[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Mon, 5 May 2008 21:47:30 -0400, Soundhaspriority wrote:

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 May 2008 16:11:55 -0700, Jenn
wrote:
If not, are they all worthless?

Oh no. They're just wonderful for rationalizing spending two thousand
dollars too much on gear that is mostly an empty box with engineering
quality like that of a high school student science fair project.

I still get a giggle over the stereophile review that thought the tice
clock really worked.

I seem to recall that it was finally established that Stereophile never
reviewed it.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

Jack English commented on the effect of the Tice Clock in February 1993 (Vol.16
No.2):

After hours and hours, the 1.2 upgrade to my Versa Model 1 turntable was
completed and the final adjustments made. The most obvious change surprised me
considerably: there was simply far less sound coming out of the Versa.
Everything was much quieter. To achieve the former volume levels, I had to
substantially increase the preamp's gain setting. What was gone was a
significant layer of very low level grundge and noise. Backgrounds had less
filler; the music was presented in stark relief. The upgrade had removed a very
significant veil from the music. While I hadn't been aware of RF in my system,
the upgrade had eliminated an entire layer of it.

But as the hours rolled on, I became more and more aware of a slight new
harshness. My system, while not sounding harsh per se, did sound harsher than
before the upgrade, record after record confirming my suspicions. Two possible
explanations came to mind: the upgrade might have introduced the added
harshness, or was now allowing me to hear for the first time something that had
been in my system all along. Hoping for the latter, I made a number of changes,
including interconnects, speaker cables, and cleaning all my contact surfaces.
With each change, the new harshness remained.

Retracing all the power connections I'd made in solving the hum problem, I
flip-flopped my power connections. No change. I went over every detail of my
setup before and after the change, including what was and wasn't connected to my
dual Tice Power Blocks and Titans. No change. I even went so far as to ensure
that each component was plugged into the same outlet it had been originally,
with the same plug orientation. No change.

Then it hit me\u2014one formerly filled plug was empty. At John Bicht's
insistence, I'd plugged the control unit directly into one of my dedicated wall
sockets, which left vacant a socket in the Power Block. But that wall socket
hadn't been empty when I started: a Tice TPT clock used to be plugged in there.
In fact, it had been there for a long time. Though I hadn't heard any change
when I put it in, I'd simply left it there. I reconnected the control unit to
the Power Block and plugged the clock back into the wall. After a half hour or
so, the harshness vanished.

When I'd first done a series of A/B tests with and without the clock, I hadn't
heard any differences. However, I'd left the clock plugged in for a long time.
Obviously I'd become accustomed to what the clock did, but remained consciously
unaware of its effects, never noticing them until the clock was removed and the
modified Versa's lowered noise floor made the disappearance of the clock's
relatively modest improvements more audible. Once this improvement was taken
away, a very slight harshness crept back into my system. Reinstating the clock
removed the harshness. Much to my surprise, the TPT-treated clock did have a
positive effect in my system. It's back in and staying in.\u2014Jack English

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Mon, 5 May 2008 21:47:30 -0400, Soundhaspriority wrote:

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 May 2008 16:11:55 -0700, Jenn
wrote:
If not, are they all worthless?

Oh no. They're just wonderful for rationalizing spending two thousand
dollars too much on gear that is mostly an empty box with engineering
quality like that of a high school student science fair project.

I still get a giggle over the stereophile review that thought the tice
clock really worked.

I seem to recall that it was finally established that Stereophile never
reviewed it.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511


More stereophile rubbish:
http://www.stereophile.com/digitalpr...s/990meridian/
....
I helped things along with a few tweaks. First, I substituted a better-quality
optical cable (from Onkyo) for the very thin optical cable supplied with my
Philips CD60. The thin optical cable was strangling the sound! I also
substituted a Music & Sound power cord for the one which came standard with the
unit\u2014a further improvement. And I changed my interconnects from Cardas
Quadlink to Purist Audio Designs\u2014a very substantial improvement,
particularly in detail and overall resolution.

Of course it is a well known phenomena that expensive digital cables are
capable of modifying the digital data and fixing the accompanying checksums
all in an effort to sound fuller.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
net
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
net

If not, are they all worthless?

