wrote:

over most of what is out there). But what I care more about
is allowing my maagzines readers to make up their own minds
about where the line is drawn between small but significant
improvements and imaginary beasts.

Not enough to actually provide them with potentially
useful data from properly-conducted DBTs, apparently.

Certainly *positive* results could be considered
informative...and contrary to subjectivist propaganda,
one *does* get positive DBT/ABX results on occasion.

As for the negative ones...well, you can always remind
fretful readers that those can't ever be absolutely
*conclusive*.

IMO this is a sort of 'reviewing' that audio journals
*should* be doing...they're the only ones that have
the steady supply of different units to compare, the
resources to establish a consistent testing milieu,
the resident 'golden ears' who have the trust of the
audiophile community, and the nominal independence from
commercial concerns that a manufacturer might lack.

Ain't gonna happen in Stereophile though, is it?


--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

wrote:
I wrote:

The interesting thing
is that many of these "discoveries" are perfectly consistent with
what
people some scientists might have previously dismissed as "crackpots"

(psychics, mediums, eastern religious types etc.)

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Care to illustrate with some examples? I don't belive you.

I already did, twice. Dr. Brian Weiss's book "Many Lives, Many Masters"
is as good an example as anyone could offer you. He is chairman of the
Psychiatry department at Mt Sinai Hospital in Miami, and has impeccable
academic credentials including a PHD Magna Cum Laude at Yale.

Yes, and a brilliant Harvard psychiatrist touted UFO abductions. And there's a
university biochemist out there who doesn't think evolution happens.
And there's a few medical researchers who think the HIV virus isn't
the cause of AIDS. And every year there's at least one book on
the best seller list by a bona-fide MD, touting some dubious health claim.
Deeprak Chopra is still in business last time I looked.

Letters after your name doesn't *guarantee* good work.
Every field has its 'outliers'. The thing is, the burden of proof is
on *them* to provide the extraordinary evidence for their extraordinary
claims, using scientific methods. I'm not aware that Dr. Weiss has
done so.


No offense intended, but in spite of Dr. Weiss's near-unimpeacheable
credibilty,


Sorry, his credibility is *far* from impeachable. until he provides
the replicable work supporting his claims.

Dr. Weiss makes an appearance in this book too:

http://skepdic.com/refuge/crazy.html

--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile Wrote:

But that doesn't mean I accept that a $5,000 replacement power
cord affects anything!


"No argument from me there, Mr Winwer (though some of my writers
would disagree). "

Clearly some of your writers are stupid, otherwise they would believe
such stupid things.

"But what I care more about
is allowing my maagzines readers to make up their own minds
about where the line is drawn between small but significant
improvements and imaginary beasts."

No you are lying. If the above were in fact true, you would provide
them with ALL the information required. That you bob and weave around
the current accepted reality about how to determine differences is
evidence enough that you are plainly trying to keep them from being
fully informed.

That you allow some of the obvious nonsense that your "writers" say go
unchallenged is yet another nail in the coffin.

Eventually, it will be computers that dominate audio and you will be
consigned to the ash heap where you belong.

wrote:
John Atkinson (Editor, Stereophile) wrote:
what I care more about is allowing my [magazine's] readers to
make up their own minds about where the line is drawn between
small but significant improvements and imaginary beasts.

No you are lying...

Yet another anonymous, mindreading Internet flamer who only feels
secure in making such accusations from behind the safety of his PC :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

wrote:
wrote:
John Atkinson (Editor, Stereophile) wrote:
what I care more about is allowing my [magazine's]
readers to
make up their own minds about where the line is drawn
between
small but significant improvements and imaginary beasts.

No you are lying...

Yet another anonymous, mindreading Internet flamer who
only feels
secure in making such accusations from behind the safety
of his PC :-)

Somehow John never got around to mentioning this when he
introduced me (in person) at our HE2005 debate. He sure has
been vocal enough about it on Usenet. ;-)

Chel van Gennip wrote:
You fail to answer specific questions about reviews containing
specific nonsense. So I think you are in no position to complain
about remarks this way.

I was objecting to be called a liar by someon who posts
anonymously, not to being criticized per se.

See the questions fom may 21, 22 and 23.
May I remind you another review in Stereophile:
http://www.hi-fi.hr/hi-fi/Goertz/goertz.htm About this
speaker cable stereophile writes: "But wait, there's more!
- only a very few minutes of break-in required!" instead
of mentioning some well known facts that undermines the
whole theory behind this cable: ....

