Tying up some loose ends and providing examples of reader responses, he
ends on his part the recent series on his blog.

http://www.randi.org/jr/121004science.html#11

In this series his brash style was in evidence with his pull no punches
approach clearly seen. The sad thing is it leaves unanswered by testing
question of the core belief system of the subjective enterprise. One of
the latter's weaknesses is having no systematic way to draw a line in the
sand as to how far subjective listening provides any useful feedback.
Mr. Atkinson has shown some quite muted responses in print to claims of
"stones" wire etc. which allows one to see them as damnation by faint
praise or as a bone tossed to astute readers who can read between the
lines.

In speakers listening of the sort done in the subjective enterprise is
almost universally accepted to have some value, with correct decoding,ex.
"warm" as some freq greater level in the upperbass/mid range; my ever
popular "chocolate" eludes decoding. The failure of the subjective
enterprise is because there is absolutely wno ay to know when the accepted
by all turns into "stones" and similar. It is a world of your opinion is
as good as my opinion and all is bliss in ignorance for want of a defining
method to spot what really makes a difference such that some change rises
above the threshold of audibility.

If Mr. Atkinson shrinks from embracing the reality of the subjective
enterprise by testing, perhaps he can address methods to shine light on
the total morass of "you got your opinion and I got mine" that something
can be heard. Let him publish his clear line in the sand and reasons why
that exclude "stones" etc. and why wire etc. apparently is kosher. Let
him tell us what method allows him to reach these conclusions so that
others may make benefit of it and independently confirm them. Let him list
all commonly reviewed items/practices that appear in print and show us the
status of each according to his method.

Would the readership be so shocked at this so as to lose faith in what is
published in almost every article about "breakin" wires swapped in and out
and the predictable list of "ancillary" gear/practices that makes the
majic happen. Can he then tell us how he decides if each of his authors
has grasp of this method, why some might not, and make a neat package of
the whole.

wrote:
Tying up some loose ends and providing examples of reader responses,
he ends on his part the recent series on his blog.

http://www.randi.org/jr/121004science.html#11

In this series his brash style was in evidence with his pull no
punches approach clearly seen.

I agree. He pullss no punches. But what puzzled me about this article
of Randi's is that it exists at all. As I wrote in an earlier posting,
his previous week's Commentary had again contained misstatements and
misattributions of what I was supposed to have said and done. I
emailed Randi requesting him to publish a reasonably short response
correcting these errors. He emailed me back, saying "My readers are
getting weary of this discussion. I will provide your e-mail address
to them, so that those who wish to follow up on the matter may do
so."

I note that he has indeed published my email address in his most
recent commentary. However, contrary to the implication in his
reason for not publishing my response -- "my readers are getting
weary of this subject" -- he then publishes a number of e-mails
from his readers who are universally anti-Stereophile.

A trivial matter, I admit. But it raises to me what is an important
point: that if the Amazing Randi is not capable of honesty in a
small matter such as this, why do you and other skeptics feel that
he _can_ be trusted to be honest when it comes to large matters, such
as the $1 million challenge?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

On 12/11/04 11:12 AM, in article ,
"
wrote:

wrote:
Tying up some loose ends and providing examples of reader responses,
he ends on his part the recent series on his blog.

http://www.randi.org/jr/121004science.html#11

In this series his brash style was in evidence with his pull no
punches approach clearly seen.

I agree. He pullss no punches. But what puzzled me about this article
of Randi's is that it exists at all. As I wrote in an earlier posting,
his previous week's Commentary had again contained misstatements and
misattributions of what I was supposed to have said and done. I
emailed Randi requesting him to publish a reasonably short response
correcting these errors. He emailed me back, saying "My readers are
getting weary of this discussion. I will provide your e-mail address
to them, so that those who wish to follow up on the matter may do
so."

I note that he has indeed published my email address in his most
recent commentary. However, contrary to the implication in his
reason for not publishing my response -- "my readers are getting
weary of this subject" -- he then publishes a number of e-mails
from his readers who are universally anti-Stereophile.

A trivial matter, I admit. But it raises to me what is an important
point: that if the Amazing Randi is not capable of honesty in a
small matter such as this, why do you and other skeptics feel that
he _can_ be trusted to be honest when it comes to large matters, such
as the $1 million challenge?

I think from Randi's behavior he underestimated the passion of those he
attempts to debunk as well as being uninterested in setting or even having
the record straight.

When I earlier referred to "debunking" as the less useful brother to science
- I was serious - the debunkers are rarely interested in shedding light on a
subject as bashing and "disproving" in the sloppiest most sensational
method. Rarely has the world seen a debunker retract anything if their
methods weren't quite correct or if they were later shown to have done a
faulty experiment.

In fact, they tend to blast first and ask questions later.