The technical tests in Stereophile are somewhat
useful at times.

But as a rule, the high end ragazines are good for a
laugh, and not much else.

Do ANY audio magazines use DBTs?

Sound and Vision, and before that Stereo Review and
Audio.

So only one that is in business, it seems.

Oh, its all been reduced to a popularity contest?

How high school! ;-(

Arny, I spent 5 hours today in a room full of lawyers,
testifying rather than teaching a class with finals
coming up in two weeks. So, I'm REALLY not in the mood
for your sophomoric "observations".

As usual you can't take responsibility for your own actions, Jenn.

Jenn, you're the one who made the first sophmoric observation. I just
pointed it out.

"Popularity contest"
(read: market forces) is just one possibility.

Not being a hands-on techie Jenn,you have no idea of the work involved in
doing proper technical or subjective testing of audio gear. The market force
that limited the popularity of DBTs is that they are a ton more work, in a
context that is driven by advertising dollars and superficial analyses.

Another would be that DBT is more expensive to carry out, and is
cost prohibitive.

That you would see the additional expense of doing DBTs as a mere
possibility shows how little you understand, Jenn.

The sorts of alleged listening evaluations that dominate the high end press
are like blowing a kiss. A DBT involves serious engagement with the
equipment and its operational environment.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message


But if somebody buys something without doing a DBT first because
they like the sound better they are flawed, or the
equipment is.

Wrong again, ****R-breath.

Your first mistake is that you presume that sound quality is the only reason
why people choose a particular piece of gear.

Your second mistake is your presumption that buying new equipment is the
only way to get better sound.


Now even if somebody did a DBT and and bought something
because they liked the sound better, they would be flawed
because, as we all know, amps, CD players, etc. all sound
the same unless "broken".

Your third mistake is that presuming that there are no components other than
amps and CD players.

[Clyde Slick]

On 7 Mai, 02:11, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*"Arny Krueger" wrote:





"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
.
net
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
net

If not, are they all worthless?

The technical tests in Stereophile are somewhat useful
at times.

But as a rule, the high end ragazines are good for a
laugh, and not much else.

Do ANY audio magazines use DBTs?

Sound and Vision, and before that Stereo Review and
Audio.

So only one that is in business, it seems.

Oh, its all been reduced to a popularity contest?

How high school! ;-(

Arny, I spent 5 hours today in a room full of lawyers,


Oh no, not another libel suit!!

[Clyde Slick]

On 7 Mai, 07:23, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message





Oh, its all been reduced to a popularity contest?

How high school! ;-(

As usual you can't take responsibility for your own actions, Jenn.


Sue the *******!

Jenn, you're the one who made the first sophmoric observation. I just
pointed it out.


Sue the *******!



That you would see the additional expense of doing DBTs as a mere
possibility shows how little you understand, Jenn.

Sue the *******!

The sorts of alleged listening evaluations that dominate the high end press
are like blowing a kiss. A DBT involves serious engagement with the
equipment and its operational environment.-


Commit the *******!

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 7 Mai, 02:11, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*"Arny Krueger" wrote:





"Jenn" wrote in message
.
net
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

gy.
net
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

dig
y.
net

If not, are they all worthless?

The technical tests in Stereophile are somewhat useful
at times.

But as a rule, the high end ragazines are good for a
laugh, and not much else.

Do ANY audio magazines use DBTs?

Sound and Vision, and before that Stereo Review and
Audio.

So only one that is in business, it seems.

Oh, its all been reduced to a popularity contest?

How high school! ;-(

Arny, I spent 5 hours today in a room full of lawyers,


Oh no, not another libel suit!!

lol

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On May 7, 2:48 am, AZ Nomad wrote:
Of course it is a well known phenomena that expensive digital cables are
capable of modifying the digital data and fixing the accompanying checksums
all in an effort to sound fuller.

Really. I did not know that, nor has it ever been claimed in
Stereophile. (In fact, the opposite has frequenfty been written,
that the digital cable, unless grossly flawed, has no effect
whatsoever on the values represented by the data themselve.)
However, I bow to your apparently superior knowledge of
digital technology, my anonymous friend. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
.
net
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
net
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

ig
y.
net

If not, are they all worthless?

