In the "Great Debate" and subsequently here on RAO, John Atkinson has
made much of his 1978 experience involving a single blind amplifier
test.

According to Atkinson:

In 1978, Atkinson owned a SS Lecson power amp (model unspecified), an
amp described by Atkinson as both "beautiful" and expensive ("I spent
quite a lot on it").

Also in 1978, Atkinson participated in a single blind test between a SS
Quad 405 and a vacuum tube Michaelson and Austin TVA-1 amplifier. The
SBT revealed no audible difference between the two amplifiers.

So, what did Atkinson do? Did he arrange another SBT between his Lecson
and either the Quad 405 or the M&A TVA-1 to see if there were an
audible difference? NO! What he DID do was sell his Lecson and buy a
Quad 405. WHY? Wasn't he curious to see how the Lecson fared in an SBT
*before* he sold it and bought the Quad? Wasn't it just possible that
there was/is an audible difference between the Lecson and either the
Quad 405 or the M&A TVA-1?

Or course, Atkinson now makes much of his subsequent dissatisfaction
with the Quad 405 to discredit blind teasting. What he is really doing
his discrediting his addle brained decision making process. A process
that lives on in SP to this very day.

PS-begin listening to the "Great Debate" at about 10:20 in to confirm
the 1978 sequence of events, from "the horse's mouth".

wrote:
In the "Great Debate" and subsequently here on RAO, John Atkinson has
made much of his 1978 experience involving a single blind amplifier
test.

According to Atkinson:

In 1978, Atkinson owned a SS Lecson power amp (model unspecified), an
amp described by Atkinson as both "beautiful" and expensive ("I spent
quite a lot on it").

Also in 1978, Atkinson participated in a single blind test between a
SS
Quad 405 and a vacuum tube Michaelson and Austin TVA-1 amplifier. The
SBT revealed no audible difference between the two amplifiers.

So, what did Atkinson do? Did he arrange another SBT between his
Lecson
and either the Quad 405 or the M&A TVA-1 to see if there were an
audible difference? NO!


Of course not. He already believed that amps in genereal didn't have a
sound of their own. The test with the tube amp convinced him even more
so. his reasoning was quite simple. If the Quad was as good as the
highly touted tube amp it certainly must be as good as his current SS
amp. That is the typical cliaims of objectivists at the time and to
this day.




What he DID do was sell his Lecson and buy a
Quad 405. WHY?


Because we was convinced by the sbt that *all* amps sound the same from
the inexpensive Quad to the exotic tube amp that failed tosound
different in that test. He did the very thing that objectivists have
been telling audiophiles they should do. Buy the cheapest amp you can
that has the power needed for your speakers and spend the rest
elsewhere. he was just being a good little objectivist.




Wasn't he curious to see how the Lecson fared in an SBT
*before* he sold it and bought the Quad?



No he was convinced that the objectivist POV was correct and the Quad
and his prior amp would be sonically indistinguishable.




Wasn't it just possible that
there was/is an audible difference between the Lecson and either the
Quad 405 or the M&A TVA-1?


Yes it was possible. even though objectivists have from that time to
now claiming it wouldn't be so.




Or course, Atkinson now makes much of his subsequent dissatisfaction
with the Quad 405 to discredit blind teasting.


Naturally. He followed the objectivist method and it failed him. It
makes complete sense that he would now find a method that lead him to
dissatisfaction to be of no use to him.




What he is really doing
his discrediting his addle brained decision making process.



Yes, all be it that proccess was, at the time, a text book objectivist
proccess. But you are right, he is discrediting *that* proccess. It
failed him as an audiophile.




A process
that lives on in SP to this very day.


Um no. That is not the proccess used in Stereophile. The proccess used
in Stereophile is the one that solved his problem. A problem created by
the objectivist proccess.


Scott Wheeler

wrote:
wrote:
In the "Great Debate" and subsequently here on RAO, John Atkinson
has
made much of his 1978 experience involving a single blind amplifier
test.

According to Atkinson:

In 1978, Atkinson owned a SS Lecson power amp (model unspecified),
an
amp described by Atkinson as both "beautiful" and expensive ("I
spent
quite a lot on it").

Also in 1978, Atkinson participated in a single blind test between
a
SS
Quad 405 and a vacuum tube Michaelson and Austin TVA-1 amplifier.
The
SBT revealed no audible difference between the two amplifiers.

So, what did Atkinson do? Did he arrange another SBT between his
Lecson
and either the Quad 405 or the M&A TVA-1 to see if there were an
audible difference? NO!


Of course not. He already believed that amps in genereal didn't have
a
sound of their own.


So he says. But, if that were true, why had he made a purchase of an
expensive ("I spent quite a lot on it" - Atkinson) SS Lecson amp in the
first place? He must have believed, at some point, that there was
something special about the Lecson.

The test with the tube amp convinced him even more
so. his reasoning was quite simple. If the Quad was as good as the
highly touted tube amp it certainly must be as good as his current SS
amp.


Why would an unknown (in terms of personal experience in his system)
amp such as the M&A TVA-1 be the reference rather than the Lecson he
already owned and was, apparently, happy with? (BTW, how do we know the
M&A was "highly touted" in 1978?)

And, when the Quad 405 proved unsatisfactory, why not reacquire a
Lecson (which, apparently, was satisfactory) rather than an expensive
tube amp that had sounded identical to the discredited Quad 405? Addle
brained decision making, anyone?

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
In the "Great Debate" and subsequently here on RAO, John Atkinson
has
made much of his 1978 experience involving a single blind
amplifier
test.

According to Atkinson:

In 1978, Atkinson owned a SS Lecson power amp (model
unspecified),
an
amp described by Atkinson as both "beautiful" and expensive ("I
spent
quite a lot on it").

Also in 1978, Atkinson participated in a single blind test
between
a
SS
Quad 405 and a vacuum tube Michaelson and Austin TVA-1 amplifier.
The
SBT revealed no audible difference between the two amplifiers.

