dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 04:57:07 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

Or audio fundamentalists such as yourself.

Funny, I always thought of myself as *skeptic*.



--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

Nathan Stohler wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
My apologies for misspelling your name, Mr. Stohler. My mistake.

If it was an honest mistake, then no apology is necessary. I thought you
were perpetuating the whole "borg" thing, which I find annoying and childish.

I saw that George Middius had parodied your name and corrected it.
Except that without access to your original posting, I _mis_corrected
it. Mea culpa.

The argument is circular. In effect, you are saying: "I believe that
because an ABX test produces null results, _all_ ABX tests of _all_
products will produce null results. Ipso facto, no ABX tests are
necessary."

Could you direct me to documentation of a positive identification made
from a properly executed ABX test on a receiver or amplifier?

Try http://www.stereophile.com/features/587/. Some 2004 postings on
r.a.h-e listed other such tests.

It's hard to take you seriously when your magazine peddles such things
as:

Please note, Mr. Stohler, that Stereophile doen't "peddle" audio
products,
other than the CDs and magazine-branded schwag on our website

- Cable cookers

Yup, some of my writers have written about products such as this.

- Shakti stones

Yup, some of my writers have written about these.

- Quantum purifiers that strip quantum noise energy off the electrons?!

Never been written about in Stereophile. Could you give a reference
please.

- Hallographs (thin pieces of wood that dramatically affect the sound by
being in the room)

Never been written about in Stereophile. Could you give a reference
please.

It's hard for me to tell whether you really believe in this stuff, or if the
advertising money is just too good.

As far as I know, none of the products you mention above has been
advertised in Stereophile, in which case your implication is not
only incorrect but not based on any evidence. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:43:16 -0600, Nathan Stohler
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

I wasn't offended or anything. "berg" or "borg", it doesn't matter.
I just wish I had thought to do something so clever as intentionally
misspelling someone's name. Oh wait, I think I did do stuff like that...
in second grade.

The handful of posts I've made on this newsgroup have all been
responded to by Mr. Middius, calling me "Stohlborg," so I am
familiar with the clever insult.

Well then, I guess your attempt to paint Mr. Atkinson as a possible
anti-semite was just *your* "clever" insult. AND a bit disengenuous,
don't you think?


Easy, easy! I wasn't trying to paint Mr. Atkinson as an anti-Semite.
If I'd known that it was an honest mistake, I wouldn't have made a
comment at all. Yes, I was being disingenuous in that I assumed he
meant "borg", so I took a cheap jab at his spelling mistake.

At least you didn't take a jab at *mine*. I'm grateful.

I hope you can see how a casual observer might think that you HAD
indeed taken brush in hand though.

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:14:50 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 04:57:07 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

Or audio fundamentalists such as yourself.

Funny, I always thought of myself as *skeptic*.

Unaware audio fundamentalist then.

John Atkinson wrote:

Nathan Stohler wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
My apologies for misspelling your name, Mr. Stohler. My mistake.

If it was an honest mistake, then no apology is necessary. I thought you
were perpetuating the whole "borg" thing, which I find annoying and childish.

I saw that George Middius had parodied your name and corrected it.
Except that without access to your original posting, I _mis_corrected
it. Mea culpa.

The argument is circular. In effect, you are saying: "I believe that
because an ABX test produces null results, _all_ ABX tests of _all_
products will produce null results. Ipso facto, no ABX tests are
necessary."

Could you direct me to documentation of a positive identification made
from a properly executed ABX test on a receiver or amplifier?

Try http://www.stereophile.com/features/587/.


...which ironically was a attempt to re-visit an earlier test conducted by
Stereophile, whose results did not strongly support a conclusion of
difference. Curiously that test seems to have been critiqued by two sets
of statisticians (Burstein on the one hand, and Banks/Krajicek on the
other) who object to its results on rather different grounds. And
Stereophile (Atkinson/Hammond ) object to Banks/Krajicek's statistical
assumptions. So it's something of a troika of *objection*.