The technical tests in Stereophile are somewhat
useful at times.

But as a rule, the high end ragazines are good for a
laugh, and not much else.

Do ANY audio magazines use DBTs?

Sound and Vision, and before that Stereo Review and
Audio.

So only one that is in business, it seems.

Oh, its all been reduced to a popularity contest?

How high school! ;-(

Arny, I spent 5 hours today in a room full of lawyers,
testifying rather than teaching a class with finals
coming up in two weeks. So, I'm REALLY not in the mood
for your sophomoric "observations".

As usual you can't take responsibility for your own actions, Jenn.

Let's see... my action of truthfully stating (according to your post)
that one mag that is in business uses DBTs? Yep, I take total
responsibility for that action.


Jenn, you're the one who made the first sophmoric observation. I just
pointed it out.

What was wrong with it?


"Popularity contest"
(read: market forces) is just one possibility.

Not being a hands-on techie Jenn,you have no idea of the work involved in
doing proper technical or subjective testing of audio gear. The market force
that limited the popularity of DBTs is that they are a ton more work, in a
context that is driven by advertising dollars and superficial analyses.

And that's exactly my point, Arny. See the next sentence:


Another would be that DBT is more expensive to carry out, and is
cost prohibitive.

That you would see the additional expense of doing DBTs as a mere
possibility shows how little you understand, Jenn.

Wake up, Arny. Get that razor-sharp mind in gear this morning. The
possibility isn't that it would cost more; that much is obvious. The
possibility is that the increased cost is why mags don't do it.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

Arny, I spent 5 hours today in a room full of lawyers,

Oh no, not another libel suit!!

lol

Jeenn arent you, aware Jnnne that lol means "laugh out loud" Jen. This
news-group is for audio-only Jen. Jennn if, you weren't so
technically-ignorent Jnen, you would know that audio is very serious
Jnnen. Arnii Krooborg knows how-serious audio is because Tom Nousiane
took him to school Jnen. Please grow a brain and come back when you're
ready to stop laughing Jeenn.

[Eeyore]

John Atkinson wrote:

AZ Nomad wrote:
Of course it is a well known phenomena that expensive digital cables are
capable of modifying the digital data and fixing the accompanying checksums
all in an effort to sound fuller.

Really. I did not know that, nor has it ever been claimed in
Stereophile. (In fact, the opposite has frequenfty been written,
that the digital cable, unless grossly flawed, has no effect
whatsoever on the values represented by the data themselve.)
However, I bow to your apparently superior knowledge of
digital technology, my anonymous friend. :-)

How about the effect of fibre attenuation on eye pattern affecting jitter in the
recovered signal ?

Graham

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 7, 6:27*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in

But if *somebody buys something without doing a DBT first because
they like the sound better they are flawed, or the
equipment is.

Wrong again, ****R-breath.

Oh goody. What insanity will confront us this morning?

Let's see!

Your first mistake is that you presume that sound quality is the only reason
why people choose a particular piece of gear.

Not at all, Insane One.

But as we all know, buying something for other reasons, like pride of
ownership, looks, or whatever, are not valid when there is a $199
piece of gear that will, according to you, "adequately get the job
done".

And god forbid someone enjoy a "flawed" technology like vinyl. LOL!

Your second mistake is your presumption that buying new equipment is the
only way to get better sound.

There's no presumption here at all. We could be talking brand-new,
first-time buyers trying to get "sound", not necessarily "better"
sound.

The "presumption" is only found between your ears.

Now even if somebody did a DBT and and bought something
because they liked the sound better, they would be flawed
because, as we all know, amps, CD players, etc. all sound
the same unless "broken".

Your third mistake is that presuming that there are no components other than
amps and CD players.

I suggest you look up the word "etc."

So tell me: besides electro-mechanical devices such as turntables and
cartridges and speakers, what stereo gear can sound different without
being "broken" or "improperly designed" or "flawed technology"?