So, what did Atkinson do? Did he arrange another SBT between his
Lecson
and either the Quad 405 or the M&A TVA-1 to see if there were an
audible difference? NO!


Of course not. He already believed that amps in genereal didn't
have
a
sound of their own.


So he says.


Yeah. Do you think he is lying?



But, if that were true, why had he made a purchase of an
expensive ("I spent quite a lot on it" - Atkinson) SS Lecson amp in
the
first place? He must have believed, at some point, that there was
something special about the Lecson.



Jon says he liked the way it looked. I suppose one could ask the same
question of Stewert Pinkerton and his Krell amp. That was a very
expensive 50 watt amp. Yet Stewert says it sounds the same as any other
"competent" amp. So either he is not telling the truth or it is not so
outrageous to think an objectivist may have an expensive amp even
though they don't think it sounds better than any other "competent"
amp.




The test with the tube amp convinced him even more
so. his reasoning was quite simple. If the Quad was as good as the
highly touted tube amp it certainly must be as good as his current
SS
amp.


Why would an unknown (in terms of personal experience in his system)
amp such as the M&A TVA-1 be the reference rather than the Lecson he
already owned and was, apparently, happy with?


because it was one of the amps in the audio movemnent back to tubes
based on the notion that tubes sounded better.


(BTW, how do we know the
M&A was "highly touted" in 1978?)


Same reason. Tube amps were making a come back and were being highly
touted by many subjectivists.




And, when the Quad 405 proved unsatisfactory, why not reacquire a
Lecson (which, apparently, was satisfactory) rather than an expensive
tube amp that had sounded identical to the discredited Quad 405?



That's a fair question. Are you sure he didn't give that tube amp a
spin in his home system before buying?



Addle
brained decision making, anyone?



Perhaps his purchase of the Quad. He was happy with the tube amp.
remember? But his purchase of the Quad was text book objectivist
decision making. It just didn't give good results. That's why Jon
stopped being an objectivist.





Scott Wheeler

wrote:
wrote:
Of course not. He already believed that amps in general
didn't have a sound of their own.

So he says.

It is what I believed. If you have access to back issues of
Hi-Fi News, read the article I wrote on this subject in the
April 1979 issue of that magazine.

But, if that were true, why had he made a purchase of an
expensive ("I spent quite a lot on it" - Atkinson) SS Lecson
amp in the first place?

Because the Lecson was drop-dead gorgeous, and I had lusted
after both it and the matching preamp since it had been
introduced a few years earlier.

He must have believed, at some point, that there was
something special about the Lecson.

As I said, it was an amplifier that I desired, for reasons
that had very little to do with sound quality. And the matching
preamp offered all the controls and facilities that I thought
I needed.

Why would an unknown (in terms of personal experience in his
system) amp such as the M&A TVA-1 be the reference rather
than the Lecson he already owned and was, apparently, happy
with?

Because while I was a participant in the blind amplifier
listening test, I did not organize it nor did I choose the
test amplifiers. If you are truly interested in this test,
you can read about it in, if I remember correctly, the
November and December 1978 issues of HFN.

BTW, how do we know the M&A was "highly touted" in 1978?

Because it had been very favorably reviewed in a number of
UK magazines. Why do you doubt that fact? Arny Krueger had no
problem at the debate with taking what I said at its face
value.

And, when the Quad 405 proved unsatisfactory, why not
reacquire a Lecson (which, apparently, was satisfactory)
rather than an expensive tube amp that had sounded
identical to the discredited Quad 405?

Because the Lecson was by then out of production. If I could
have found one, I would have bought it. But I couldn't and
didn't. And please note that after I acquired the M&A, I
still hung on to the Quad and dragged it at regular intervals.
I also used it for a while as my bass guitar amplifier, which
it did well at.

Addle brained decision making, anyone?

I hardly think so. Remember, I was not setting out to "prove"
anything at this time, merely trying to choose an amplifier
to buy and use in my system. Just as now my readers do.

And as I said, the point of this anecdote was not to wander
down memory lane but to make a specific point: That it
pits two core beliefs of the believers in "scientism"
against each other: 1) That a blind test reveals the reality
of audible amplifier differences; and 2) That sighted
listening is dominated by non-audio factors, the so-called
"Placebo Effect."

To explain the experience that, as I descrobed in the Debate
recording, transformed me from a hard-line objectivist, you
have to accept that either the blind test was flawed, in
which case all the writers who cited that 1978 test as
"proving" the amplifiers sounded the same were wrong, or that
the non-audio factors were irrelevant, in which case the
criticisms of sighted listening based on that factor are
wrong.

Yes, as Arny Krueger has pointed out on this newsgroup but
didn't have the cojones to do so in person, there is a third
possibility, which is that I have been lying all along about
this matter, but that accusation is beneath contempt.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
In the "Great Debate" and subsequently here on RAO, John
Atkinson
has
made much of his 1978 experience involving a single blind
amplifier
test.

According to Atkinson:

In 1978, Atkinson owned a SS Lecson power amp (model
unspecified),
an
amp described by Atkinson as both "beautiful" and expensive ("I
spent
quite a lot on it").

Also in 1978, Atkinson participated in a single blind test
between
a
SS
Quad 405 and a vacuum tube Michaelson and Austin TVA-1
amplifier.
The
SBT revealed no audible difference between the two amplifiers.

So, what did Atkinson do? Did he arrange another SBT between
his
Lecson
and either the Quad 405 or the M&A TVA-1 to see if there were
an
audible difference? NO!


Of course not. He already believed that amps in genereal didn't
have
a
sound of their own.


So he says.


Yeah. Do you think he is lying?


With Atkinson, it's hard to tell where the truth ends and the bull****
begins. Perhaps he is not sure himself.

But, if that were true, why had he made a purchase of an
expensive ("I spent quite a lot on it" - Atkinson) SS Lecson amp in
the
first place? He must have believed, at some point, that there was
something special about the Lecson.



Jon says he liked the way it looked.