Snake oil in this business is well known - and some still fall for it,
however, given the nature of the mind it is not surprsing, and debunkers
prey upon and act the same as those they denounce once the "experiemnt" is
over - making them contributors to the confusing morass that is the snake
oil side of the house.

""if the Amazing Randi is not capable of honesty in a small matter such
as this, why do you and other skeptics feel that he _can_ be trusted
to be honest when it comes to large matters, such as the $1 million
challenge?

John Atkinson"

If the real test is done, he is completely out of the loop on it, read
again the test info. If he is the only sticking point, then any number of
people on this list will be happy to set up a test, will you participate?

I offered a way for you to address the question of how you arrive at the
conclusion of which audio gear, all of it's categories, is past or not the
line you draw in the sand. Which audio gear iswhich and why and how can
some clarity using your method can be brought to the complete morass and
nihilism that marks the subjective enterprise at present.

wrote:

A trivial matter, I admit. But it raises to me what is an important
point: that if the Amazing Randi is not capable of honesty in a
small matter such as this, why do you and other skeptics feel that
he _can_ be trusted to be honest when it comes to large matters, such
as the $1 million challenge?

And why the focus on Randi? He's just a sideshow, a promoter if you
will. The real issue is valid, reliable and repeatable testing
techniques about acoustical cause of sonic claims, is it not?

Which is what you have not yet addressed. Questions about Randi's
'honesty' are a red herring.

wrote:
If [Randi] is the only sticking point...

What made you think that he was? Note that I used the word
"particularly."

then any number of people on this list will be happy to set up a
test, will you participate?

As I have said repeatedly, I am not interested, nor ahs anyone offered
any valid reason why I _should_ be interested.

I offered a way for you to address the question of how you arrive at
the conclusion of which audio gear, all of it's categories, is past
or not the line you draw in the sand.

I am sorry, I have no idea what it you are trying to say here.

Which audio gear iswhich and why and how can some clarity using
your method can be brought to the complete morass and nihilism
that marks the subjective enterprise at present.

Again, I don't comprehend your point.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

On 12/11/04 5:12 PM, in article ,
" wrote:

wrote:

A trivial matter, I admit. But it raises to me what is an important
point: that if the Amazing Randi is not capable of honesty in a
small matter such as this, why do you and other skeptics feel that
he _can_ be trusted to be honest when it comes to large matters, such
as the $1 million challenge?

And why the focus on Randi? He's just a sideshow, a promoter if you
will. The real issue is valid, reliable and repeatable testing
techniques about acoustical cause of sonic claims, is it not?

Which is what you have not yet addressed. Questions about Randi's
'honesty' are a red herring.

Not exactly - a scientists only asset is honesty. And the subject was
Randi's ongoing attack of Stereophile, and his apparent unwillingness to
correct mistake and misstatements he has made because "his readers are
weary" which is a pretty lame excuse if you ask me, especially since he is
supposed to stand for scientific accuracy. It is further astonishing to me
that he would then go on and fan the flames with lots of his follower's
posts despite their "weariness" to the topic. Double standard and NOT a
good example to follow.

I agree that the "real" issue is scientifically verifying observation -
repeatably and honestly. So the question is, if Randi is unwilling to be
100% honest and evenhanded in his mistake correction, and is kind of
weaselly about how - how the heck is he supposed to be credible on things
that really matter a lot - and he has a vested interest in its outcome?

wrote in message
...
Tying up some loose ends and providing examples of
reader responses, he
ends on his part the recent series on his blog.

http://www.randi.org/jr/121004science.html#11

In which, Randi provides testimony from Dale Miner
about the absence of Stereophile's type of
"techno-voodoo" at Skywalker Ranch. Do a search on
Google for "Skywalker Ranch cable" and you will find
that Skywalker Ranch does indeed use "techno-voodoo"
cables, power conditioners, etc...

It's unfortunate for all of us that Randi has been so
sloppy in his presentation of the "facts" and unwilling
to correct his mistakes (he's had ample opportunity).
At this point all I can assume is that he is just as
much of a con-man as those he accuses.

Regards,
Tip

B&D wrote:

On 12/11/04 5:12 PM, in article ,
" wrote:

wrote:

A trivial matter, I admit. But it raises to me what is an important
point: that if the Amazing Randi is not capable of honesty in a
small matter such as this, why do you and other skeptics feel that
he _can_ be trusted to be honest when it comes to large matters, such
as the $1 million challenge?

And why the focus on Randi? He's just a sideshow, a promoter if you
will. The real issue is valid, reliable and repeatable testing
techniques about acoustical cause of sonic claims, is it not?

Which is what you have not yet addressed. Questions about Randi's
'honesty' are a red herring.

Not exactly - a scientists only asset is honesty.

I sure hope those who called themselves scietists has more than simply
honesty.