You presume a lot of presumptions, GOIA. I think it's time for an
overhaul. ;-)

And you sure make a lot of mistakes for someone who accuses others of
making mistakes.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 7, 9:51*am, Jenn wrote:

Wake up, Arny. *Get that razor-sharp mind in gear this morning. *The
possibility isn't that it would cost more; that much is obvious. *The
possibility is that the increased cost is why mags don't do it.

It probably also explains why 2pid has never done one either.

[yellowmattercustard]

"John Atkinson" wrote

Really. I did not know that, nor has it ever been claimed in
Stereophile. (In fact, the opposite has frequenfty been written,
that the digital cable, unless grossly flawed, has no effect
whatsoever on the values represented by the data themselve.)
However, I bow to your apparently superior knowledge of
digital technology, my anonymous friend. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I have to wonder why somebody of J.A.'s stature would waste his time in this
forum.

A soft spot for some of RAO's inhabitants?
A wicked sense of humour?
God complex and an accompanying pity towards his minions?
Self preservation?
All of the above?

What say you, Mr. Atkinson?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

yellowmattercustard, YACA, said:

I have to wonder why somebody of J.A.'s stature would waste his time in this
forum.

JA has answered that question several times previously. Did you know
there's an archive of Usenet messages at www.google.com ?

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" wrote in message
...


Not at all. Reviewers are paid pretty much a flat rate.

I know a few people who review audio gear, and that's how they are paid.

So where's the cost? I think it's all NRE.

More to the point - the hourly rate for reviewing audio gear properly is
pretty meager.

Some of the reviews I've seen are so vacuous as to be outrageous. The review
could have been written without any direct contact with the equipment that
is purportedly being reviewed.

Everybody I know who reviews audio gear hopes for, and often gets indirect
benefits.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" wrote in message
...

I would hope that such rags might want to educate readers rather than
create ignorance.

They often *educate* readers with self-serving audiophile myths.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 7, 12:45*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message

...

Not at all. Reviewers are paid pretty much a flat rate.

I know a few people who review audio gear, and that's how they are paid.

So where's the cost? I think it's all NRE.

More to the point - the hourly rate for reviewing audio gear properly is
pretty meager.

I'd be surprised if it's an hourly rate though it could be I suppose.
Per review or per word is more likely IMO. JA?

Some of the reviews I've seen are so vacuous as to be outrageous. The review
could have been written without any direct contact with the equipment that
is purportedly being reviewed.

HINT: don't buy whatever it is you don't like!

Everybody I know who reviews audio gear hopes for, and often gets indirect
benefits.

Like what?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 7, 12:27*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 6, 3:50*pm, "TT" wrote:





"ScottW" wrote in message

...
On May 5, 4:11 pm, Jenn wrote:

If not, are they all worthless?

For identifying stuff on the market? *no.
For finding equipment in your price range, desired feature set, etc?
no.
For performance evaluations, no, the data fills a gap.
For subjective evaluations? *yes.

Not true.

For pushing snake oil at times? *More than worthless, they're damaging
to the hobby and make it appears a fools pursuit. *I think in part
this explains why many audio forums are inhabited by lunatics. *You
have to be insane to fall for some of the crap the rags push.

You left out the term "very gullible" when referring to readers of audioporn
rags.

I had a roomate who was an electrical engineer. Trained, graduated,
working as one.

He believed that cables and interconnects could sound different. I do
not, but what skin is it off my back? How many hours should I have
devoted to showing him "the Light"?

Good point. *I would hope that such rags might want to educate readers
rather than create ignorance.

No audio magazine could have instructed my roomate on electrical
properties any more than he already had been.

BTW, I would hope that staunch conservatives and republicans would be
even faintly aware of the damage they have caused, and are causing,
the US. Oh well. My hopes are dashed too. ;-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 7, 12:23*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 6, 11:02*pm, "JBorg, Jr." wrote:





ScottW wrote:
Jenn wrote:

If not, are they all worthless?

For identifying stuff on the market? *no.
For finding equipment in your price range, desired feature set, etc?
no.
For performance evaluations, no, the data fills a gap.
For subjective evaluations? *yes.

Please clarify this comment. *As a rule, DBTs are experimental
audio testing with the sole purpose of determining presence or
absence of subtle sound differences. *All personal preferences
and subjective *opinions* must be put aside.

