In the current online stereo news for this week are three articles. The
main one:

http://www.stereophile.com/artdudley...g/604listening

has two embedded links:

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/110

http://www.stereophile.com/features/69

that provide grist for the tweek mill. The middle above even mentions our
Mr. Atkinson commenting favorbly on an improbable tweek. The three
articles expose one to the full range of "explanations", pick and choose
the one that appeals or just invent your own. While these are out there,
the exact same kind of "explanation" is offered constantly for the more
mondane wire/amp circle of tweek hell. I offer as balance the comments of
Mr. Holt that those, including the one Mr. Atkinson was convinced of were
beyond his ability to replicate, the reported results so many others
offered.

On 6/26/04 7:45 PM, in article yUnDc.98642$2i5.68443@attbi_s52,
" wrote:

The three
articles expose one to the full range of "explanations", pick and choose
the one that appeals or just invent your own.

I would agree that there is a great deal of "danger" in offering an
explanation of why something might appear to "improve" things - mostly from
the fact is that the reviewer may really have no idea, but wishes to satisfy
him or herself that an explanation is possible. Debunkers also get derailed
into "debunking" the explanation rather than performing the much more
difficult task of proving a negative ("this tweak does nothing").

ON a side note - I have found that the majority of tweaks allegedly to
improve CD sound spring from turntables - where some isolation and
mechanical/sound wave feedback was a measurable thing. I personally believe
that a poor design might benefit from some of those CD tweaks (such as
isolation platforms - I am *not* talking about green markers) but am a bit
more skeptical about a design that is well done.

wrote:

In the current online stereo news for this week are three articles. The
main one:

http://www.stereophile.com/artdudley...g/604listening

has two embedded links:

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/110

http://www.stereophile.com/features/69

that provide grist for the tweek mill. The middle above even mentions our
Mr. Atkinson commenting favorbly on an improbable tweek. The three
articles expose one to the full range of "explanations", pick and choose
the one that appeals or just invent your own. While these are out there,
the exact same kind of "explanation" is offered constantly for the more
mondane wire/amp circle of tweek hell. I offer as balance the comments of
Mr. Holt that those, including the one Mr. Atkinson was convinced of were
beyond his ability to replicate, the reported results so many others
offered.


Thanks for the links. I found the Holt article well written, and still
very current. For instance, he wrote:

"Despite heroic efforts to educate our population, the US (and,
apparently, the UK) has been graduating scientific illiterates for more
than 40 years. And where knowledge ends, superstition begins. Without
any concepts of how scientific knowledge is gleaned from intuition,
hypothesis, and meticulous investigation, or what it accepts today as
truth, anything is possible. Without the anchor of science, we are free
to drift from one idea to another, accepting or "keeping an open mind
about" as many outrageous tenets as did the "superstitious natives" we
used to scorn 50 years ago. (We still do, but it's unfashionable to
admit it.) Many of our beliefs are based on nothing more than a very
questionable personal conviction that, because something should be true,
then it must be. (Traditional religion is the best example of this.) The
notion that a belief should have at least some objective support is
scorned as being "closed-minded," which has become a new epithet. In
order to avoid that dread appellation, we are expected to pretend to be
open to the possibility that today's flight of technofantasy may prove
to be tomorrow's truth, no matter how unlikely."

Very well put. IMO, of course.

wrote in message
news:yUnDc.98642$2i5.68443@attbi_s52...
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/110 ...even mentions our Mr.
Atkinson commenting favorably on an improbable tweek.

I am not sure on what you base this observation. I am on record as
saying that Peter Belt's "tweeks" are BS. Here is the entire text
of Gordon Holt's in which he mentions my reaction to a demonstration
of one of Peter Belt's devices:

"John Atkinson felt that he heard a difference between when an LP
was "polarized" correctly and incorrectly in a demonstration run by
the English magazine Hi-Fi Answers at the show."

I offer as balance the comments of Mr. Holt that those, including
the one Mr. Atkinson was convinced of were beyond his ability to
replicate...

I gently suggest that "convinced of" is a projection of yours. All
I am reported as saying is that I heard a difference in a 1987 public
demonstration. I didn't offer any other comment.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile



, the reported results so many others
offered.

"I would agree that there is a great deal of "danger" in offering an
explanation of why something might appear to "improve" things - mostly
from
the fact is that the reviewer may really have no idea, but wishes to
satisfy
him or herself that an explanation is possible. Debunkers also get
derailed
into "debunking" the explanation rather than performing the much more
difficult task of proving a negative ("this tweak does nothing")."