Sure, and that's a valid reason to want to own it. As is exclusivity,
rarity, etc., etc. And that is what the Quad 405 lacked: cachet of some
sort. It wasn't "special". And, IMO, that's why Atkinson found it
unsatisfactory. Nothing wrong with that. Why try to BS and blame it on
the "sound" of the Quad 405?

snip

The test with the tube amp convinced him even more
so. his reasoning was quite simple. If the Quad was as good as
the
highly touted tube amp it certainly must be as good as his
current
SS
amp.


Why would an unknown (in terms of personal experience in his
system)
amp such as the M&A TVA-1 be the reference rather than the Lecson
he
already owned and was, apparently, happy with?


because it was one of the amps in the audio movemnent back to tubes
based on the notion that tubes sounded better.

Have any evidence of this "movement" in the UK in 1978, or is this just
speculation on your part?

(BTW, how do we know the
M&A was "highly touted" in 1978?)


Same reason. Tube amps were making a come back and were being highly
touted by many subjectivists.


I see, it was so because you say it was so. :-(


And, when the Quad 405 proved unsatisfactory, why not reacquire a
Lecson (which, apparently, was satisfactory) rather than an
expensive
tube amp that had sounded identical to the discredited Quad 405?



That's a fair question. Are you sure he didn't give that tube amp a
spin in his home system before buying?


He certainly didn't mention it, did he? Perhaps now is the time for a
little revisionist history from Atkinson?

Addle
brained decision making, anyone?



Perhaps his purchase of the Quad.


Without a comparison to the Lecson, certainly!


He was happy with the tube amp.
remember?


By his telling, he was happy with the Lecson, remember?

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
In the "Great Debate" and subsequently here on RAO, John
Atkinson
has
made much of his 1978 experience involving a single blind
amplifier
test.

According to Atkinson:

In 1978, Atkinson owned a SS Lecson power amp (model
unspecified),
an
amp described by Atkinson as both "beautiful" and expensive
("I
spent
quite a lot on it").

Also in 1978, Atkinson participated in a single blind test
between
a
SS
Quad 405 and a vacuum tube Michaelson and Austin TVA-1
amplifier.
The
SBT revealed no audible difference between the two
amplifiers.

So, what did Atkinson do? Did he arrange another SBT between
his
Lecson
and either the Quad 405 or the M&A TVA-1 to see if there were
an
audible difference? NO!


Of course not. He already believed that amps in genereal didn't
have
a
sound of their own.


So he says.


Yeah. Do you think he is lying?


With Atkinson, it's hard to tell where the truth ends and the
bull****
begins. Perhaps he is not sure himself.


If that is your take then it really doesn't matter what he said does
it?




But, if that were true, why had he made a purchase of an
expensive ("I spent quite a lot on it" - Atkinson) SS Lecson amp
in
the
first place? He must have believed, at some point, that there was
something special about the Lecson.



Jon says he liked the way it looked.



Sure, and that's a valid reason to want to own it. As is exclusivity,
rarity, etc., etc. And that is what the Quad 405 lacked: cachet of
some
sort. It wasn't "special". And, IMO, that's why Atkinson found it
unsatisfactory.


Your opinion runs contrary to his acount of what happened. That really
is the problem objectvists faced with this story. You either have to
accept the failure of the objectivist method or make assertions that
imply Jon isn't really telling the truth here. *If* Jon wanted an amp
that was either rare or exculsive etc, he would never have bought the
Quad in the first place. He bought the Quad with the conviction that he
would be happy with it becuase it would sound the same as any other
amp.




Nothing wrong with that. Why try to BS and blame it on
the "sound" of the Quad 405?


Where is the B.S. in his story? the only B.S. has been added by you
here. Unless he is lying he bought the Quad expecting to enjoy it as
much as his previous amp and, unless he is lying, that didn't happen.




snip

The test with the tube amp convinced him even more
so. his reasoning was quite simple. If the Quad was as good as
the
highly touted tube amp it certainly must be as good as his
current
SS
amp.


Why would an unknown (in terms of personal experience in his
system)
amp such as the M&A TVA-1 be the reference rather than the Lecson
he
already owned and was, apparently, happy with?


because it was one of the amps in the audio movemnent back to tubes
based on the notion that tubes sounded better.

Have any evidence of this "movement" in the UK in 1978, or is this
just
speculation on your part?


Are you seriously doubting that there was such a movement in
audiophilia?




(BTW, how do we know the
M&A was "highly touted" in 1978?)


Same reason. Tube amps were making a come back and were being
highly
touted by many subjectivists.


I see, it was so because you say it was so. :-(



Apparently you don't see. If you are hung up on the idea that there was
a movement in audiophilia that favored tube equipment I don't know what
to say? You do know that there are audiophiles that tout tube amps as
sounding better do you not?





And, when the Quad 405 proved unsatisfactory, why not reacquire a
Lecson (which, apparently, was satisfactory) rather than an
expensive
tube amp that had sounded identical to the discredited Quad 405?



That's a fair question. Are you sure he didn't give that tube amp a
spin in his home system before buying?


He certainly didn't mention it, did he?


No he didn't. Are you sure it didn't happen though?


Perhaps now is the time for a
little revisionist history from Atkinson?



Filling in all the gaps does not equate revisionism. He never said that
he bought it without an audition either. Assume what youy want. It will
only be assumtions and accusations of dishonesty that will excuse the
failings of the objectivist method in this anecdote.




Addle
brained decision making, anyone?



Perhaps his purchase of the Quad.


Without a comparison to the Lecson, certainly!



That isn't a terribly objectivist aproach now is it? Are we to believe
that you think those amps were in fact sonically different? If so then
welcome to the world of subjective audio. If not what would another sbt
with a null result have changed? Certainly not Jon's decision to
purchase the Quad.





He was happy with the tube amp.
remember?


By his telling, he was happy with the Lecson, remember?


Yes. Too bad the objectivist method of saving money let him down.
Again, that is why he stopped being one. Remember?



Scott Wheeler

John "aspiring deity" Atkinson wrote:

there is a third
possibility, which is that I have been lying all along about
this matter, but that accusation is beneath contempt.