Providing the *opinion* that there is NO detectable sound difference
during the test does not and will not proved the absence of positive
sound differences.

But it is interesting if the reviewer who just raved about the sound
of
something was not really able to detect a difference from a std.

Who cares? What was the last piece of audio gear (aside from your
Orions) that you bought without hearing them and basing your decision
solely on a recommendation? And why did you buy your speakers without
having heard them first?

Would you buy a car based on a review and without test driving it
first?

LOL!

So, concerning your comment above, who is, or what is the subject
that is subjected for evaluations ?

*The reviewer.

So your list of bitter enemies this past day include:

JA
Monster Cable
Stereophile
Audio Reviewers
Home Depot
Radio Shack

Get a life, 2pid. LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 7, 12:17*pm, "yellowmattercustard"
wrote:

I have to wonder why somebody of J.A.'s stature would waste his time in this
forum.

God complex and an accompanying pity towards his minions?

That's no compex. When one individual controls the buying behavior of
national retailers and all of their customers, that *is* pretty god-
like.

JA, I need some shoes. Please tell me what to buy ASAP.

TIA, Your Holiness.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On May 7, 7:51*am, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*"Arny Krueger" wrote:





"Jenn" wrote in message
.
net
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

gy.
net
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

dig
y.
net
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

rod
ig
y.
net

If not, are they all worthless?

The technical tests in Stereophile are somewhat
useful at times.

But as a rule, the high end ragazines are good for a
laugh, and not much else.

Do ANY audio magazines use DBTs?

Sound and Vision, and before that Stereo Review and
Audio.

So only one that is in business, it seems.

Oh, its all been reduced to a popularity contest?

How high school! ;-(

Arny, I spent 5 hours today in a room full of lawyers,
testifying rather than teaching a class with finals
coming up in two weeks. *So, I'm REALLY not in the mood
for your sophomoric "observations".

As usual you can't take responsibility for your own actions, Jenn.

Let's see... my action of truthfully stating (according to your post)
that one mag that is in business uses DBTs? *Yep, I take total
responsibility for that action.



Jenn, you're the one who made the first sophmoric observation. I just
pointed it out.

What was wrong with it?



"Popularity contest"
(read: *market forces) is just one possibility.

Not being a hands-on techie Jenn,you have no idea of the work involved in
doing proper technical or subjective testing of audio gear. The market
force
that limited the popularity of DBTs is that they are a ton more work, in
a
context that is driven by advertising dollars and superficial analyses.

And that's exactly my point, Arny. *See the next sentence:



Another *would be that DBT is more expensive to carry out, and is
cost prohibitive.

That you would see the additional expense of doing DBTs as a mere
possibility shows how little you understand, Jenn.

Wake up, Arny. *Get that razor-sharp mind in gear this morning. *The
possibility isn't that it would cost more; that much is obvious.

Not at all. Reviewers are paid pretty much a flat rate.
So where's the cost? I think it's all NRE.

Time is money.


*The
possibility is that the increased cost is why mags don't do it.

Possibility? It's funny, anything is possible to people who
don't know anything.

ScottW

Ah shucks. You don't think I know anything? Anyway, cost is clearly a
possibility.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

More to the point - the hourly rate for reviewing audio gear properly is
pretty meager.

I'd be surprised if it's an hourly rate though it could be I suppose.
Per review or per word is more likely IMO. JA?

You of all Normals shouldn't need to be cautioned about the foolishness
of arguing with the Krooborg.

However, in the case of magazine reviews, "per word" and "per article"
are pretty much the same thing. That's because an editor is likely to
ask a reviewer for, say, a 2000-word review at a fixed rate.

JA should correct me if this is wrong. My info may be out of date.

Everybody I know who reviews audio gear hopes for, and often gets indirect
benefits.

Like what?

Harold Ferstler frequently "lost" the review samples he was given.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 7, 1:18*pm, Jenn wrote:

*ScottW wrote:

Possibility? * It's funny, anything is possible to people who
don't know anything.