I noted your comment when you made it, Mr. van Gennip, but
I didn't see anything that required a specific response from
me. You felt the Stereophile review of the Goertz cable
was incomplete. I see no need to argue with your opinion.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

wrote:
"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in
message
First, let me make it clear that in starting this "Kudos to
Arny" thread my point was not to diss you or your magazine,
or anyone else who doesn't accept the scientific method. It
was merely to give Arny a well-deserved pat on the back for
going to HES 2005 and arguing his case as eloquently as he
did.

That's fine, Mr. Winer. But I do admit to some puzzlement
over your implication above that I don't "accept" the
scientific method. My bachelor's degree is in science; my
postgraduate qualification is in the teaching of science
at high-school level; my first career was in scientific
research. It is on the grounds of scientific method that
I reject the majority of published blind tests because
they almost without exception fail to limit the variables
under test to just the one the organizer of the test
though he was examining.

Yet you 'accept' the utter rubbish your reviewers write -- or
at least, I don't see you writing articles on why sighed
reviewing is flawed because it fails to limit the
variables under test.

Interesting blinkers you've got there.

And if you respond that sighted listening also does not
limit the variables under test, that is of course correct.
But no-one is claiming that sighted listening is
scientific.

What *are* you claiming about it, anyway? How reliable
is sighted listening, as an indicator of real difference?

wrote:
Ethan Winer wrote in message
John Atkinson wrote:
I do admit to some puzzlement over your implication above that
I don't "accept" the scientific method. My bachelor's degree is
in science; my postgraduate qualification is in the teaching of
science, my first career was in scientific research...

Then how could you possibly believe that changing one competent
3-foot RCA cable for another can affect audio quality?

a) Because I have heard audible differences between such cables
under blind conditions where the cable change was the only
variable;


ah, so, DBTs *do* give positive results. Have you published
this test? If not, why not do another, and publish *that*?
I would think that given the ink Stereophile has spilled
excoriating DBTs, that the publishing of one-variable,
positive cable DBTs would constitute something of a shut-yo-mouth
to the skeptics.

Your lot is a lot like creationist 'skeptics' of evolution, John...
you try to critiize the science on its own terms, but fail to
provide any competing *scientific* evidence that would explain
the data better.

b) because qualified engineers have not given me any reason
to doubt my experience;

Unless one of those two cables was rather incompetently made,
I suggest you locate some more qualified engineers.

c) Because I do not claim to be all-knowing on this subject.

No one is, or has to be, 'all knowing'. But the lack of
omniscience doesn't mean we know *nothing*.

the essay from which you are quoting. To show that even
someone like myself is prone to human frailty. And to be
aware of that frailty is the beginning of one's development
as a critical listener.

A truly 'critical listener' would always be suspicious of his own
perceptions, based on such experience.


--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

hank alrich wrote:
wrote:

hank alrich wrote:
wrote:
Ethan Winer wrote
how could you possibly believe that changing one competent
3-foot RCA cable for another can affect audio quality?

a) Because I have heard audible differences between such cables
under blind conditions where the cable change was the only
variable;

In what manner was the cable change effected? Instantaneous
switching? Or disconnection of one cable, and then connection
of the next?

The latter, making the test single-blind. However, the operator
could not communicate with me, nor could I see the cables being
switched. (I wrote about this test in a mid-1980s issue of Hi-Fi
News, BTW).

If you object to the test being single-blind, then yes, with a
mechanical change it is hard to perform without the operator
knowing what was being changed. However, the same methodology
of physical cable changes was used by David Clark in a series
of tests performed at the 1988 AES tests. No-one objected to
the methodology of those tests, as best as I can recall.

My concern would be the time needed to physically swap cables. Isn't
there data suggesting our auditory memory of tiny details doesn't hold
for long?

Yes, if anything, long switching intervals *decrease* sensitivity to
difference....making Mr. Atkinson's positive cable DBT performance
all the more remarkable. Likely either one of those cables was defective,
or *highly* unsuited to the system, or there were non-audible cues for
difference.

Two 3-ft cables sonically different enough to pass an SBT with long
switching intervals, should be a slam-dunk using DBT and short intervals.
So, where's the replication?

wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The latter, making the test single-blind. However, the
operator could not communicate with me, nor could I see the
cables being switched. (I wrote about this test in a mid-1980s
issue of Hi-Fi News, BTW).