I see. You routinely impugn the honesty and integrity of others
(Krueger and Ferstler come readily to mind), but, when applied to you,
the accusation of lying is "beneath contempt".

Sorry, John, for those who believe in such things, the position of
deity has already been filled. I'm afraid you'll have to slog around
with the rest of us mere mortals, where what goes around comes around.
;-)

wrote:
John "aspiring deity" Atkinson wrote:

there is a third
possibility, which is that I have been lying all along about
this matter, but that accusation is beneath contempt.



I see. You routinely impugn the honesty and integrity of others
(Krueger and Ferstler come readily to mind), but, when applied to
you,
the accusation of lying is "beneath contempt".


bull****. Those guys lie as a matter of habbit. Calling them liars is
simply calling it like it is. In this case calling Jon a liar is simply
an admission that you have no answer to the problem his anecdote
exposes with the objectivist method. When arguing about *audio* It is
beneath contempt to use unfounded accusations of lying as an axium for
an argument when no legitimate counterpoint exists. It's chicken ****.





Sorry, John, for those who believe in such things, the position of
deity has already been filled. I'm afraid you'll have to slog around
with the rest of us mere mortals, where what goes around comes
around.
;-)

blah blah blah.



Scott Wheeler

wrote:
wrote:



Jon says he liked the way it looked. I suppose one could ask the same
question of Stewert Pinkerton and his Krell amp. That was a very
expensive 50 watt amp. Yet Stewert says it sounds the same as any
other
"competent" amp. So either he is not telling the truth or it is not
so
outrageous to think an objectivist may have an expensive amp even
though they don't think it sounds better than any other "competent"
amp.


Don't ignore the Krells ability to drive difficult loads. If one
wants a SS amp that will be immune to difficult speaker loads... the
Krell KSA amps are a good choice. When I want to change or upgrade my
system... I tend to look to change speakers. Some time ago I decided I
didn't want the amps ability to drive a load to be a factor in that
choice, hence the Krell. Last SS Stereo amp I will ever buy (I hope
).

ScottW

wrote:
wrote:
With Atkinson, it's hard to tell where the truth ends and
the bull**** begins. Perhaps he is not sure himself.

If that is your take then it really doesn't matter what he
said does it?

But if that is all someone has left...if they can't offer a
logical argument to what has been presented, they attack the
integrity of those with whom they are arguing. Smacks of
desperation, to me. :-)

that is what the Quad 405 lacked: cachet of some sort.
It wasn't "special". And, IMO, that's why Atkinson found
it unsatisfactory.

Your opinion runs contrary to his acount of what happened.

I find it extraordinary that this anonymous poster feels he
knows better what went on in my mind 25 years ago than I
do. Again, this is an example of grasping at straws, in my
opinion.

That really is the problem objectvists faced with this
story. You either have to accept the failure of the
objectivist method or make assertions that imply [John]
isn't really telling the truth here.

Or start attacking my hair cut, as Arny is now doing, or
commenting on my minor speech impediment, as someone did on
another forum. :-)

Are we to believe that you think those amps were in fact
sonically different? If so then welcome to the world of
subjective audio. If not what would another sbt with a
null result have changed? Certainly not [John's] decision
to purchase the Quad.

This was the point Steven Sullivan made at the debate and has
since repeated on r.a.o.: that having experienced long-term
dissatisfaction with the Quad, I should then have performed
another blind test before deciding to replace it. But I fail
to grasp why I needed to do that? All I was trying to do was
choose an amplifier to buy for use in my personal system. I
was not taking part in a "scientific" explanation.

And at that time, there was nothing specifically about the
blind test procedure that stuck me as being methodologically
unsound. I was sure then that had I repeated the blind test
that it would have produced another null result. And then
what?

As you pointed out, Scott, following the then-as-now
"objectivist" advice to buy the cheapest amplifier that
offered the power and features I needed had let me down.
Why would I then _repeat_ that failed strategy rather than
trying something different.

Look, I have never said that people can't fool themselves --
see Jim Austin's "As We See It" essay in the May issue of
Stereophile -- or that sighted listening is not without its
own set of pitfalls. But if a listener is _true to what his
or her ears are telling him_, it is unlikely that they will
end up with a system that disappoints. And _that_, surely
is the point of all of what we do.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

wrote:
wrote:

I see. You routinely impugn the honesty and integrity of
others
(Krueger and Ferstler come readily to mind), but, when
applied to
you, the accusation of lying is "beneath contempt".

Those guys lie as a matter of habbit. Calling them liars
is simply calling it like it is.

I therefore conclude that responding to Scott's posts is a
waste of my time. I shall stop doing so, immediately.

John Atkinson wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Of course not. He already believed that amps in general
didn't have a sound of their own.

So he says.

It is what I believed. If you have access to back issues of
Hi-Fi News, read the article I wrote on this subject in the
April 1979 issue of that magazine.

But, if that were true, why had he made a purchase of an
expensive ("I spent quite a lot on it" - Atkinson) SS Lecson
amp in the first place?

Because the Lecson was drop-dead gorgeous, and I had lusted
after both it and the matching preamp since it had been
introduced a few years earlier.

Perhaps your dissatisfaction with the Quad was sellers remorse. You
blamed it for convincing you to part with your drop dead gorgeous amp
.

He must have believed, at some point, that there was
something special about the Lecson.

As I said, it was an amplifier that I desired, for reasons
that had very little to do with sound quality. And the matching
preamp offered all the controls and facilities that I thought
I needed.

Why would an unknown (in terms of personal experience in his
system) amp such as the M&A TVA-1 be the reference rather
than the Lecson he already owned and was, apparently, happy
with?

Because while I was a participant in the blind amplifier
listening test, I did not organize it nor did I choose the
test amplifiers. If you are truly interested in this test,
you can read about it in, if I remember correctly, the
November and December 1978 issues of HFN.

BTW, how do we know the M&A was "highly touted" in 1978?

Because it had been very favorably reviewed in a number of
UK magazines. Why do you doubt that fact? Arny Krueger had no
problem at the debate with taking what I said at its face
value.