And the subject was
Randi's ongoing attack of Stereophile, and his apparent unwillingness to
correct mistake and misstatements he has made because "his readers are
weary" which is a pretty lame excuse if you ask me, especially since he is
supposed to stand for scientific accuracy. It is further astonishing to me
that he would then go on and fan the flames with lots of his follower's
posts despite their "weariness" to the topic. Double standard and NOT a
good example to follow.

I agree that the "real" issue is scientifically verifying observation -
repeatably and honestly. So the question is, if Randi is unwilling to be
100% honest and evenhanded in his mistake correction, and is kind of
weaselly about how - how the heck is he supposed to be credible on things
that really matter a lot - and he has a vested interest in its outcome?

The real issue is that Stereophile knows that it cannot take that
challenge and win. Everything else said to defend itself is "weaselly"
(sic). The data will support whether Stereophile wins that challenge or
not, so I don't see how Stereophile can be afraid of Randi's honesty.
Randi has no problem of using a third party to proctor the test, if I
recall correctly.

wrote:
wrote:
If [Randi] is the only sticking point...

What made you think that he was? Note that I used the word
"particularly."

then any number of people on this list will be happy to set up a
test, will you participate?

As I have said repeatedly, I am not interested, nor ahs anyone offered
any valid reason why I _should_ be interested.

How about $1 million? How about the glory of proving to those doubters
that Stereophile's reviewers know what they are doing? How about
shutting up Randi once and for all?

In article , B&D
wrote:

Which is what you have not yet addressed. Questions about Randi's
'honesty' are a red herring.

Not exactly - a scientists only asset is honesty.

A necessary asset perhaps, but obviously not the only one.

On 12/12/04 11:23 AM, in article , "Billy
Shears" wrote:

In article , B&D
wrote:

Which is what you have not yet addressed. Questions about Randi's
'honesty' are a red herring.

Not exactly - a scientists only asset is honesty.

A necessary asset perhaps, but obviously not the only one.

Fair enough. Without honesty, all the knowledge in the world won't matter.

On 12/12/04 11:14 AM, in article , "Chung"
wrote:

then any number of people on this list will be happy to set up a
test, will you participate?

As I have said repeatedly, I am not interested, nor ahs anyone offered
any valid reason why I _should_ be interested.

How about $1 million? How about the glory of proving to those doubters
that Stereophile's reviewers know what they are doing? How about
shutting up Randi once and for all?

Randi will never shut up - he has shown that over his entire career.

$1M is not enough to float a magazine - Stereophile makes a lot more than
that for a year.

Randi is attacking the wrong target - attacking a magazine is wrong headed
and cynical - he needs to attack the makers of the claptrap.

"Tip" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Tying up some loose ends and providing examples of
reader responses, he
ends on his part the recent series on his blog.

http://www.randi.org/jr/121004science.html#11

In which, Randi provides testimony from Dale Miner
about the absence of Stereophile's type of
"techno-voodoo" at Skywalker Ranch. Do a search on
Google for "Skywalker Ranch cable" and you will find
that Skywalker Ranch does indeed use "techno-voodoo"
cables, power conditioners, etc...

Probably for the same reason many studios use expensive cable, it was given
to them for promotional reasons. Certainly, since wire is wire, if you are
given wire then you don't have the expense of buying it.


It's unfortunate for all of us that Randi has been so
sloppy in his presentation of the "facts" and unwilling
to correct his mistakes (he's had ample opportunity).
At this point all I can assume is that he is just as
much of a con-man as those he accuses.


It's even more unfortunate that Stereophile is so unwilling to put
themselves on the line and lacks the courage of their "convictions." They
seem to have a history of misstating and dissembling as is evidenced in an
article from the Boston Audio Society which can be found he
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...l_thinking.htm

It seems they have a bit of nerve criticizing the honesty of others.

B&D wrote:
On 12/12/04 11:14 AM, in article , "Chung"
wrote:

then any number of people on this list will be happy to set up a
test, will you participate?

As I have said repeatedly, I am not interested, nor ahs anyone offered
any valid reason why I _should_ be interested.

How about $1 million? How about the glory of proving to those doubters
that Stereophile's reviewers know what they are doing? How about
shutting up Randi once and for all?

Randi will never shut up - he has shown that over his entire career.

That's because no one has won that $1 million challenge.


$1M is not enough to float a magazine - Stereophile makes a lot more than
that for a year.

So you're saying it has to be more than what Stereophile makes in a year
to make it worthwhile? That's a funny, and extremely arbitrary, value
system. And, you know, a lot of magazines are losing money.


Randi is attacking the wrong target - attacking a magazine is wrong headed
and cynical - he needs to attack the makers of the claptrap.

No, *challenge* both the makers and those who publicly endorse the
*claytrap*. Hey, just using that word sounds like an attack on
Stereophile by you, since you are implying that it is snake oil!

Chung wrote:
wrote:
As I have said repeatedly, I am not interested, nor [has] anyone
offered any valid reason why I _should_ be interested.