This leaves the possibility of the listener communicating
with the switching operator in a way that could affect the
outcome of the test.

No, that did not happen.

Well,, as you say, none of us is *all-knowing*. Are you ruling
out any possibility of it having happened?



--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
This leaves the possibility of the listener communicating
with the switching operator in a way that could affect the
outcome of the test.

No, that did not happen.

Well, as you say, none of us is *all-knowing*. Are you ruling
out any possibility of it having happened?

You seem to be taking skepticims to extremes, Mr. Sullivan.
As I was the listener in the test, I don't need to claim
omniscience to know whether or not _I_ communicated with the
tester. I didn't do so until after the test was concluded.

Of course, as has already been pointed out by another poster,
I didn't take steps to prevent telepathy, or even the judicious
use of time travel. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
This leaves the possibility of the listener
communicating
with the switching operator in a way that could affect
the
outcome of the test.

No, that did not happen.

Well, as you say, none of us is *all-knowing*. Are you
ruling
out any possibility of it having happened?

You seem to be taking skepticims to extremes, Mr.
Sullivan.
As I was the listener in the test, I don't need to claim
omniscience to know whether or not _I_ communicated with
the
tester. I didn't do so until after the test was concluded.

Depending on the actual test conditions, the listener may or
may not be a reliable source of information about whether or
not he communicated with a person who knew knew the identity
of the equipment that was playing at the time.

For example, the listener may unknowingly have been facing
some person who knew the identity of the equipment that was
playing at the time. Or he may have known that he was facing
a person with that critical knowlege and not known that this
invalidated the blindness of the test.

wrote:

I noted your comment when you made it, Mr. van Gennip, but
I didn't see anything that required a specific response from
me. You felt the Stereophile review of the Goertz cable
was incomplete. I see no need to argue with your opinion.


"But wait, there's more!
- only a very few minutes of break-in required!"

Indeed, _Stereophile_'s intellectual rigor is impressive!

--
ha

hank alrich wrote:
wrote:

I noted your comment when you made it, Mr. van Gennip, but
I didn't see anything that required a specific response from
me. You felt the Stereophile review of the Goertz cable
was incomplete. I see no need to argue with your opinion.


"But wait, there's more!
- only a very few minutes of break-in required!"

Indeed, _Stereophile_'s intellectual rigor is impressive!


I was reminded of that when I re-encountered this gem of hermetic
anti-reason from Robert Harley circa 1990, while researching the green pen
hoax on the Web today:

http://stereophile.com/reference/590jitter/

"Conclusion
From my measurements, it is apparent that none of these CD
tweaks have any effect on a player's error-correction ability or on the
amount of jitter in the HF signal. However, it is beyond doubt that they
increase the musicality of CDs. Just as in analog audio, there are things
going on in digital audio that have not been identified, but influence
sonic characteristics. There is a real need to explore these questions
through empirical measurement and by listening. I am convinced that
undiscovered optical phenomena in CD playback affect sound quality. Only
by combining critical listening with the scientific method can these
mysteries be solved"

Steven Sullivan wrote:
hank alrich wrote:
wrote:

I noted your comment when you made it, Mr. van Gennip,
but
I didn't see anything that required a specific response
from
me. You felt the Stereophile review of the Goertz cable
was incomplete. I see no need to argue with your
opinion.


"But wait, there's more!
- only a very few minutes of break-in required!"

Indeed, _Stereophile_'s intellectual rigor is impressive!


I was reminded of that when I re-encountered this gem of
hermetic
anti-reason from Robert Harley circa 1990, while
researching the
green pen hoax on the Web today:

http://stereophile.com/reference/590jitter/

"Conclusion
From my measurements, it is apparent that none of these CD
tweaks have any effect on a player's error-correction
ability or on
the amount of jitter in the HF signal. However, it is
beyond doubt
that they increase the musicality of CDs. Just as in
analog audio,
there are things going on in digital audio that have not
been
identified, but influence sonic characteristics. There is
a real need
to explore these questions through empirical measurement
and by
listening. I am convinced that undiscovered optical
phenomena in CD
playback affect sound quality. Only by combining critical
listening
with the scientific method can these mysteries be solved"

Right. Harley couldn't measure it, he didn't even try to
find it in a blind test, but he was quite sure that the
effect(s) was significant, and demanded developing a whole
new area of audio theory in order to support his beliefs.