ScottW

Ah shucks. *You don't think I know anything? *Anyway, cost is clearly a
possibility.

He knew enough to buy speakers without having heard them first, based
presumably entirely on a review.

As is frequently the case with 2pid, what he says only applies to
others and not to himself, so don't be offended. LOL!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

possibility is that the increased cost is why mags don't do it.

Possibility? It's funny, anything is possible to people who
don't know anything.

Ah shucks. You don't think I know anything? Anyway, cost is clearly a
possibility.

Looking at the question from the reviewer's point of view, where's the
incentive to engage in a "test" that doesn't interest him -- or, for
that matter, the magazine's readers. (Scottie Witlessmongrel is
slobbering all over himself waiting for DBTs to become the sine qua non
of "scientific" reviews, but, sad to say, he doesn't read Stereophile or
any other audio hobby magazine.)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 7, 1:44*pm, George M. Middius wrote:
Shhhh! said:

More to the point - the hourly rate for reviewing audio gear properly is
pretty meager.

I'd be surprised if it's an hourly rate though it could be I suppose.
Per review or per word is more likely IMO. JA?

You of all Normals shouldn't need to be cautioned about the foolishness
of arguing with the Krooborg.

But it's so fun!

I am always amazed at the insanity GOIA can come up with to defend his
indefensible positions.

However, in the case of magazine reviews, "per word" and "per article"
are pretty much the same thing. That's because an editor is likely to
ask a reviewer for, say, a 2000-word review at a fixed rate.

I wonder why somene wouldn't be interested in adding hours or days to
the process.

I'm confused. I mean, they already know how much they're being paid!

JA should correct me if this is wrong. My info may be out of date.

Everybody I know who reviews audio gear hopes for, and often gets indirect
benefits.
Like what?

Harold Ferstler frequently "lost" the review samples he was given.

We used to loan equipment for catalog and ad shoots when I was in the
business. If they lost a sample they paid for it.

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On May 7, 2:44 pm, George M. Middius wrote:
in the case of magazine reviews, "per word" and "per article"
are pretty much the same thing. That's because an editor is likely to
ask a reviewer for, say, a 2000-word review at a fixed rate.

JA should correct me if this is wrong. My info may be out of date.

Stereophile and the best of my knowledge, other magazines, pay a
flat rate per review.

Everybody I know who reviews audio gear hopes for, and often gets indirect
benefits.

Like what?

Harold Ferstler frequently "lost" the review samples he was given.

Howard Ferstler and Arny's "everybody I know who reviews" aside,
it is clearly understood that review samples remain the manufacturer's
property.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On May 7, 2:15 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On May 7, 12:17 pm, "yellowmattercustard"
wrote:
I have to wonder why somebody of J.A.'s stature would waste his time in
this forum. God complex and an accompanying pity towards his minions?

That's no complex. When one individual controls the buying behavior of
national retailers and all of their customers, that *is* pretty god-like.

"With great power comes great responsibiity," -- Spiderman

JA, I need some shoes. Please tell me what to buy ASAP.

TIA, Your Holiness.

If only Monster Cable made shoes!?!

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
...

Arny's "everybody I know who reviews" aside,

John's claiming to read my mind, again. :-(

it is clearly understood that review samples remain the manufacturer's
property.

That's one of the things that "everybody I know who reviews" says. Too bad
John relies on his obviously-flawed mind-reading skills instead of just
asking me.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Arnii "Whacko Nutjob Fruitcake Looney Tunes" Kroofeces recycles some
hoary old "debating trade" scat.

Arny's "everybody I know who reviews" aside,

John's claiming to read my mind, again. :-(

Hypothetical question for you, Turdy: If it turned out John were merely
trying to gauge the depth of your insanity, would that be equally
distressing to you?

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...



Arnii "Whacko Nutjob Fruitcake Looney Tunes" Kroofeces recycles some
hoary old "debating trade" scat.

Arny's "everybody I know who reviews" aside,

John's claiming to read my mind, again. :-(

Hypothetical question for you, Turdy: If it turned out John were merely
trying to gauge the depth of your insanity, would that be equally
distressing to you?