How about $1 million?

James Randi is on record as saying that he would never have to pay
up, that he "always has a way out." Given his lack of integrity in
my dealings with the man -- see earlier messages -- I have no
reason to think that he would pay up.

How about the glory of proving to those doubters that
Stereophile's reviewers know what they are doing?

Why do I need to prove anything to "doubters"? The only people
whose opinions I need pay attention to are my readers.

How about shutting up Randi once and for all?

Why would I want to? He does quite enough to reveal himself a
fool and a liar without any more help from me. :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Michael McKelvy wrote:
[Stereophile has] a history of misstating and dissembling as is
evidenced in an article from the Boston Audio Society which can be
found he
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...l_thinking.htm

Ah, Mr. McKelvy, you've unearthed more partisan posturings from
Tom Nousaine. He certainly has abundant amounts of energy when it
comes to defending his blind-testing turf :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

wrote:
Chung wrote:

wrote:

As I have said repeatedly, I am not interested, nor [has] anyone
offered any valid reason why I _should_ be interested.

How about $1 million?


James Randi is on record as saying that he would never have to pay
up, that he "always has a way out."

The people who could not pass the challenge is his way out, it seems.

Given his lack of integrity in
my dealings with the man -- see earlier messages -- I have no
reason to think that he would pay up.

Of course he would not have to pay up if you don't pass the challenge.
That's what we all believe .



How about the glory of proving to those doubters that
Stereophile's reviewers know what they are doing?


Why do I need to prove anything to "doubters"? The only people
whose opinions I need pay attention to are my readers.

How about potential readers? I will subscribe if Stereophile passes the
challenge. Think about all the positive publicity and the booming sales!



How about shutting up Randi once and for all?


Why would I want to? He does quite enough to reveal himself a
fool and a liar without any more help from me. :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

OK, enough of debating tactics. Do you believe that anyone from
Stereophile will pass a DBT proctored by an independent 3rd party on the
audibility of Shatki stones? Yes or no?

chung wrote:
OK, enough of debating tactics.

These are not "deabting tactics," Mr. Chung. I have been showing
that those who are issuing "challenges" operate a double standard
when it comes to integrity and honesty.

Do you believe that anyone from Stereophile will pass a DBT
proctored by an independent 3rd party on the audibility of
Shatki stones? Yes or no?

This is not a question for which a yes/no answer is possible.
There are too many variables involved, especially given the
fact that even a double-blind test can be "fixed" by a
dishonest proctor intent on producing a predetermined result.
(This has been discussed at length on the Newsgroups, so I
see why I need to expand on this statement.) So the only honest
answer I can give you is that I have no idea. And neither should
you.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Having spent a few hours perusing the current issues of both Stereophile
and TAS yesterday, it seems to me Randi shoudl really aim his guns
as Pearson & Co -- the level of audiophoolery at TAS seems significantly
higher and more pervasive than at Stereophile, if these issues are
an indication of their current ideologies. Jonathan Valin's stuff alone
would provide a rich vein of nonsense to mine.




--
-S
Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere.

Tip wrote:
wrote in message
...
Tying up some loose ends and providing examples of
reader responses, he
ends on his part the recent series on his blog.

http://www.randi.org/jr/121004science.html#11

In which, Randi provides testimony from Dale Miner
about the absence of Stereophile's type of
"techno-voodoo" at Skywalker Ranch.

Actually, there is no such testimony. Miner says:

"I have been involved in the design and construction of several
notable projects such as Lucasfilms' "Tech Building" at SkyWalker Ranch In
Marin county and the "Experience Music Project" in Seattle. I have also
worked as an engineer at several television stations and production
companies.

It has been my privilege and good fortune to work with some of the most
knowledgeable people in these fields. I have never heard anyone say that
we should utilize some of this subjective techno-voodoo in a real world
professional facility. Believe me, anything that can be shown to be
effective in improving sound or picture quality is tried and often used. "


You may make the inference that during his involvement in the Tech
Building project at Skywalker Ranch, he did not hear anyone say that
subjective tech-voodoo should be utilized in that project. He does not
say that Skywalker Ranch is free of tech-voodoo.

Most of the wiring at Skywalker is Belden stuff, btw. It was custom-made
to fit unusual installation condition. Nothing voodoo about that.

http://www.davidcarroll.com/Files/be...p%20report.PDF

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Tip" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Tying up some loose ends and providing examples of
reader responses, he
ends on his part the recent series on his blog.

http://www.randi.org/jr/121004science.html#11

In which, Randi provides testimony from Dale Miner
about the absence of Stereophile's type of
"techno-voodoo" at Skywalker Ranch. Do a search on
Google for "Skywalker Ranch cable" and you will find
that Skywalker Ranch does indeed use "techno-voodoo"
cables, power conditioners, etc...

