John Atkinson 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...

"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

John,

I cannot find links to those reviews, so I will admit to error here, so we can
end that branch of discussion if you like.

My "thesis", as you put it, is this. If an audio magazine reviews high-end
audio equipment favorably, advertising revenue for high-end products is
positively affected, and I believe the converse is true.

Now, I'm not necessarily saying that's so bad, as I'm sure most readers are
aware of the situation. But cable cookers? Shakti stones? Suggesting that
such things actually have an effect seems irresponsible to me.

You seem very sincere and passionate about your work. I resent the
adversarial tones that have crept into this discussion, and I take the blame
for my share of it.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:29:02 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

O guess Paul that as usual you can't put two and two
together to get four.

Condescension, Arnie? Shame.

I'll spell it out for you Paul: It's hard to use ears to
evaluate products that you don't have access to, until you
first buy them.

I gain my access to products I'm considering in the dealer's listening
rooms. And then I listen to them. Eventually, after listening a good
while, I say, "I'll have that one please." Or more likely, "Is that
the best you can do on price for that?"

And if you're happy with using the least relaible, most prone to mistakes
way of buying audio equipment, then that's fine for you. Some people know
better than to use such methods, especially when things tend to not have any
differences in the first place.


That's the big advantage of PCABX - you can use it to
audition equipment that you don't have direct access to.

Audition? Perhaps you and I have a different understanding of the
word.

Absolutely, yours needs updating.

"Nathan Stohler" wrote

Nathan Stohler = Nerd.

Is that supposed to be an insult?

Only if you don't like being compared/reduced
to a cliche, do you?


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?

You need a bigger shovel.


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".

What is you litmus test for "passes."


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?

Arn't you of the *reductionist* mindset?


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,

Clue phone, you were talking to George.


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.

What is causative relationship between Skepticism
and reality/truth/accuracy or what Arny calls "more
correct and less correct?"

"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.

More like Nihilism, John .

ni-hil-ism (nie'uh liz uhm, nee'-) n.

3. a. the belief that all existence is
senseless and that there is no
possibility of an objective basis
for truth.
b. nothingness or nonexistence.


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.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quack, quack, quack...

Powell quacked:

Quack, quack, quack...

Speaking for myself, I won't be convinced until I've seen you walk. Got a video
uploaded somewhere? ;-)


..
..
..

On 22 Nov 2005 07:10:10 -0800, "John Atkinson"
wrote:

Nathan Stohler wrote in
message :
John Atkinson wrote in message
s.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


ohhh you're so sexy
I love you

"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.


I never said they were subtle.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"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.


To me, some amps are so obviously better sounding
than others, that anything but egregious differences in volume
don't change the result of the comparison.

wrote in message
nk.net...


And if you're happy with using the least relaible, most prone to mistakes
way of buying audio equipment, then that's fine for you. Some people know
better than to use such methods, especially when things tend to not have
any differences in the first place.


So, you ARE saying that PCABX/DBT/ABX torture rituals are required
for legitimate consumer purchases.

Clyde Slick said:

So, you ARE saying that PCABX/DBT/ABX torture rituals are required
for legitimate consumer purchases.

Mickey is also on record as supporting eyeball-gouging, either voluntary or
involuntary.

Nathan Stohler wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
And again: you mentioned Stereophile reviews of the "Quantum cleaner"
and the "Hallograph." I have now twice corrected your assertion but you
have [yet] to admit error. More of your "mental superiority"?

I cannot find links to those reviews, so I will admit to error here, so we can
end that branch of discussion if you like.

That's fair enough. I am willing to discuss criticims of what my
magazine
has done but not critisicms based on reviews published in other
publications.

My "thesis", as you put it, is this. If an audio magazine reviews high-end
audio equipment favorably, advertising revenue for high-end products is
positively affected, and I believe the converse is true.

Not in my experience. Advertising revenue is generated by providing
readers with a magazine that they want to read. Advertisers who wish
their message to reach those readers will spend money on ads to do so.
Negative reviews can also stimulate advertising as the manufacturer
tries to present a different view. Consider the Audio Physic Caldera 3
review in the November issue, which could be considered a train
wreck for the manufacturer. Yet they continue to advertise.

I am now in the 24th year of professional magazine editing, and have
not inconsiderable experience of this subject. I have written many
times
on this subject and a number of essays are available in Stereophile's
on-line archives. I will post some URLs later today.

Now, I'm not necessarily saying that's so bad, as I'm sure most
readers are aware of the situation. But cable cookers? Shakti
stones? Suggesting that such things actually have an effect seems
irresponsible to me.

Only if you already _know_ what these devices can and can't do. We
have already discussed this subject and our opposing positions are
clear, I feel. I continue to be surprised that things I "know" should
be
audible turn out not to be to an any great extent, while things I might
regard as trivial do turn out to be significant.

You seem very sincere and passionate about your work. I resent the
adversarial tones that have crept into this discussion, and I take the
blame for my share of it.

Thank you. I try hard to address issues rather than people, but it is
inevitable that a degree of impatience appears.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson wrote:
I have written many times on this subject and a number of essays are
available in Stereophile's on-line archives. I will post some URLs later
today.

For example, see http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/366 , and
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/502 .

I also wrote about the relationship or lack thereof between advertising
and a magazine's editorial content in the chapter I contributed to the
new book "Sound Bites," available from Hi-Fi news in the UK.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Powell wrote:

"Nathan Stohler" wrote
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?

You need a bigger shovel.

"How would you know what empirical experiences I've had?"
is what I meant.


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".

What is you litmus test for "passes."

Someone who claims to have been abducted by aliens
can also say they've had more "experience" than me.


What is causative relationship between Skepticism
and reality/truth/accuracy or what Arny calls "more
correct and less correct?"

I'd say that healthy skepticism leads to truth/reality more
often than fantasy.