That would be consistent with John's lifelong habit of making money out of
things that don't exist, like audible differences due to many of the
products that he reviews.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 7, 3:16*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message

...

Arny's "everybody I know who reviews" aside,

John's claiming to read my mind, again. :-(

it is clearly understood that review samples remain the manufacturer's
property.

That's one of the things that "everybody I know who reviews" says. Too bad
John relies on his obviously-flawed mind-reading skills instead of just
asking me.

"Everybody I know who reviews audio gear hopes for, and often gets
indirect benefits."

I'll ask again: Like what?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 7, 4:13*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"George M. Middius" wrote in messagenews:n64424d785us7itskhk1iono8flth3bc60@4ax .com...



Arnii "Whacko Nutjob Fruitcake Looney Tunes" Kroofeces recycles some
hoary old "debating trade" scat.

Arny's "everybody I know who reviews" aside,

John's claiming to read my mind, again. :-(

Hypothetical question for you, Turdy: If it turned out John were merely
trying to gauge the depth of your insanity, would that be equally
distressing to you?

That would be consistent with John's lifelong habit of making money out of
things that don't exist, like audible differences due to many of the
products that he reviews.

Your insanity is a given. Look at your name, GOIA.

You've apparently done some DBTs on some of the products proving that
they do not exist for you.

That is, after all, all that you've "proven". LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 7, 2:43*pm, John Atkinson wrote:
On May 7, 2:15 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 7, 12:17 pm, "yellowmattercustard"
wrote:
I have to wonder why somebody of J.A.'s stature would waste his time in
this forum. God complex and an accompanying pity towards his minions?

That's no complex. When one individual controls the buying behavior of
national retailers and all of their customers, that *is* pretty god-like..

"With great power comes great responsibiity," -- Spiderman

JA, I need some shoes. Please tell me what to buy ASAP.

TIA, Your Holiness.

If only Monster Cable made shoes!?!

Thy Will be Done.

[Eeyore]

yellowmattercustard wrote:

I have to wonder why somebody of J.A.'s stature would waste his time in this
forum.

A soft spot for some of RAO's inhabitants?

He can't resist chatting with Arny.

Graham

[Clyde Slick]

On 7 Mai, 14:18, Jenn wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On May 7, 7:51*am, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
.
net
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

gy.
net
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

dig
y.
net
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

rod
ig
y.
net

If not, are they all worthless?

The technical tests in Stereophile are somewhat
useful at times.

But as a rule, the high end ragazines are good for a
laugh, and not much else.

Do ANY audio magazines use DBTs?

Sound and Vision, and before that Stereo Review and
Audio.

So only one that is in business, it seems.

Oh, its all been reduced to a popularity contest?

How high school! ;-(

Arny, I spent 5 hours today in a room full of lawyers,
testifying rather than teaching a class with finals
coming up in two weeks. *So, I'm REALLY not in the mood
for your sophomoric "observations".

As usual you can't take responsibility for your own actions, Jenn.

Let's see... my action of truthfully stating (according to your post)
that one mag that is in business uses DBTs? *Yep, I take total
responsibility for that action.

Jenn, you're the one who made the first sophmoric observation. I just
pointed it out.

What was wrong with it?

"Popularity contest"
(read: *market forces) is just one possibility.

Not being a hands-on techie Jenn,you have no idea of the work involved in
doing proper technical or subjective testing of audio gear. The market
force
that limited the popularity of DBTs is that they are a ton more work, in
a
context that is driven by advertising dollars and superficial analyses.

And that's exactly my point, Arny. *See the next sentence:

Another *would be that DBT is more expensive to carry out, and is
cost prohibitive.

That you would see the additional expense of doing DBTs as a mere
possibility shows how little you understand, Jenn.

Wake up, Arny. *Get that razor-sharp mind in gear this morning. *The
possibility isn't that it would cost more; that much is obvious.

Not at all. Reviewers are paid pretty much a flat rate.
So where's the cost? I think it's all NRE.

Time is money.



**The
possibility is that the increased cost is why mags don't do it.

Possibility? * It's funny, anything is possible to people who
don't know anything.