Please... don't assume we must all be reduced to the level of Arny.


And, when the Quad 405 proved unsatisfactory, why not
reacquire a Lecson (which, apparently, was satisfactory)
rather than an expensive tube amp that had sounded
identical to the discredited Quad 405?

Because the Lecson was by then out of production. If I could
have found one, I would have bought it. But I couldn't and
didn't. And please note that after I acquired the M&A, I
still hung on to the Quad and dragged it at regular intervals.
I also used it for a while as my bass guitar amplifier, which
it did well at.

This has become confusing. You had a Lecson you liked but after a
listening test pitting a Quad against a M&A (which finds no difference)
you dump the Lecson for the Quad. You don't like the Quad so you then
acquire a M&A because it was favorably reviewed against the better
judgement of your own ears?

I have bought used stuff unheard at risk... but I have never bought
anything I have heard and not liked.

ScottW

ScottW wrote:


snipped

This has become confusing. You had a Lecson you liked but after a
listening test pitting a Quad against a M&A (which finds no
difference)
you dump the Lecson for the Quad.


Yep, apparently without comparing the Quad to the Lecson.

You don't like the Quad so you then
acquire a M&A because it was favorably reviewed against the better
judgement of your own ears?

Pretty flaky, eh? Were I in Atkinson's position (unable to reacquire an
amp I had found satisfactory), buying an amp (the M&A) that most likely
sounded at least very similar to the unsatisfactory Quad 405 would be
my last choice. YMMV.


I have bought used stuff unheard at risk... but I have never bought
anything I have heard and not liked.

Kinda makes you wonder.....

wrote:


snipped

Yeah. Do you think he is lying?


With Atkinson, it's hard to tell where the truth ends and the
bull****
begins. Perhaps he is not sure himself.


If that is your take then it really doesn't matter what he said does
it?


Perhaps, perhaps not. Deconstructing a "fairy tale" can be amusing,
however.

wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
there is a third possibility, which is that I have been
lying all along about this matter, but that accusation is
beneath contempt.

I see.

I don't believe you do, Mr. Anonymous.

You routinely impugn the honesty and integrity of others...

No, that is incorrect.

Krueger and Ferstler come readily to mind...

What I have done in the case of these two individuals
is to criticise their public activities and statements,
in every case offering full support for what I have
said. If you regard such actions as "impugning the
honesty and integrity" of Howard Ferstler and Arny
Krueger, then, with respect, I suggest you are
viewing events through the subjectively colored
glasses that you accuse audiophiles of employing.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

ScottW wrote:
wrote:
wrote:



Jon says he liked the way it looked. I suppose one could ask the
same
question of Stewert Pinkerton and his Krell amp. That was a very
expensive 50 watt amp. Yet Stewert says it sounds the same as any
other
"competent" amp. So either he is not telling the truth or it is not
so
outrageous to think an objectivist may have an expensive amp even
though they don't think it sounds better than any other "competent"
amp.


Don't ignore the Krells ability to drive difficult loads. If one
wants a SS amp that will be immune to difficult speaker loads... the
Krell KSA amps are a good choice. When I want to change or upgrade
my
system... I tend to look to change speakers. Some time ago I decided
I
didn't want the amps ability to drive a load to be a factor in that
choice, hence the Krell. Last SS Stereo amp I will ever buy (I hope

).



I certianly did not intend to put down the Krell. My point was simply
that a person who believed one can get the same sound for far less
money was still willing to buy a Krell.



Scott Wheeler

John Atkinson wrote:

What I have done in the case of these two individuals
is to criticise their public activities and statements,
in every case offering full support for what I have
said.

Letsee what Atkinson said about me, just a few posts back:

"Yes, as Arny Krueger has pointed out on this newsgroup but
didn't have the cojones to do so in person, there is a third
possibility, which is that I have been lying all along about
this matter, but that accusation is beneath contempt."

(1) So where is the support for the apparent claim that ther
HE2005 debate was an appropriate time to call Atkinson a
liar?

(2) Where is the support for the apparant claim that such an
opportunity presented itself but I failed to do so because
at the time I was ill-equipped in the cajones department?

(3) If I was ill-equipped in the cajones department, when
did the prerequisite medical examination take place?

If you regard such actions as "impugning the
honesty and integrity" of Howard Ferstler and Arny
Krueger, then, with respect, I suggest you are
viewing events through the subjectively colored
glasses that you accuse audiophiles of employing.

You know, I see absolutely no support for the 3 claims
listed above. Does anybody else?

wrote:
wrote:


snipped

Yeah. Do you think he is lying?


With Atkinson, it's hard to tell where the truth ends and the
bull****
begins. Perhaps he is not sure himself.


If that is your take then it really doesn't matter what he said
does
it?


Perhaps, perhaps not. Deconstructing a "fairy tale" can be amusing,
however.


OK your answer to the problem is that Jon is a liar. Another
objectivist falls on his own sword. Well done. I wonder if we can
reduce every other objectivist to the same level with this one
anecdote. Wow John. Looks like the debate may have served it's purpose
after all.



Scott Wheeler

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

I see. You routinely impugn the honesty and integrity of
others
(Krueger and Ferstler come readily to mind), but, when
applied to
you, the accusation of lying is "beneath contempt".

Those guys lie as a matter of habbit. Calling them liars
is simply calling it like it is.

I therefore conclude that responding to Scott's posts is a
waste of my time. I shall stop doing so, immediately.

Addicts keep coming back. You'll respond. Not that I care what you have
to say.



Scott Wheeler

On Tue, 10 May 2005 12:26:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

wrote:
wrote:

I see. You routinely impugn the honesty and integrity of
others
(Krueger and Ferstler come readily to mind), but, when
applied to
you, the accusation of lying is "beneath contempt".

Those guys lie as a matter of habbit. Calling them liars
is simply calling it like it is.

I therefore conclude that responding to Scott's posts is a
waste of my time. I shall stop doing so, immediately.

Pretty soon, you'll have nobody to talk to, except your sycophants, of
course.