But leave that aside. For me, the notable elephant in the room is that the
comparison was between a tube amp and a solid state amp. Now, if
I wanted to pick a pair of amps that would be more likely than
average to evince real audible difference, I'd do that: tube vs
ss.

But leave that aside. Listening and measurements are the two pillars of
objective explorations of audio reality. Logically, their results should
complement each other. The audible difference Banks/Krajicek reported seem
unlikely to NOT show up in measurements of the two systems -- eg
"Sometimes --especially with cymbals and brushes -- the Adcom's highs
sounded ragged compared to the VTLs, while on some material they simply
sounded a bit louder.". Yet I didn't see any such measurements, other
than the report that the amps were carefully level-matched at 1 kHz.

'Positive' listening tests results without an attempt to account for the
difference in terms of the technical performance of the gear, are only
half-informative.

By all means, the Banks/Krajicek results should have merited more
investigation. If borne out they might have provided a stellar example of
a condition under which two amps really sound different (these are not
unknown -- tubes vs ss were also different in one of the tests reported on
the ABX site). AFAIK , neither Banks/Krajicek nor Stereophile
pursued this investigation.

Some 2004 postings on
r.a.h-e listed other such tests.

Indeed. And no 'objectivist' claims that all amps sound the same, under
all conditions. I suspect Tom Nousaine for example has gotten quite weary
of laying out the conditions under which amps *will* likely sound
different. Mismatched levels is of course a trivial but common one.




--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

..

Indeed. And no 'objectivist' claims that all amps sound
the same, under all conditions. I suspect Tom Nousaine
for example has gotten quite weary of laying out the
conditions under which amps *will* likely sound
different. Mismatched levels is of course a trivial but
common one.

Note that randomly mismatched levels is one the key factors
in Paul Paker's testing menthodology.

But Paul's listening evaulations are way ahead of Mirabel's
real-world listening tests, which long ago ceased to exist.

John Atkinson wrote:

As far as I know, none of the products you mention above has been
advertised in Stereophile, in which case your implication is not
only incorrect but not based on any evidence. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

The fact that you have reviewed such devices, claiming that they
actually work, is even worse than simply publishing an advertisement.

Sillybot plays the fool.

Or audio fundamentalists such as yourself.

Funny, I always thought of myself as *skeptic*.

He was referring to your blind faith in a "testing" system you've never used,
never experienced, and never applied for anything other than your religious
mantras.


..
..
..

Steven Sullivan wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 04:57:07 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

Or audio fundamentalists such as yourself.

Funny, I always thought of myself as *skeptic*.

I agree. It seems that if we applied the religion analogy to this discussion,
the ABX/DBT proponents would be analogous to the skeptics/atheists, while
the "audio believers" would be analogous to the religious fundamentalists.

John Atkinson wrote:
Nathan Stohler wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
My apologies for misspelling your name, Mr. Stohler. My mistake.

If it was an honest mistake, then no apology is necessary. I thought you
were perpetuating the whole "borg" thing, which I find annoying and childish.

I saw that George Middius had parodied your name and corrected it.
Except that without access to your original posting, I _mis_corrected
it. Mea culpa.

The argument is circular. In effect, you are saying: "I believe that
because an ABX test produces null results, _all_ ABX tests of _all_
products will produce null results. Ipso facto, no ABX tests are
necessary."

Could you direct me to documentation of a positive identification made
from a properly executed ABX test on a receiver or amplifier?

Try http://www.stereophile.com/features/587/. Some 2004 postings on
r.a.h-e listed other such tests.

It's hard to take you seriously when your magazine peddles such things
as:

Please note, Mr. Stohler, that Stereophile doen't "peddle" audio
products,
other than the CDs and magazine-branded schwag on our website

- Cable cookers

Yup, some of my writers have written about products such as this.

- Shakti stones

Yup, some of my writers have written about these.

- Quantum purifiers that strip quantum noise energy off the electrons?!