Probably for the same reason many studios use expensive cable, it was given
to them for promotional reasons. Certainly, since wire is wire, if you are
given wire then you don't have the expense of buying it.


I see that MIT touts their cabl;es use by Skywalker, and there's
praise of its voodoo properties from the B&W guy,...but I have
yet to see testimony from Skywalker folk about the *sound*
of MIT cables.

Shunyata products were found to reduce noise and buzzing -- quite
non-voodoo applications in a complex electrical environment.

wrote:
wrote:
Tying up some loose ends and providing examples of reader responses,
he ends on his part the recent series on his blog.

http://www.randi.org/jr/121004science.html#11

In this series his brash style was in evidence with his pull no
punches approach clearly seen.

I agree. He pullss no punches. But what puzzled me about this article
of Randi's is that it exists at all. As I wrote in an earlier posting,
his previous week's Commentary had again contained misstatements and
misattributions of what I was supposed to have said and done. I
emailed Randi requesting him to publish a reasonably short response
correcting these errors. He emailed me back, saying "My readers are
getting weary of this discussion. I will provide your e-mail address
to them, so that those who wish to follow up on the matter may do
so."

I note that he has indeed published my email address in his most
recent commentary. However, contrary to the implication in his
reason for not publishing my response -- "my readers are getting
weary of this subject" -- he then publishes a number of e-mails
from his readers who are universally anti-Stereophile.

A trivial matter, I admit. But it raises to me what is an important
point: that if the Amazing Randi is not capable of honesty in a
small matter such as this, why do you and other skeptics feel that
he _can_ be trusted to be honest when it comes to large matters, such
as the $1 million challenge?

Oh, I dunno, maybe because some of us have followed Randi's career
more concertedly than just googling up bits of it from the Web?
It's not like he hasn't been publishing in Skeptical magazine
for years , for example. The ridiculous 'gotcha' that he *changed
his name* was a giveaway that you simply don't know much about the
guy.

Randi is guilty of the same thing you are, though -- from his commentary
and mistakes I would guess he
is only peripherally aware of the depth and breadth of audiophile
nonsense-space, having been made aware of just some of the most
glaring, high-profile examples from it.


--
-S
Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere.

wrote:
wrote:
If [Randi] is the only sticking point...

What made you think that he was? Note that I used the word
"particularly."

then any number of people on this list will be happy to set up a
test, will you participate?

As I have said repeatedly, I am not interested, nor ahs anyone offered
any valid reason why I _should_ be interested.

In your most recent issue, you published a letter asking for
blind testing. So perhaps you should be interested because some
of your readers are interested, if not for reasons of intellectual
rigor.


--
-S
Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere.

wrote:
Chung wrote:
wrote:
As I have said repeatedly, I am not interested, nor [has] anyone
offered any valid reason why I _should_ be interested.

How about $1 million?

James Randi is on record as saying that he would never have to pay
up, that he "always has a way out." Given his lack of integrity in
my dealings with the man -- see earlier messages -- I have no
reason to think that he would pay up.

How about the glory of proving to those doubters that
Stereophile's reviewers know what they are doing?

Why do I need to prove anything to "doubters"? The only people
whose opinions I need pay attention to are my readers.

How about shutting up Randi once and for all?

Why would I want to? He does quite enough to reveal himself a
fool and a liar without any more help from me. :-)


Hmm, so, Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins are happy to
put their names on the masthead of a journal and society that
features a 'fool and a liar' as one of its most popular
spokespersons?



--
-S
Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere.

B&D wrote:
On 12/12/04 11:23 AM, in article , "Billy
Shears" wrote:

In article , B&D
wrote:

Which is what you have not yet addressed. Questions about Randi's
'honesty' are a red herring.

Not exactly - a scientists only asset is honesty.

A necessary asset perhaps, but obviously not the only one.

Fair enough. Without honesty, all the knowledge in the world won't matter.

And if your only asset is honesty, well, god bless you. You are
definitely not going to be a scientist.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in
message ...
"Tip" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Tying up some loose ends and providing examples of
reader responses, he
ends on his part the recent series on his blog.

http://www.randi.org/jr/121004science.html#11

In which, Randi provides testimony from Dale Miner
about the absence of Stereophile's type of
"techno-voodoo" at Skywalker Ranch. Do a search on
Google for "Skywalker Ranch cable" and you will find
that Skywalker Ranch does indeed use "techno-voodoo"
cables, power conditioners, etc...

Probably for the same reason many studios use
expensive cable, it was given
to them for promotional reasons. Certainly, since
wire is wire, if you are
given wire then you don't have the expense of buying
it.