ScottW

Ah shucks. *You don't think I know anything? *Anyway, cost is clearly a
possibility

I didn't think he was referring to you,
I think he was referring to 'people like' JA.

[Clyde Slick]

On 7 Mai, 14:44, George M. Middius wrote:
Shhhh! said:



Like what?

Harold Ferstler frequently "lost" the review samples he was given.

I remember figuting out that his hourly rate for reviews
was about three dollars per hour.
he would have done better flipping burgers.

[Clyde Slick]

On 7 Mai, 17:13, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


That would be consistent with John's lifelong habit of making money out of
things that don't exist, like audible differences due to many of the
products that he reviews.

How can we make money out of your non-existant sanity?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Does anybody know where to find the names of the people who designed the
Titanic? Jinxes like that have a way of persisting through generations.

Looking at the question from the reviewer's point of view, where's the
incentive to engage in a "test" that doesn't interest him -- or, for
that matter, the magazine's readers. (Scottie Witlessmongrel is
slobbering all over himself waiting for DBTs to become the sine qua non
of "scientific" reviews, but, sad to say, he doesn't read Stereophile or
any other audio hobby magazine.)

Because S'phile is too high a percentage BS IMO.
I know[sic] you live for[sic] BS so I'm surprised that you don't subscribe.
Why not[sic] George?

Trying to be clever doesn't become you, Scooter. I could observe that
you harbor "bigotry" against me and that you engage in "stereotyping",
but the idiom you've adopted recently is so obscure, you might take it
as a compliment.

I prescribe a nap, followed by a good brushing of your coat. And don't
worry about your kid rotting in jail -- he made his bed, so you should
let him lie there.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On May 7, 11:18*am, Jenn wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW wrote:
On May 7, 7:51*am, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

igy.
net
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

rodi
gy.
net
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

.pro
dig
y.
net
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

ws.p
rod
ig
y.
net

If not, are they all worthless?

The technical tests in Stereophile are somewhat
useful at times.

But as a rule, the high end ragazines are good for a
laugh, and not much else.

Do ANY audio magazines use DBTs?

Sound and Vision, and before that Stereo Review and
Audio.

So only one that is in business, it seems.

Oh, its all been reduced to a popularity contest?

How high school! ;-(

Arny, I spent 5 hours today in a room full of lawyers,
testifying rather than teaching a class with finals
coming up in two weeks. *So, I'm REALLY not in the mood
for your sophomoric "observations".

As usual you can't take responsibility for your own actions, Jenn.

Let's see... my action of truthfully stating (according to your post)
that one mag that is in business uses DBTs? *Yep, I take total
responsibility for that action.

Jenn, you're the one who made the first sophmoric observation. I just
pointed it out.

What was wrong with it?

"Popularity contest"
(read: *market forces) is just one possibility.

Not being a hands-on techie Jenn,you have no idea of the work
involved in
doing proper technical or subjective testing of audio gear. The
market
force
that limited the popularity of DBTs is that they are a ton more work,
in
a
context that is driven by advertising dollars and superficial
analyses.

And that's exactly my point, Arny. *See the next sentence:

Another *would be that DBT is more expensive to carry out, and is
cost prohibitive.

That you would see the additional expense of doing DBTs as a mere
possibility shows how little you understand, Jenn.

Wake up, Arny. *Get that razor-sharp mind in gear this morning. *The
possibility isn't that it would cost more; that much is obvious.

Not at all. Reviewers are paid pretty much a flat rate.
So where's the cost? I think it's all NRE.

Time is money.

Not to S'phile they play a flat rate for reviews.
Atkinson could require ABX tests by his reviewers.
He could even facilitate them so they can be performed without
assistance. That part would require some NRE, though not much IMO.



**The
possibility is that the increased cost is why mags don't do it.

Possibility? * It's funny, anything is possible to people who
don't know anything.

ScottW

Ah shucks. *You don't think I know anything? *Anyway, cost is clearly a
possibility.

Reviews are flat rate.
The possibilities are being reduced.

ScottW

I'm surprised that you don't get this concept. How do you think that
people who write reviews make a living (other than corruption, of
course)? They:
1. Write more reviews, or,
2. They work at some other job

Either way, I repeat, time is money.