Never been written about in Stereophile. Could you give a reference
please.

- Hallographs (thin pieces of wood that dramatically affect the sound by
being in the room)

Never been written about in Stereophile. Could you give a reference
please.

It's hard for me to tell whether you really believe in this stuff, or if the
advertising money is just too good.

As far as I know, none of the products you mention above has been
advertised in Stereophile, in which case your implication is not
only incorrect but not based on any evidence. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

If your mag ever needed justification for its existence this clear and
concise lesson on statistics that you gave a link to and that I copied
would suffice.
However (I wouldn't be myself without a "however") it seems to me that
the common weakness of most of the listening "tests" is the panel
(testing population) selection. (This incidentally is the objection
most often raised in medical drug trials- "your sample was not wide
enough"). It seems next to impossible to collect a truly
representative sample of audio consumers. Yours in the article above
did not include the millions for whom audio is something that buzzes in
the background while you're washing the dishes and for whom VTL and
Adcom would sound very much the same- "not enough bass!".
Sean Olive came closest to having a wide enough sample in his
loudspeaker test. But I doubt that his results as to 'preference" would
be agreeable to a teenage rock devotee.
Perhaps we are all different after all and the audio component
comparisons encroach so much on individual likes and dislikes as to be
inherently impossible..
Ludovic Mirabel

Nathan Stohler wrote:


Steven Sullivan wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 04:57:07 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

Or audio fundamentalists such as yourself.

Funny, I always thought of myself as *skeptic*.

I agree. It seems that if we applied the religion analogy to this discussion,
the ABX/DBT proponents would be analogous to the skeptics/atheists, while
the "audio believers" would be analogous to the religious fundamentalists.

The 'believers' are also akin to the creationist/ID crowd, who
offer only critiques of 'flaws' (real and imagined) in scientific methods
and results, rather than evidence *for* the superiority of
*their* methods and models. (I say models rather than results, because
the ID crowd so far doesn't *have* any results to show for its 'methods',
except political ones.)

Basically, what binds these two groups is that they neither put up NOR shut up.


--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

Stohlborg whined:

perpetuating the whole "borg" thing, which I find annoying and childish.

Are your nanites up to date? Either way, you should pay a visit to Dr.
Kroomacher. He can probably adjust your Humanoid Response Simulation matrix
so those pesky human-style feelings are completely suppressed.

Stohlborg shrieks in horror.

The fact that you have reviewed such devices, claiming that they
actually work, is even worse than simply publishing an advertisement.

Do modern Audio 'Borgs have a symbolic device to repel "snake oil" objects?
I know in the olde dayes, you folks used to hold up your calculators and
pocket protectors the way vampire-hunters held up crucifixes. So what's the
21st-century 'borg equivalent of those toys?

George M. Middius said:


Do modern Audio 'Borgs have a symbolic device to repel "snake oil" objects?
I know in the olde dayes, you folks used to hold up your calculators and
pocket protectors the way vampire-hunters held up crucifixes. So what's the
21st-century 'borg equivalent of those toys?



PC-ABX.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

George "WineBorg" wrote :

Do modern Audio 'Borgs have a symbolic device to repel "snake oil"
objects? I know in the olde dayes, you folks used to hold up your
calculators and pocket protectors the way vampire-hunters held up
crucifixes. So what's the 21st-century 'borg equivalent of those toys?

Yes, George easily !!! Just like for wine !!!
They try to keep updated their knowledge of the "overwhelming consensus of
the opinion of audio connoisseurs".
Even you can do that. :-)

On 21 Nov 2005 10:25:19 -0800, George Middius
wrote:




Sillybot plays the fool.

Or audio fundamentalists such as yourself.

Funny, I always thought of myself as *skeptic*.

He was referring to your blind faith in a "testing" system you've never used,
never experienced, and never applied for anything other than your religious
mantras.

And also excoriating anyone who doesn't "believe"..