Whether or not Skywalker Ranch paid for the
"techno-voodoo" cable is not pertinent to this
discussion. What is pertinent is the fact that they do
use it and Randi claims they don't. Should Randi be
held as responsible for the "facts" he publishes on his
website as you hold John Atkinson responsible for the
"opinions" he publishes in Stereophile? Should we hold
you responsible for your opinion that Skywalker Ranch
only uses the cable because it was free when you have
produced no evidence to support your claim? Are you
claiming that Skywalker Ranch will use anything as long
as it's cheap or free?

It's unfortunate for all of us that Randi has been
so
sloppy in his presentation of the "facts" and
unwilling
to correct his mistakes (he's had ample
opportunity).
snip
It's even more unfortunate that Stereophile is so
unwilling to put
themselves on the line and lacks the courage of their
"convictions."
snip
It seems they have a bit of nerve criticizing the
honesty of others.

Funny, that's just what I was thinking about you ;^)
It is Randi who is making the accusations, and
therefore it is his responsibility to make a truthful
claim. But for some reason, he continues to make false
claims and run away. Why is Randi unable to correct a
handful of false statements on his website, yet he is
able to add dozens of statements that continue the
falsehoods? I've been a fan of Randi's for many years
and I don't believe in "techno-voodoo", but I would
like to see John Atkinson be given a fair opportunity,
which I do not believe he's had so far. RAHE is acting
like a lynch-mob; you don't seem to care whether or not
he's guilty, you just want to hang someone from the
audiophile press because you don't like their kind.

Regards,
Tip

Isn't it obvious that Stereophile is only interested in readers because
they (readers) are potential buyers of the advertiser's products. The
magazine is practically given away to subscribers. The real money comes
from advertisers. Since the great majority of the advertisers are
promoting over priced equipment and "snake oil", for the magazine to
engage in blind testing would discredit or offend these advertisers. I
only read Stereophile for entertainment. If I want to "tweak" my
system, all I have to do is move my speakers a few inches.


---MIKE---

Steven Sullivan wrote:



Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Tip" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Tying up some loose ends and providing examples of
reader responses, he
ends on his part the recent series on his blog.

http://www.randi.org/jr/121004science.html#11

In which, Randi provides testimony from Dale Miner
about the absence of Stereophile's type of
"techno-voodoo" at Skywalker Ranch. Do a search on
Google for "Skywalker Ranch cable" and you will find
that Skywalker Ranch does indeed use "techno-voodoo"
cables, power conditioners, etc...

Probably for the same reason many studios use expensive cable, it was given

to them for promotional reasons. Certainly, since wire is wire, if you are

given wire then you don't have the expense of buying it.


I see that MIT touts their cabl;es use by Skywalker, and there's
praise of its voodoo properties from the B&W guy,...but I have
yet to see testimony from Skywalker folk about the *sound*
of MIT cables.

Shunyata products were found to reduce noise and buzzing -- quite
non-voodoo applications in a complex electrical environment.

I did the search and found that Skywalker Ranch has 500 miles of custom cabling
specified by Lucasfilm and manufactured by none other than that old bastion of
non-voodoo cables .... Belden.

"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
Isn't it obvious that Stereophile is only interested in readers because
they (readers) are potential buyers of the advertiser's products. The
magazine is practically given away to subscribers. The real money comes
from advertisers. Since the great majority of the advertisers are
promoting over priced equipment and "snake oil", for the magazine to
engage in blind testing would discredit or offend these advertisers. I
only read Stereophile for entertainment. If I want to "tweak" my
system, all I have to do is move my speakers a few inches.


And this differs *how* from Time, Newsweek, Business Week, US News & World
Report, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and virtually every
other existing printed media publication? They all make the bulk of their
revenue from adverstising, and "subsidize" the paid subscriptions to promote
circulation. You think, for example, that all those Real Estate supplements
in your Sunday paper are there to help people buy houses first and foremost?
There there to sell classified Ad Space to Realtors, who in turn use the
space to try to sell houses to readers.

Once again, laying into Stereophile for the sins of the world.

wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:
[Stereophile has] a history of misstating and dissembling as is
evidenced in an article from the Boston Audio Society which can be
found he
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...l_thinking.htm

Ah, Mr. McKelvy, you've unearthed more partisan posturings from
Tom Nousaine. He certainly has abundant amounts of energy when it
comes to defending his blind-testing turf :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

He believes people shouldn't make false claims about what they can and can't
hear. Seems OK to me.

wrote:
chung wrote:
OK, enough of debating tactics.

These are not "deabting tactics," Mr. Chung. I have been showing
that those who are issuing "challenges" operate a double standard
when it comes to integrity and honesty.

Perhaps you want to find the independent proctor yourself? I have not
seen any evidence of problems of biases or errors in the tests. You
believe that the tests may not be properly conducted so as to fully show
the differences those Shatki stones can cause?

Again, think about all the positive publicity for Stereophile. I will
subscribe if your reviewer pass the test. Heck, I will subscribe if you
guys have the courage to take the challenge. Show me that you have at
least technical curiosity.