But that's fine with the rest of us. Perhaps you could just step off
now.

Arny Krueger wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
What I have done in the case of these two
individuals is to criticise their public activities
and statements, in every case offering full support
for what I have said.

Letsee what Atkinson said about me, just a few posts
back:

Yes, as Arny Krueger has pointed out on this
newsgroup but didn't have the cojones to do so in
person, there is a third possibility, which is that
I have been lying all along about this matter, but
that accusation is beneath contempt.

(1) So where is the support for the apparent claim
that the HE2005 debate was an appropriate time to
call Atkinson a liar?

If that's how you regard my presentation now and
regarded it then, Mr. Krueger, then surely you
should have said so. Not to have done so in the
public debate was hypocritical of you.

(2) Where is the support for the apparant claim
that such an opportunity presented itself but I
failed to do so because at the time I was
ill-equipped in the cajones department?

If that's your reaction to my presentation, Mr.
Krueger, then there must have been a reason why
you are saying now that I am lying but didn't say so
then. As I said above, my hypothesis is that while
you didn't have the courage to confront my supposed
duplicity in person at the debate, you feel free to
do so now that you are back behind the security of
your PC keyboard.

If that hypothesis is incorrect, then please tell
me what the _real_ reason for your failure to
confront me in public is.

And again, no one of you so-called "objectivists"
has responded on point to the logical conundrum
posed by my anecdote: that you are forced between
admitting that the 1978 blind test, while apparently
well-designed, _didn't_ reveal the audible
differences between the amplifiers that actually
existed, or that non-audio stimuli _don't_ have
the influence on sighted listening that you claim.

(3) If I was ill-equipped in the cajones department,
when did the prerequisite medical examination take
place?

I assume this is your attempt to make a joke, Mr.
Krueger.

Now do tell us: if, when we debated in person, you
thought I was lying about my experiences with amplifiers,
why didn't you say so then? After all, that was your
golden opportunity to make such an accusation on the
record, in public, in front of an audience, knowing
that the recording of the debate would be made
available to anyone who cared to download it. What
better opportunity would you have had for exposing the
error in my case?

Why, had you done so, someone other than yourself
might well be crowing about you having "won" the
debate. As it stands, you and the "Torresists"
sockpuppet seem determined to prove the opposite. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson wrote:

And again, no one of you so-called "objectivists"
has responded on point to the logical conundrum
posed by my anecdote: that you are forced between
admitting that the 1978 blind test, while apparently
well-designed, _didn't_ reveal the audible
differences between the amplifiers that actually
existed,

I am not an objectivist... but a caller of bs and this is just that.

There is no proof that audible differences existed so no need to admit
anything regarding the blind test.

or that non-audio stimuli _don't_ have
the influence on sighted listening that you claim.

I would suggest the most likely explanation for your experience was
that non-audio stimuli DO have influence on sighted listening. The
Quad was ugly, unimpressive to your friends and you hated it. Get over
it.

Or perhaps the answer to this question will identify the source of your
conundrum: Were your speakers in your system in '78 the same speakers
used in the blind test? If not, the conflict between the test and your
experience are meaningless.

ScottW

John Atkinson wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
What I have done in the case of these two
individuals is to criticise their public activities
and statements, in every case offering full support
for what I have said.

Letsee what Atkinson said about me, just a few posts
back:

Yes, as Arny Krueger has pointed out on this
newsgroup but didn't have the cojones to do so in
person, there is a third possibility, which is that
I have been lying all along about this matter, but
that accusation is beneath contempt.

(1) So where is the support for the apparent claim
that the HE2005 debate was an appropriate time to
call Atkinson a liar?

If that's how you regard my presentation now and
regarded it then, Mr. Krueger, then surely you
should have said so. Not to have done so in the
public debate was hypocritical of you.

(2) Where is the support for the apparant claim
that such an opportunity presented itself but I
failed to do so because at the time I was
ill-equipped in the cajones department?

If that's your reaction to my presentation, Mr.
Krueger, then there must have been a reason why
you are saying now that I am lying but didn't say so
then.

Where might you have lied, John?

As I said above, my hypothesis is that while
you didn't have the courage to confront my supposed
duplicity in person at the debate, you feel free to
do so now that you are back behind the security of
your PC keyboard.

What duplicity might that be?

If that hypothesis is incorrect, then please tell
me what the _real_ reason for your failure to
confront me in public is.

All I know is that at the time, I sensed no duplicity on
your part, John. Heck, I didn't notice the hair, either! ;-)


Now do tell us: if, when we debated in person, you
thought I was lying about my experiences with amplifiers,
why didn't you say so then?

Where have I said that since then?

wrote

Perhaps, perhaps not. Deconstructing a "fairy tale" can be amusing,
however.


And watching you prance around beating your chest is
even more amusing, dick. Let us know when you actually
deconstruct something besides a bicycle.

and my point was that it was not without reason.

ScottW

John Atkinson said:

I find it extraordinary that this anonymous poster feels he
knows better what went on in my mind 25 years ago than I
do.

He only tries to be anonymous. He's actually Richard Malesweski, nasty
Usenet troll, unemployed parasite, and fully credentialed Kroopologist.

Again, this is an example of grasping at straws, in my
opinion.

Or shoveling the ****, if you're feeling less charitable.

John Atkinson wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
With Atkinson, it's hard to tell where the truth ends and
the bull**** begins. Perhaps he is not sure himself.

If that is your take then it really doesn't matter what he
said does it?

But if that is all someone has left...if they can't offer a
logical argument to what has been presented, they attack the
integrity of those with whom they are arguing. Smacks of
desperation, to me. :-)

that is what the Quad 405 lacked: cachet of some sort.
It wasn't "special". And, IMO, that's why Atkinson found
it unsatisfactory.

Your opinion runs contrary to his acount of what happened.

I find it extraordinary that this anonymous poster feels he
knows better what went on in my mind 25 years ago than I
do. Again, this is an example of grasping at straws, in my
opinion.

That really is the problem objectvists faced with this
story. You either have to accept the failure of the
objectivist method or make assertions that imply [John]
isn't really telling the truth here.

Or start attacking my hair cut, as Arny is now doing, or
commenting on my minor speech impediment, as someone did on
another forum. :-)

Are we to believe that you think those amps were in fact
sonically different? If so then welcome to the world of
subjective audio. If not what would another sbt with a
null result have changed? Certainly not [John's] decision
to purchase the Quad.

This was the point Steven Sullivan made at the debate and has
since repeated on r.a.o.: that having experienced long-term
dissatisfaction with the Quad, I should then have performed
another blind test before deciding to replace it. But I fail
to grasp why I needed to do that? All I was trying to do was
choose an amplifier to buy for use in my personal system. I
was not taking part in a "scientific" explanation.

And at that time, there was nothing specifically about the
blind test procedure that stuck me as being methodologically
unsound. I was sure then that had I repeated the blind test
that it would have produced another null result. And then
what?

As you pointed out, Scott, following the then-as-now
"objectivist" advice to buy the cheapest amplifier that
offered the power and features I needed had let me down.
Why would I then _repeat_ that failed strategy rather than
trying something different.

Look, I have never said that people can't fool themselves --
see Jim Austin's "As We See It" essay in the May issue of
Stereophile -- or that sighted listening is not without its
own set of pitfalls. But if a listener is _true to what his
or her ears are telling him_, it is unlikely that they will
end up with a system that disappoints. And _that_, surely
is the point of all of what we do.

Except buying the M&A amp was not trusting your ears. Your ears had
already told you it sounded like a Quad which you decided was not
pleasing.
Apparently you are more trusting of acclaim than your own ears.

ScottW

Not to divert the conversation, but Lecson? Was it one of those cylindrical,
fan cooled, Class A beauties? I worked at a store that sold them and the
associated preamp and tuner, and they were sexy pieces of gear!

"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com...
and my point was that it was not without reason.

ScottW


What was not without reason?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

I see. You routinely impugn the honesty and integrity of
others
(Krueger and Ferstler come readily to mind), but, when
applied to
you, the accusation of lying is "beneath contempt".

Those guys lie as a matter of habbit. Calling them liars
is simply calling it like it is.

I therefore conclude that responding to Scott's posts is a
waste of my time. I shall stop doing so, immediately.

I've decided to take the same tack...or rather, I'm done
posting to RAO for now, and not responding to Scott here
is just a fringe benefit of that...of course he's there,
too, spending inordinate amounts of time arguing about the
facts of audio, for someone who calls it just a hobby...so it's
not like I'm missing any opportunities.




--

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

ScottW wrote:
I would suggest the most likely explanation for your experience
was that non-audio stimuli DO have influence on sighted
listening. The Quad was ugly, unimpressive to your friends and
you hated it. Get over it.

Hi Scott, perhaps you are not aware of how arrogant your statement
sounds. First we have Arny and the "torresists" sockpuppet telling
me I am lying. Now we have you telling me that you can read my mind
and diagnose what I was feeling 25 years ago.

I repeat: back then I believed...no, I _knew_ that amplifiers operated
short of clipping did not sound different from one another. I sold
the Lecson for close to what I had paid for it and was content that
by buying the much less expensive Quad, I had made a wise purchase.

Remember, all the non-audio factors were working in favor of my
_not_ hearing any problem with the amplifier: the Quad was cheaper
than the Lecson, it was small for a 100Wpc design (it appealed to my
intellectual nature by being no bigger than it needed be), it was
cool-running, nice-looking, and in addition, its co-designer,
Peter Walker, was (and still is) a personal hero of mine.

And my friends? At that time my friends were predominantly
non-audiophiles who didn't care what I was using in my system as
long as it produced a sound.

What was not to like? Only the sound, it eventually became apparent,
even to someone as hidebound as I was then.

Or perhaps the answer to this question will identify the source
of your conundrum: Were your speakers in your system in '78 the
same speakers used in the blind test? If not, the conflict between
the test and your experience are meaningless.

I used the Quad with a number of speakers, including Gale GS401s and
Quad ESL57s (with which the manufacturer claimed it made a superb
match), but primarily with BBC LS3/5as. The original blind tests had
used Spendor BC1s, but the BBC speaker was a significantly kinder load.
If the speaker load had not been a factor in the blind tests, then it
would be even less likely with the 16 ohm LS3/5a, I thought. If you
disagree, please offer your reasoning.

My dissatisfaction didn't take place overnight, please note, but over
a period, if I remember correctly, of almost 2 years. At the end of
that
time, having tried everything else in my system, I started substituting
different amplifiers, with the unexpected (to me) result that the sound
of my system changed, sometimes for the worse, sometimes for the
better.
The M&A gave a sound that I preferred with the LS3/5as. (I still have
both,
BTW.)

So who are you, ScottW, to gainsay all of this experience of mine? You
have always struck me as a straightforward man; why would you want to
be seen retreating with Krueger and "torresists" into hurling insults
and smears at me purely because I offered this true anecdote to explain
why I changed nearly a quarter century ago from being a hard-line
"objectivist" to someone who believes J. Gordon Holt's 1962 dictum:
that
the optimal way for an audiophile to assess a component is to listen to
it?

Or is the clash with your own belief system so extreme that you don't
have any problem with the company you are keeping?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Sulliborg admits he's overmatched.

I'm done posting to RAO for now

Never a pleasure to have yet another metronic moron marching to the
monotonous chanting of the Hive. Ta!

severian wrote:
Lecson? Was it one of those cylindrical, fan cooled, Class A
beauties? I worked at a store that sold them and the
associated preamp and tuner, and they were sexy pieces of gear!

Cylindrical, but the one I owned was not fan-cooled and used
conventional class-AB output stage. Originally designed by Meridian's
Bob Stuart long before Meridian. The preamp used FET switching but its
horizontal form factor was prone to dust contamination in the sliders.

And yes, sexy as all get-out.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote

I find it extraordinary that this anonymous poster feels he
knows better what went on in my mind 25 years ago than I
do. Again, this is an example of grasping at straws, in my
opinion.