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:52:33 -0600, Nathan Stohler
wrote:



Steven Sullivan wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 04:57:07 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

Or audio fundamentalists such as yourself.

Funny, I always thought of myself as *skeptic*.

I agree. It seems that if we applied the religion analogy to this discussion,
the ABX/DBT proponents would be analogous to the skeptics/atheists, while
the "audio believers" would be analogous to the religious fundamentalists.

You would be wrong.

"Nathan Stohler" wrote in message


Steven Sullivan wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 04:57:07 +0000 (UTC), Steven
Sullivan wrote:

"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is
the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

Or audio fundamentalists such as yourself.

Guilty as charged - I do believe in the literal
interpretation of the phrase "high fidelity".

Funny, I always thought of myself as *skeptic*.

That, too.

I agree. It seems that if we applied the religion
analogy to this discussion, the ABX/DBT proponents would
be analogous to the skeptics/atheists, while
the "audio believers" would be analogous to the religious
fundamentalists.

Agreed.

"Nathan Stohler" wrote in message
...

"Mr. Stohlberg"? Are you implying that I'm Jewish? If so, is that
intended
to be humorous?


There used to be a Steinburg posting here.
Maybe John was having a flashback.

"George Middius" wrote in message
...



Sillybot plays the fool.

Or audio fundamentalists such as yourself.

Funny, I always thought of myself as *skeptic*.

He was referring to your blind faith in a "testing" system you've never
used,
never experienced, and never applied for anything other than your
religious
mantras.


if there is anything to be skeptical of, it is DBT being used by consumers.

"Nathan Stohler" wrote in message
...


Steven Sullivan wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 04:57:07 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing
stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

Or audio fundamentalists such as yourself.

Funny, I always thought of myself as *skeptic*.

I agree. It seems that if we applied the religion analogy to this
discussion,
the ABX/DBT proponents would be analogous to the skeptics/atheists, while
the "audio believers" would be analogous to the religious fundamentalists.


just as some leftisit athiests treat their athieism as a religion,
ABX/DBT proponents treat their dogma as a religion.

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:49:24 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:

(paul packer) said:

Hello, Phil. What are you doing in this dark place where bears roam?
I'd have thought you'd have enough to do over at aus.hi-fi POSTING
THAT TAPE!


Is he still rambling and raving about that taped conversation with
Patrick Turner?

Sheesh Phil, get a life already.

He has one--rambling and raving about the tape.

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Nathan Stohler wrote:


Steven Sullivan wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 04:57:07 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

Or audio fundamentalists such as yourself.

Funny, I always thought of myself as *skeptic*.

I agree. It seems that if we applied the religion analogy to this discussion,
the ABX/DBT proponents would be analogous to the skeptics/atheists, while
the "audio believers" would be analogous to the religious fundamentalists.

The 'believers' are also akin to the creationist/ID crowd, who
offer only critiques of 'flaws' (real and imagined) in scientific methods
and results, rather than evidence *for* the superiority of
*their* methods and models. (I say models rather than results, because
the ID crowd so far doesn't *have* any results to show for its 'methods',
except political ones.)

Basically, what binds these two groups is that they neither put up NOR shut up.

I wonder when you'll see that you're craving for a pipedream.. I
don't have a "method" nor have you. The difference is that you feel
lost at sea without one and I do not miss it at all. I get my laughs
watching you floundering trying to grab a buoy that keep slipping away
from you.
You're reaching for some ideal measurement or a consumer report type
scale of merit in a country of an infinite number of individual likes
and dislikes..
I can only talk from my personal corner and I don't think what I feel
has to make any sense for anyone else. Instances: Watt Puppies, Apogee
Divas, Mark-Levinson and Jadis amplifiers have or had been on all of
the four star listings. I did not care for any of them. No measurement
and no listening "test" will make the slightest difference - I
still won't like them.and in all likelihood when my brain is
homogenized by ABX I'll hear no differences between them. I like
Bryston and Acoustat dipoles for upper midrange reinforced by lower
midrange cones, transmission line woofers and Bohlender-Graebner
tweeters. They suit me , in my room for the kind of music I listen to.
They don't need to suit anyone else. When it comes to others'
opinions I'll listen more willingly to eg J.G. Holt because from
experience I know that his choice correspond to mine than to the votes
of 10.000 Abxers of the kind I'm thinking of.