Of course the debunker has no such obligation to provide proof or support
either way, it is those who make the claim who do. The debunker can gain
some insight into the level of rigor involved if the person claiming
extraordinary experiences has neither support that has undergone bias
controlled testing nor any insight into how improbable the claim as it
violates some basic principle of science. We don't proceed by failing to
prove the negative, we proceed by failing to disproove the positive.

wrote in message
news:yUnDc.98642$2i5.68443@attbi_s52...
In the current online stereo news for this week are three articles. The
main one:

http://www.stereophile.com/artdudley...g/604listening


I see they make mention of the Shum Mook discs, which I remember reading
about in Stereophile. The fact that any person or magazine dedicated to
audio would allow such an article, (in which the author claimed an
improvement from the discs) without any before and after frequency response
plots, is IMO an indictment of both the author and the magazine. It was
shortly after the review of this quackery, that I ceased my subscription.
If only the Audio Critic could find a way to publish more frequently, the
audio world would be much better off.

has two embedded links:

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/110

http://www.stereophile.com/features/69

that provide grist for the tweek mill. The middle above even mentions our
Mr. Atkinson commenting favorbly on an improbable tweek. The three
articles expose one to the full range of "explanations", pick and choose
the one that appeals or just invent your own. While these are out there,
the exact same kind of "explanation" is offered constantly for the more
mondane wire/amp circle of tweek hell. I offer as balance the comments of
Mr. Holt that those, including the one Mr. Atkinson was convinced of were
beyond his ability to replicate, the reported results so many others
offered.

Will you comment on the record about differences in wire and amp "sound",
as it has been discussed in the context of this newsgroup? That would be
with regard to an apparent absence of a difference being identified in
bias controlled listening alone testing?

Atkinson commenting favorably on an improbable tweek.

I am not sure on what you base this observation. I am on record as
saying that Peter Belt's "tweeks" are BS. Here is the entire text
of Gordon Holt's in which he mentions my reaction to a demonstration
of one of Peter Belt's devices:

"John Atkinson felt that he heard a difference between when an LP
was "polarized" correctly and incorrectly in a demonstration run by
the English magazine Hi-Fi Answers at the show."

I offer as balance the comments of Mr. Holt that those, including
the one Mr. Atkinson was convinced of were beyond his ability to
replicate...

I gently suggest that "convinced of" is a projection of yours. All
I am reported as saying is that I heard a difference in a 1987 public
demonstration. I didn't offer any other comment.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile



, the reported results so many others
offered.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ...
I see they make mention of the Shum Mook discs, which I remember
reading about in Stereophile. The fact that any person or magazine
dedicated to audio would allow such an article, (in which the author
claimed an improvement from the discs) without any before and after
frequency response plots, is IMO an indictment of both the author
and the magazine.

Did you read the Shun Mook articles that were linked to, Mr. McKelvy?
I ask because Stereophile's coverage was both positive _and_ negative.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
news:%XXDc.106610$2i5.31991@attbi_s52...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
I see they make mention of the Shum Mook discs, which I remember
reading about in Stereophile. The fact that any person or magazine
dedicated to audio would allow such an article, (in which the author
claimed an improvement from the discs) without any before and after
frequency response plots, is IMO an indictment of both the author
and the magazine.

Did you read the Shun Mook articles that were linked to, Mr. McKelvy?
I ask because Stereophile's coverage was both positive _and_ negative.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Is there a link to some page showing where one of the people at SP did FR
measurements before and after the Mpingo discs were set up?

If not I stand by my statements. A review of something that's supposed to
improve the quality of sound coming from one's speakers that doesn't include
at a minimum a FR measurement before and after is beyond worthless. It is
indeed part of the dumbing down process that has been going on with high end
audio for decades and which magazines like TAS and SP have been actively
leading the charge for.

wrote in message
news:hNMDc.164869$3x.96377@attbi_s54...
John Atkinson wrote:
I gently suggest that "convinced of" is a projection of yours. All
I am reported as saying is that I heard a difference in a 1987
public demonstration. I didn't offer any other comment.

Will you comment on the record about differences in wire and amp
"sound", as it has been discussed in the context of this newsgroup?

While I am sure this is a burning issue for you, I think it best not
to contribute to "thread bloat." I was merely correcting the record
with respect to my feelings on Peter Belt's devices. I have commented
many times in the past on the subjects if wire and amplifier sound on
the newgroups. You can find what I have said by searching at
http://groups.google.com.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile