier minds? If you are worried about biases affecting the reviews then take that into consideration when reading those reviews. But jeez, do you think about this when speakers get reviewed? Can you cite any bias controlled listening evaluations of any speakers in any audio journal? This is the one component everybody agrees matters isn't it? Speakers are an area where there is no disagreement that audible differences exist. Irrelevant. they are every bit as much subject to the effects of sighted bias. So if a reviewer says "more air" and "breathtaking midrange" about a speaker, it's at least plausible. It is no less likely to be true. Although if that same reviewer has exclaimed breathlessly on speaker cables, what should we think about his speaker reviews? What ever you choose. That is the point. That is the nature of subjective review. If you want to get something from it you need to better understand the reviewers and their biases. |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: Billy Shears
Date: 12/2/2004 4:55 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: In article , B&D wrote: On 12/1/04 7:55 PM, in article , "Billy Shears" wrote: In article , (S888Wheel) wrote: They do not pretend to be scientific in their subjective reviews. No, but they are pretending nevertheless. I do not understand what you are saying - what are they pretending? To be scientific? They generally don't - so I am not sure what the point is? Well take a look at http://www.stereophile.com/accessory...s/1004siltech/, which was mentioned by outsor earlier. Some spectacular claims and some spectacular money on the line - on a type of component that is, to say the least, controversial. Let's assume the reviewer has made no attempt to scientifically validate whether even an audible difference between this $4000/2m pair speaker cable (or other high-end speaker cable in this stratospheric price range) and ordinary lampcord exists. Then I would say the reviewer is pretending when he writes that these cables are "open, extended, and smooth ... The midrange was voluptuous and rounded, with superior detail retrieval. The Siltechs' top end was beautifully extended (after some break-in), and they had a particularly engaging holographic quality." This possibility exists with every subjective review. If you don't like subjective review ignore it and move on. |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
"normanstrong" wrote:
"Billy Shears" wrote in message ... In article , "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Billy Shears" wrote in message ... In article , (S888Wheel) wrote: They do not pretend to be scientific in their subjective reviews. No, but they are pretending nevertheless. If you are worried about biases affecting the reviews then take that into consideration when reading those reviews. But jeez, do you think about this when speakers get reviewed? Can you cite any bias controlled listening evaluations of any speakers in any audio journal? This is the one component everybody agrees matters isn't it? Speakers are an area where there is no disagreement that audible differences exist. So if a reviewer says "more air" and "breathtaking midrange" about a speaker, it's at least plausible. Although if that same reviewer has exclaimed breathlessly on speaker cables, what should we think about his speaker reviews? I really wonder if you folks actually read the publications you criticize. It has been a long, long time since I have read in Stereophile or TAS a review that was "breathless" over speaker cables or anything else, for that matter. Usually the reviewer does his best to describe the differences he does hear in context, and words like "subtle" or "only upon repeat listening" or "only on direct comparison" are used. In the latest two-part survey of interconnects that TAS ran (I believe it was TAS, if not my apologies Mr. Atkinson) the authors talked about how difficult it was to discern differences, mentioned that a great many of the cables could not be differentiated, and discussed the differences of those that they felt could be as subtle. They described the fatigue and strain of trying to determine the differences. This is hardly "exclaiming breathlessly". Read the Stereophile review of the Siltech G5 Classic speaker cable at http://www.stereophile.com/accessory...s/1004siltech/. This is from Oct. 2004. There you'll read "open, extended, and smooth ... The midrange was voluptuous and rounded, with superior detail retrieval. The Siltechs' top end was beautifully extended (after some break-in), and they had a particularly engaging holographic quality." I notice that Atkinson includes a disclaimer about "microlevel distortion", which he's never been able to measure. Apparently, even John Atkinson has an bull**** overload point (about time, wouldn't you say.) Norm Strong I think if you read carefully Mr Atkinson ONLY expresses a skeptical attitude about the REASON given for the sound quality improvements. He still apparently endoreses the idea that they DO sound different and better because the Siltech products appear in the Recomended Components List in the same issue. As others have suggested this is a clever technique that helps him walk both sides of the street. First, he is not addressing the reviewers opinion that these cables have special sound qualities, only expressing a critical attitude about the Manufacturer's "reason" for these differences. When questioned his MO may run like this: first he never 'personally' recommended these cables and even expressed skepicism about the manufacturers claims. But, when pushed, will likely then argue that he remains 'agnostic' about the performance differences. I'll say this, its brilliant high-end marketing from the editorial side. It encourages the full page ad on p20, promotes the myth of cable sound, suggests that sound quality differences can't be "measured", defends his reviewer, seems to display a critical attitude toward the manufacturer and adds 2 new products on the RCL. The only thing missing is a letter from the manufacturer thanking them for the review and further defending their claims. But, it doesn't really do anything that furthers the quest for improved sound quality. Indeed it effectively promotes the urban legends of cable sound and break-in neither of which have never been shown to affect performance one whit. You might argue that I have a bias in this issue because of my magazine associations (quite possibly) but on the other hand I have spent my personal energy chasing cable and accessory sound most of the time on my own nickel. I wasn't interested in arguing about the sound of things, not content to accept opinion about sound quality perfromance without acceptable evidence about same ....remaining agnostic seemed to me resource dangerous and because bias controlled listening was so easy to conduct it seemed unacceptable NOT to test wire/cable/accessory sound if I were truly interested in improving or optimizing sound quality of reproduced music in my home. |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote: "Billy Shears" wrote in message ... In article , "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Billy Shears" wrote in message ... In article , (S888Wheel) wrote: They do not pretend to be scientific in their subjective reviews. No, but they are pretending nevertheless. If you are worried about biases affecting the reviews then take