I don't care for Caspian see caviar, or pate de foie gras. I had a
dozen bottles of Lafitte-Rotschild and did not care for it. All of
Larousse or Escoffier would not change my mind.
Give it up Sullivan . The "measurements" are still in their
infancy. If you trust them more than your ears and your brain that's
your loss.
Ludovic Mirabel

--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 13:09:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Note that randomly mismatched levels is one the key factors
in Paul Paker's testing menthodology.

I have no idea who "Paul Paker" is. Nor what "menthodology" is, though
I bet it clears the sinuses.

But Paul's listening evaulations are way ahead of Mirabel's
real-world listening tests, which long ago ceased to exist.

Glib comments of no worth, Arnie. I thought that's what you accused me
of.

I find a great way to be the life of the party, is to run around naked
offering free head to all the guests

paul packer wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 13:09:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Note that randomly mismatched levels is one the key factors
in Paul Paker's testing menthodology.

I have no idea who "Paul Paker" is. Nor what "menthodology" is, though
I bet it clears the sinuses.

But Paul's listening evaulations are way ahead of Mirabel's
real-world listening tests, which long ago ceased to exist.

Glib comments of no worth, Arnie. I thought that's what you accused me
of.

It is infectious. Arnie who at least used to be articulate now too is
beginning to make no sense. It seems obvious that Mirabel is under his
skin to a point when he's beginning to voice gibberish.
Ludovic Mirabel

Clyde Slick wrote:

just as some leftisit athiests treat their athieism as a religion,
ABX/DBT proponents treat their dogma as a religion.

Some people claim to be able to determine the color of fabrics
by touch or the color of crayons by taste. Their "trick" usually
involves being able to peek below their blindfold to see the
object. When they are tested under controlled conditions, they
are, for some reason, unable to make the same distinction.

Forgive me if I am unimpressed by your ability to distinguish
subtle differences in audio equipment when the two pieces of
gear are sitting right in front of you.

"George M. Middius" wrote:

Stohlborg shrieks in horror.

The fact that you have reviewed such devices, claiming that they
actually work, is even worse than simply publishing an advertisement.

Do modern Audio 'Borgs have a symbolic device to repel "snake oil" objects?
I know in the olde dayes, you folks used to hold up your calculators and
pocket protectors the way vampire-hunters held up crucifixes. So what's the
21st-century 'borg equivalent of those toys?

Oh, I get it now. Skeptic = Nerd.

Should I assume that you use a full array of gimmicks to improve the sound of
your system? Do you place those little supports on the ground to hold up your
esoteric speaker wire? Do you use Shakti stones and color the edges of your
CDs with a green Sharpie? Maybe try some red Kaballah string!

Afterall, none of these things has been proven not to improve audio, so only
a nerd would refuse to believe in them, right?

Wouldn't a "'borg" imply someone who hasn't got a mind of his own and does
not question things, someone like yourself? Skeptics ask questions and don't
automatically accept everything they are shown, but you are a true 'borg.

"Nathan Stohler" wrote in message

Clyde Slick wrote:

just as some leftisit athiests treat their athieism as a
religion, ABX/DBT proponents treat their dogma as a
religion.

Some people claim to be able to determine the color of
fabrics by touch or the color of crayons by taste. Their
"trick" usually involves being able to peek below their
blindfold to see the object. When they are tested under
controlled conditions, they are, for some reason, unable
to make the same distinction.

Forgive me if I am unimpressed by your ability to
distinguish subtle differences in audio equipment when
the two pieces of gear are sitting right in front of you.