Do you believe that anyone from Stereophile will pass a DBT
proctored by an independent 3rd party on the audibility of
Shatki stones? Yes or no?

This is not a question for which a yes/no answer is possible.

Well, the question is what do you believe. Either you do, or you don't.

There are too many variables involved, especially given the
fact that even a double-blind test can be "fixed" by a
dishonest proctor intent on producing a predetermined result.

How about in a fair DBT? You are already assuming that the test would be
"fixed". Sounds like you are looking for excuses already.

(This has been discussed at length on the Newsgroups, so I
see why I need to expand on this statement.)

Can we assume a fair DBT for the sake of argument?

So the only honest
answer I can give you is that I have no idea. And neither should
you.


This is truly amazing. You are saying that there is a chance that those
Shatki stones can actually make a difference in sound as claimed by the
reviewers or the makers? What is the technical reason for such a
possibility? Since you have the test equipment, have you ever considered
making some measurements?

On the other hand, I *know* of no reason why anyone can pass a fair DBT
on the audibility of Shatki stones as the reviewers/makers stated.

"Tip" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in
message ...
"Tip" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Tying up some loose ends and providing examples of
reader responses, he
ends on his part the recent series on his blog.

http://www.randi.org/jr/121004science.html#11

In which, Randi provides testimony from Dale Miner
about the absence of Stereophile's type of
"techno-voodoo" at Skywalker Ranch. Do a search on
Google for "Skywalker Ranch cable" and you will find
that Skywalker Ranch does indeed use "techno-voodoo"
cables, power conditioners, etc...

Probably for the same reason many studios use
expensive cable, it was given
to them for promotional reasons. Certainly, since
wire is wire, if you are
given wire then you don't have the expense of buying
it.

Whether or not Skywalker Ranch paid for the
"techno-voodoo" cable is not pertinent to this
discussion. What is pertinent is the fact that they do
use it and Randi claims they don't. Should Randi be
held as responsible for the "facts" he publishes on his
website as you hold John Atkinson responsible for the
"opinions" he publishes in Stereophile? Should we hold
you responsible for your opinion that Skywalker Ranch
only uses the cable because it was free when you have
produced no evidence to support your claim? Are you
claiming that Skywalker Ranch will use anything as long
as it's cheap or free?

It's unfortunate for all of us that Randi has been
so
sloppy in his presentation of the "facts" and
unwilling
to correct his mistakes (he's had ample
opportunity).
snip
It's even more unfortunate that Stereophile is so
unwilling to put
themselves on the line and lacks the courage of their
"convictions."
snip
It seems they have a bit of nerve criticizing the
honesty of others.

Funny, that's just what I was thinking about you ;^)
It is Randi who is making the accusations, and
therefore it is his responsibility to make a truthful
claim.

What about the claim that Shakti Stones can't possibly do what SP's reviewer
claimed he heard them do is in your opinion, untrue?

But for some reason, he continues to make false
claims and run away.

He seems to be making some minor errors, but the essence is correct, Shakti
stones are B.S.

Why is Randi unable to correct a
handful of false statements on his website, yet he is
able to add dozens of statements that continue the
falsehoods? I've been a fan of Randi's for many years
and I don't believe in "techno-voodoo", but I would
like to see John Atkinson be given a fair opportunity,
which I do not believe he's had so far.

That's up to Mr. Atkinson. He has a faior chance to audiotion the stones or
at least recomend some lab tests on Shakti Stones and demonstrate a
committment to truth about the things that get reviewed.

RAHE is acting
like a lynch-mob; you don't seem to care whether or not
he's guilty, you just want to hang someone from the
audiophile press because you don't like their kind.

Regards,
Tip

RAHE is acting like they think it's unreasonable to not have auditioned a
simple tweak and that it is also unreasonable to not have some technical
oversight. If it were an amp that had been subject to normal test bench
rigors, it would still be laughable that the reviewer made the claims he
did, but without the tests it's just plain snake oil endorsement.

Harry Lavo wrote:
"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
Isn't it obvious that Stereophile is only interested in readers
because they (readers) are potential buyers of the advertiser's
products. The magazine is practically given away to subscribers.
The real money comes from advertisers. Since the great majority of
the advertisers are promoting over priced equipment and "snake oil",
for the magazine to engage in blind testing would discredit or
offend these advertisers. I only read Stereophile for
entertainment. If I want to "tweak" my system, all I have to do is
move my speakers a few inches.


And this differs *how* from Time, Newsweek, Business Week, US News &
World Report, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and
virtually every other existing printed media publication? They all
make the bulk of their revenue from adverstising, and "subsidize" the
paid subscriptions to promote circulation. You think, for example,
that all those Real Estate supplements in your Sunday paper are there
to help people buy houses first and foremost? There there to sell
classified Ad Space to Realtors, who in turn use the space to try to
sell houses to readers.

Once again, laying into Stereophile for the sins of the world.


I think there is a big difference as those products are overpriced and they
have no effect. If a clothstand is sold for 900$ and praised to improve the
room acoustics by a Stereophile reviewer, people get cheated here.
And it is everybodys right and even duty to correct those misleading
reviews. Some readers might not have the technical background to recognize
the absurdity of these claims.

I am amazed how Mr. Atkinson is avoiding any statement when directly
confronted with impossible claims, saying he *did not test the
effectiveness personally*, which implies those stones and green pens really
might work. I am sure he has enough experience and knows that the claimed
attributes are impossible. Thus he has lost his credibility and integerness
for me. In fact the truth will stand out and the damage to his mags image
will irritate the owners and advertisers. It is the worst that can happen
and there will be consequences.

--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
Chung wrote:
How about shutting up Randi once and for all?

Why would I want to? He does quite enough to reveal himself
a fool and a liar without any more help from me. :-)

Hmm, so, Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins are happy to
put their names on the masthead of a journal and society that
features a 'fool and a liar' as one of its most popular
spokespersons?

Apparently so. Perhaps those worthy gentlemen never had occasion
to argue with him. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

wrote:
(This has been discussed at length on the Newsgroups, so I
see why I need to expand on this statement.)

Correction: ..._don't_ see why I need...
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

---MIKE--- wrote:
Since the great majority of the advertisers are promoting over
priced equipment and "snake oil", for the magazine to engage in
blind testing would discredit or offend these advertisers.

I think it fair to point out that the manufacturer of Shakti Stones,
to the best of my knowledgee, has not advertised in Stereophile, and
that Tice, outraged by Stereophile's coverage of the "Clock,"
canceled all its advertising. It would seem, therefore, that I am
not very good at following your strategy, Mike.
Or perhaps you're wrong.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

On 12/13/04 7:50 PM, in article , "Chung"
wrote:

B&D wrote:
On 12/12/04 11:23 AM, in article , "Billy
Shears" wrote:

In article , B&D
wrote:

Which is what you have not yet addressed. Questions about Randi's
'honesty' are a red herring.

Not exactly - a scientists only asset is honesty.

A necessary asset perhaps, but obviously not the only one.

Fair enough. Without honesty, all the knowledge in the world won't matter.

And if your only asset is honesty, well, god bless you. You are
definitely not going to be a scientist.

And if you aren't honest - you aren't going to be a scientist ... For very
long anyway.

On 12/13/04 7:53 PM, in article , "---MIKE---"
wrote:

Isn't it obvious that Stereophile is only interested in readers because
they (readers) are potential buyers of the advertiser's products.

Sure - and why shouldn't they do that? It is a good business plan than to
staisfy a bunch of NG posters that seem implacable to begin with, and a very
limited # of subscribers to boot.

The
magazine is practically given away to subscribers. The real money comes
from advertisers. Since the great majority of the advertisers are
promoting over priced equipment and "snake oil", for the magazine to
engage in blind testing would discredit or offend these advertisers. I
only read Stereophile for entertainment. If I want to "tweak" my
system, all I have to do is move my speakers a few inches.

I am not sure that you point is particularly enlightening ... Seems to me
that to blast a magazine for not living up to your, or my particular levels
of scientific rigor - or not catering to my particularities of what I expect
out of a magazine - isn't or shouldn't be news.

If you don't like it - you can start up a competing magazine or blog or
whatever. There are lots of them out there, though, none of which are as
successful as 'the 'pile or TAS.

On 12/13/04 11:13 PM, in article , "Nousaine"
wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:



Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Tip" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Tying up some loose ends and providing examples of
reader responses, he
ends on his part the recent series on his blog.

http://www.randi.org/jr/121004science.html#11

In which, Randi provides testimony from Dale Miner
about the absence of Stereophile's type of
"techno-voodoo" at Skywalker Ranch. Do a search on
Google for "Skywalker Ranch cable" and you will find
that Skywalker Ranch does indeed use "techno-voodoo"
cables, power conditioners, etc...

Probably for the same reason many studios use expensive cable, it was given

to them for promotional reasons. Certainly, since wire is wire, if you are

given wire then you don't have the expense of buying it.


I see that MIT touts their cabl;es use by Skywalker, and there's
praise of its voodoo properties from the B&W guy,...but I have
yet to see testimony from Skywalker folk about the *sound*
of MIT cables.

Shunyata products were found to reduce noise and buzzing -- quite
non-voodoo applications in a complex electrical environment.

I did the search and found that Skywalker Ranch has 500 miles of custom
cabling
specified by Lucasfilm and manufactured by none other than that old bastion of
non-voodoo cables .... Belden.

Belden is an excellent cable manufacturer - they do even more than audio,
too! Wonderful folks!