that into consideration when reading those reviews. But jeez, do you think about this when speakers get reviewed? Can you cite any bias controlled listening evaluations of any speakers in any audio journal? This is the one component everybody agrees matters isn't it? Speakers are an area where there is no disagreement that audible differences exist. So if a reviewer says "more air" and "breathtaking midrange" about a speaker, it's at least plausible. Although if that same reviewer has exclaimed breathlessly on speaker cables, what should we think about his speaker reviews? I really wonder if you folks actually read the publications you criticize. It has been a long, long time since I have read in Stereophile or TAS a review that was "breathless" over speaker cables or anything else, for that matter. Usually the reviewer does his best to describe the differences he does hear in context, and words like "subtle" or "only upon repeat listening" or "only on direct comparison" are used. In the latest two-part survey of interconnects that TAS ran (I believe it was TAS, if not my apologies Mr. Atkinson) the authors talked about how difficult it was to discern differences, mentioned that a great many of the cables could not be differentiated, and discussed the differences of those that they felt could be as subtle. They described the fatigue and strain of trying to determine the differences. This is hardly "exclaiming breathlessly". Read the Stereophile review of the Siltech G5 Classic speaker cable at http://www.stereophile.com/accessory...s/1004siltech/. This is from Oct. 2004. There you'll read "open, extended, and smooth ... The midrange was voluptuous and rounded, with superior detail retrieval. The Siltechs' top end was beautifully extended (after some break-in), and they had a particularly engaging holographic quality." Have you ever heard differences in high-end equipment in their ability to create/pass a "holographic image". I have, and it is one of the attributes that I look for in audio equipment (it is also one of the characteristics that seems to disappear in A-B comparative test, a function, I suspect, of left brain rationality overcoming right-brain perception). If I were in the market for cables, I would definitely want to audition the Siltechs in my system. Would I compare them to my existing cables and to Radio Shack speaker zip cord (which I also use in places)..I sure would. Without going back and reading this particular review (which I did not since I have no current interest in adding speaker cables to my system) I wouldn't say the prose is outlandish...the reviewer is giving a subjective impression which he likes, which can then be looked for and either confirmed/denied by audiophiles who rate similar characteristics high in their pantheon of sound values. Well first I wanted to show that the language in a recent Stereophile review of speaker cable indicated more than "subtle" or "only upon repeat listening" or "only on direct comparison". I think that review is getting close to "breathless". As to A/B comparisons: So you think the openness and smoothness, the voluptuousness and roundedness, the superior detail retrieval, the beautifully extended top end, and the particularly engaging holographic quality of the Siltechs - all of these could disappear in an A/B with zip cord? I can't imagine such a thing. |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Nousaine" wrote in message
... "Michael McKelvy" wrote: wrote in message ... "It seems to me that there is more than one agenda at work here - self aggrandizement it seems to me!" The answer is to ask who has the most to lose, Randi a million bucks or Stereophile the entire subjective enterprise as valid. To make either work requires tooting one's horn of validity. Randi won't lose a million bucks for 2, possibly 3 reasons. The money is in escrow and he can't touch it. He can't lose the challenges he's made because the things he's talking about make no difference that anyone can hear. Probably nobody that he's challenged will take him up on the comparisons. You can speculate on the reasons why. I believe the same reasons apply to Richard Clark's $10,000 amplifier challenge.. It should be so easy. Yet, no takers? IMO it's because no one is confident enough (or already have tried it themselves or otherwise know the truth) and to take the challenge would break that particular urban legend bubble. I suspect that is indeed the case. I think the ego of someone with the ability to actually hear what these people cliam, would cause them to jump at the chance to prove it. The $10K might not be a big incentive for some of these folks but one million? High-end and Tweak products are the equivalent of those motorcycles known as cafe racers. They look great sitting outside the coffee house but don't ever for a minute think the owners are interested in actually racing or testing actual performance. Shakti Stones and such are to Audio, what Copper bracelets are to Arthritis treatment. |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael McKelvy wrote:
Shakti Stones and such are to Audio, what Copper bracelets are to Arthritis treatment. Well, arthritis is a debilitating illness, but audio is just a hobby. There's a difference! Mike Prager North Carolina, USA |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote: I suspect that is indeed the case. I think the ego of someone with the ability to actually hear what these people cliam, would cause them to jump at the chance to prove it. The $10K might not be a big incentive for some of these folks but one million? I lean towards the objectivist camp but Randi comports himself so poorly that I think anyone could be forgiven for not wanting anything to do with him. Nothing IMHO can be deduced from lack of participation in his fabulous "million-dollar" challenge. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mike Prager" wrote in message
... Michael McKelvy wrote: Shakti Stones and such are to Audio, what Copper bracelets are to Arthritis treatment. Well, arthritis is a debilitating illness, but audio is just a hobby. There's a difference! I'm involved with both and they have one thing in common, pseudo-science. |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Billy Shears" wrote in message
... In article , "Michael McKelvy" wrote: I suspect that is indeed the case. I think the ego of someone with the ability to actually hear what these people cliam, would cause them to jump at the chance to prove it. The $10K might not be a big incentive for some of these folks but one million? I lean towards the objectivist camp but Randi comports himself so poorly that I think anyone could be forgiven for not wanting anything to do with him. Nothing IMHO can be deduced from lack of participation in his fabulous "million-dollar" challenge. Perhaps Randi's poor comportment is due to the fact that he had the prize money waiting to be claimed for years and nobody has been able to win it. Be that as it may, I sense no one from the Atkinson/Subjectivist camp will ever participate in any bias controlled listening for any amount of money. The entire subjectivist empire would collapse and they all know it, regardless of how much they dance or how many excuses and rationalizations they come up with. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Addendum to plug-ins query... | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