IME Art is the sort of brain trust that takes two
amplifiers, sets the volume control on each to a
significantly different level, and then makes a big point of
preferring the sound of one over the other.

It comes with being like Middius. Deep thinking like his
make the high end ragazines what they are today.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message

Stohlborg shrieks in horror.

The fact that you have reviewed such devices, claiming
that they actually work, is even worse than simply
publishing an advertisement.

Do modern Audio 'Borgs have a symbolic device to repel
"snake oil" objects?

It's not symbolic, its real. It's called "having a brain".
George, you ought to try it some day.

Nathan Stohler wrote in
message :
John Atkinson wrote in message
.com:
As far as I know, none of the products you mention above has
been advertised in Stereophile, in which case your implication
is not only incorrect but not based on any evidence. :-)

The fact that you have reviewed such devices, claiming that
they actually work, is even worse than simply publishing an
advertisement.

Wow, you sure moved those goalpasts with alacrity, Mr. Stohler.
I was responding to specific points you raised, only for you
to pretend you were writing about something else altogether!
I'll address your new point, then return to what you were
originally saying.

When it comes to reviews of audio products, we don't pretend to
any prior knowledge. This is as true for odd-sounding tweaks as
it is for conventional components, a Krell amplifier for example.
All I ask from my staff is that they honestly report what they
perceive when they try the product. If they start to second-guess
those perceptions, by changing their mind because they find the
products' rationales ridiculous, then they are no longer being
honest and their reviews lose worth.

I witnessed an example of this in 1984, BTW, when a Japanese
reviewer, Egawa-san, and I both gave presentations to the
Boston Audio Society. Egawa-san set up a single-blind comparison
between two digital sources. The audience found that they
could detect the difference. Yet after Egawa-san revealed that
what the listeners had been auditioning was the same Sony
portable CD player powered by either AC or by its internal
battery, they spent the rest of the evening arguing that they
_didn't_ hear what the test clearly showed they _had_, because
they _knew_ a CD player's power supply could not influence
sound quality.

If you already know what can and cannot have an audible
effect, Mr.Stohler, then why do you need even to perform any
tests? Life would be so much easier. :-)

If you read Stereophile, Mr. Stohler, you will find examples
both of tweaks that seem to provide some benefit and others
that do not. If you wish to condemn review conclusions that
conflict with the your beliefs, then I have no problem with
that but please don't pretend that your beliefs confer on
you any kind of moral superiority.

To return to your point, Mr. Stohler, you wrote in message
that the outcome of reviews
in Stereophile was influenced by advertsiing revenue -- "It's
hard for me to tell whether you really believe in this stuff,
or if the advertising money is just too good."

This is both incorrect and professionally insulting.
Nevertheless, I paid you the courtesy of addressing the
specific examples of such supposed corruption that you had
raised, complete with bullet points:

- Cable cookers
- Shakti stones
- Quantum purifiers that strip quantum noise energy off the
electrons?!
- Hallographs (thin pieces of wood that dramatically affect the
sound by being in the room)

I pointed out that while Stereophile had reported on the first
two of these products, it had not on the second two. And if it
hadn't done so, it is hard to see why these two are such a
"gotcha." I asked you to provide references to the instances
where Stereophile had reported on the "Quantum purifiers"
and the "Hallographs"; you apparently refuse to do so,
presumably because your beliefs are not supported by reality.

Next, I pointed out that your thesis -- that the "advertising
money is so good" -- also doesn't bear scrutiny as, to the best
of my knowledge, not one of the manufacturers of the 4 products
you instance advertises in Stereophile. Again, your beliefs
are not supported by reality. Far from admitting your error,
you pretend you were talking about something else. Dirty pool,
Mr. Stohler, dirty pool.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ups.com


When it comes to reviews of audio products, we don't
pretend to any prior knowledge.

In other words John, you are tremendously self-unaware
because of course you do have considerable prior knowlege.

"John Atkinson" wrote

When it comes to reviews of audio products,
we don't pretend to any prior knowledge.

If true, what value does a reviewer bring to
the table?


This is as true for odd-sounding tweaks as
it is for conventional components, a Krell
amplifier for example.

One could also point out that statistically
price follows magazine rating.


All I ask from my staff is that they honestly
report what they perceive when they try the
product. If they start to second-guess those
perceptions, by changing their mind because
they find the products' rationales ridiculous,
then they are no longer being honest and their
reviews lose worth.

Which is all that can be asked of an
*entertainment magazine*. But your business,
commercial and financial interests actively
promote *audio expertise*... which may
have no basis in reality.

You seem to contend that being perceived
as an *audio expert* is a public miss
perception (not your fault).


If you wish to condemn review conclusions
that conflict with the your beliefs, then I have
no problem with that but please don't pretend
that your beliefs confer on you any kind of
moral superiority.

Hehehe... Oh-Brother.


Next, I pointed out that your thesis -- that the
"advertising money is so good" -- also doesn't
bear scrutiny as, to the best of my knowledge,
not one of the manufacturers of the 4 products
you instance advertises in Stereophile.

Is it the business of your advertising department
to screen_anyone_who places ad space for any
audio product? In other words, anyone can place
an ad, the audio claims of the product are
irrelevant, right? If not what is the audio specific
rejection criteria?


Again, your beliefs are not supported by reality.

You mean "not supported by the
*documentation* (not"reality").


Far from admitting your error, you pretend
you were talking about something else. Dirty
pool, Mr. Stohler, dirty pool.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Is this your version of "trade debating," John ?

"Nathan Stohler" wrote

Oh, I get it now. Skeptic = Nerd.

Nathan Stohler = Nerd.


Should I assume that you use a full array
of gimmicks to improve the sound of your
system?

A Nerd with little to no empirical experiences...
so how would you know?


Do you place those little supports on the
ground to hold up your esoteric speaker
wire? Do you use Shakti stones and color
the edges of your CDs with a green Sharpie?
Maybe try some red Kaballah string!

If he had that would make him about a factor
of ten greater than your own audio
experiences.


Afterall, none of these things has been proven
not to improve audio, so only a nerd would
refuse to believe in them, right?

You mean like ALL AMPS = All Amps and
ALL WIRE = All Wire. Your wallet sayz
'appliance-store-shopper' all over it .


Wouldn't a "'borg" imply someone who hasn't
got a mind of his own and does not question
things, someone like yourself?

Typo error, you mean myself, right?


Skeptics ask questions and don't automatically
accept everything they are shown,...

All in the search for Trvth®

John Atkinson wrote:


I witnessed an example of this in 1984, BTW, when a Japanese
reviewer, Egawa-san, and I both gave presentations to the
Boston Audio Society. Egawa-san set up a single-blind comparison
between two digital sources. The audience found that they
could detect the difference. Yet after Egawa-san revealed that
what the listeners had been auditioning was the same Sony
portable CD player powered by either AC or by its internal
battery, they spent the rest of the evening arguing that they
_didn't_ hear what the test clearly showed they _had_, because
they _knew_ a CD player's power supply could not influence
sound quality.

This is hardly surprising. The Japanese fellow conveniently left
out the important "X" part of ABX testing. It's well known that
if you present two choices to a subject in a blind test, the
implication is that the two are different, even if they are in fact
identical.



If you already know what can and cannot have an audible
effect, Mr.Stohler, then why do you need even to perform any
tests? Life would be so much easier. :-)

I'm sorry, but I don't need to perform a test to determine whether
marking the edge of my CDs with a green pen will alter the sound
I hear. I'm sorry if such things are not intuitive to you.



If you read Stereophile, Mr. Stohler, you will find examples
both of tweaks that seem to provide some benefit and others
that do not. If you wish to condemn review conclusions that
conflict with the your beliefs, then I have no problem with
that but please don't pretend that your beliefs confer on
you any kind of moral superiority.

Mental superiority, maybe.
Your constant barrage of offers of "$12.97 for 12 issues" are tempting,
but no thanks.


Next, I pointed out that your thesis -- that the "advertising
money is so good" -- also doesn't bear scrutiny as, to the best
of my knowledge, not one of the manufacturers of the 4 products
you instance advertises in Stereophile. Again, your beliefs
are not supported by reality. Far from admitting your error,
you pretend you were talking about something else. Dirty pool,
Mr. Stohler, dirty pool.

"Stereophile Recommended Component for 3 Years Running":

http://www.audioexcellenceaz.com/aud...ablecooker.htm

PD said to TurdBorg:

no commercial entity has picked up [pcab****]

Because it's crap.

You say that like it's a bad thing.


..
..

Powell wrote:

Nathan Stohler = Nerd.

Is that supposed to be an insult?



Should I assume that you use a full array
of gimmicks to improve the sound of your
system?

A Nerd with little to no empirical experiences...
so how would you know?

How would you know?


If he had that would make him about a factor
of ten greater than your own audio
experiences.

That depends on what passes for "experience".


You mean like ALL AMPS = All Amps and
ALL WIRE = All Wire. Your wallet sayz
'appliance-store-shopper' all over it .

Is that supposed to be an insult?



Wouldn't a "'borg" imply someone who hasn't
got a mind of his own and does not question
things, someone like yourself?

Typo error, you mean myself, right?

At the time, I wasn't referring to you, but you have a point,
or did you mean to put "myself" in quotes?



Skeptics ask questions and don't automatically
accept everything they are shown,...

All in the search for Trvth®

I'm having trouble understanding your position.

Powell wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
When it comes to reviews of audio products,
we don't pretend to any prior knowledge.

If true, what value does a reviewer bring to
the table?

Agnosticism.

This is as true for odd-sounding tweaks as
it is for conventional components, a Krell
amplifier for example.

One could also point out that statistically
price follows magazine rating.

One would be wrong to do so. A reader recently performed
such an analysis and was surprised to find only a weak
correlation. I will be publishing this analysis in a future issue.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Nathan Stohler wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
If you read Stereophile, Mr. Stohler, you will find examples
both of tweaks that seem to provide some benefit and others
that do not. If you wish to condemn review conclusions that
conflict with the your beliefs, then I have no problem with
that but please don't pretend that your beliefs confer on
you any kind of moral superiority.

Mental superiority, maybe.

At least you have a sense of humor, Mr. Stohler.

Next, I pointed out that your thesis -- that the "advertising
money is so good" -- also doesn't bear scrutiny as, to the best
of my knowledge, not one of the manufacturers of the 4 products
you instance advertises in Stereophile. Again, your beliefs
are not supported by reality...

"Stereophile Recommended Component for 3 Years Running":
http://www.audioexcellenceaz.com/aud...ablecooker.htm

Forgive me for not being your mental equal, Mr. Stohler, but how does
giving a link to a retailer's website that quotes Stereophile have any
connection with your thesis that ads in the _magazine_ influence
review findings?

And again: you mentioned Stereophile reviews of the "Quantum cleaner"
and the "Hallograph." I have now twice corrected your assertion but you
have to admit error. More of your "mental superiority"?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:37:13 -0600, Nathan Stohler
wrote:

Next, I pointed out that your thesis -- that the "advertising
money is so good" -- also doesn't bear scrutiny as, to the best
of my knowledge, not one of the manufacturers of the 4 products
you instance advertises in Stereophile. Again, your beliefs
are not supported by reality. Far from admitting your error,
you pretend you were talking about something else. Dirty pool,
Mr. Stohler, dirty pool.

"Stereophile Recommended Component for 3 Years Running":

http://www.audioexcellenceaz.com/aud...ablecooker.htm

What does this dealer using Stereophile's name in promoting a product
have to do with the product advertising in Stereophile? Or are you
claiming that the RCL is "advertising" in Stereophile?

Just curious.