The anonymous poster is Richard Malesweski. He apparently
used to hang with the Boston Audiophile Society bigshots
until they got tired of him and ran him off.
He tried to run an A/V biz up there, but that failed. Now he's
trying to run an internet bicycle service in NW Arkansas. This
business does not involve the sale of parts - only service. He
lives in a home deeded to a Michael Malesweski who is either
his father or uncle and who is either very, very old or deceased.
So you can understand his frustration.

BTW, when he speaks of "addle brained", he speaks from
personal experience.

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...
ScottW wrote:
I would suggest the most likely explanation for your experience
was that non-audio stimuli DO have influence on sighted
listening. The Quad was ugly, unimpressive to your friends and
you hated it. Get over it.

Hi Scott, perhaps you are not aware of how arrogant your statement
sounds.

Quite aware, it was intentionally arrogant. But it did get your attention.

First we have Arny and the "torresists" sockpuppet telling
me I am lying. Now we have you telling me that you can read my mind
and diagnose what I was feeling 25 years ago.

I simply propose possible alternative causes for the data you have offered.


I repeat: back then I believed...no, I _knew_ that amplifiers operated
short of clipping did not sound different from one another. I sold
the Lecson for close to what I had paid for it and was content that
by buying the much less expensive Quad, I had made a wise purchase.


Remember, all the non-audio factors were working in favor of my
_not_ hearing any problem with the amplifier: the Quad was cheaper
than the Lecson, it was small for a 100Wpc design (it appealed to my
intellectual nature by being no bigger than it needed be), it was
cool-running, nice-looking, and in addition, its co-designer,
Peter Walker, was (and still is) a personal hero of mine.

And my friends? At that time my friends were predominantly
non-audiophiles who didn't care what I was using in my system as
long as it produced a sound.

What was not to like? Only the sound, it eventually became apparent,
even to someone as hidebound as I was then.

Or perhaps the answer to this question will identify the source
of your conundrum: Were your speakers in your system in '78 the
same speakers used in the blind test? If not, the conflict between
the test and your experience are meaningless.

I used the Quad with a number of speakers, including Gale GS401s and
Quad ESL57s (with which the manufacturer claimed it made a superb
match), but primarily with BBC LS3/5as. The original blind tests had
used Spendor BC1s, but the BBC speaker was a significantly kinder load.
If the speaker load had not been a factor in the blind tests, then it
would be even less likely with the 16 ohm LS3/5a, I thought. If you
disagree, please offer your reasoning.

I have no experience with any of these speakers but in general, nominal
impedance is insufficient to determine the difficulty a speaker load can
present. Load is not the only factor that may influence amp/speaker
response. Frequency response variance can mask or aggravate an unpleasant
amp characteristic.


My dissatisfaction didn't take place overnight, please note, but over
a period, if I remember correctly, of almost 2 years. At the end of
that
time, having tried everything else in my system, I started substituting
different amplifiers, with the unexpected (to me) result that the sound
of my system changed, sometimes for the worse, sometimes for the
better.
The M&A gave a sound that I preferred with the LS3/5as. (I still have
both,
BTW.)

So the only available conclusion, accepting all your experience is that the
two amps sound the same on BC1s but not on LS3/5as. The conclusion that DBTs
are flawed is not supported as your anecdotal experience introduces critical
variance from the test. That is the end of the story. For you to argue
further is mere postulation. Plenty of that around here.


So who are you, ScottW, to gainsay all of this experience of mine? You
have always struck me as a straightforward man;

I don't question your experience. I question your conclusions. They are
beyond logic.


why would you want to
be seen retreating with Krueger and "torresists" into hurling insults

I am not "hurling" insults, I am denigrating the total lack of logic in your
argument. Frankly, I am a bit disgusted by the gross stupidity exhibited by
both parties. Your conclusions cannot be logically drawn from your
experience. Arny has diminished his position to a "matter of degree".
Hardly worth debating on that one.

and smears at me purely because I offered this true anecdote to explain
why I changed nearly a quarter century ago from being a hard-line
"objectivist" to someone who believes J. Gordon Holt's 1962 dictum:
that
the optimal way for an audiophile to assess a component is to listen to
it?

I don't disagree. However a scientist trying to draw conclusions about the
validity of test protocols or determine the audibility of equipment variance
is not "an audiophile". Which hat do you wish to wear today?


Or is the clash with your own belief system so extreme that you don't
have any problem with the company you are keeping?

Pathetic defense unworthy of you. Diminish my critique by association.
I am not keeping company. I found Arny's comments completely contradictory
to his usenet comments in both content and demeanor. I felt he attempted to
disarm you by his claims that he could show amps have different sonic
signatures but that left him without a position to defend or one for you to
attack. It was disingenuous, but Arny's positions have never been stable so
it was not surprising.

Bottom line is this - your experience does nothing to bring into question
the validity of the DBT protocol nor your personal test experience. Arny
showed up in NY with a substantial change in position nullifying any
meaningful debate. Upon hearing the debate I felt like I witnessed a boxing
match between 2 Don King fighters. Guaranteed draw. Too bad the battle
with Fremer wasn't included, might have at least been entertaining if not
enlightening.

ScottW

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
there is a third possibility, which is that I have been
lying all along about this matter, but that accusation is
beneath contempt.

I see.

I don't believe you do, Mr. Anonymous.

You routinely impugn the honesty and integrity of others...

No, that is incorrect.

Krueger and Ferstler come readily to mind...

What I have done in the case of these two individuals
is to criticise their public activities and statements,
in every case offering full support for what I have
said. If you regard such actions as "impugning the
honesty and integrity" of Howard Ferstler and Arny
Krueger, then, with respect, I suggest you are
viewing events through the subjectively colored
glasses that you accuse audiophiles of employing.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John,
You, alone of all the participants in this newsgroup, have retained your
dignity under all circumstances. Don't get sucked under now. You speak from
a higher platform and with greater authority than anyone else on this
newgroup. As it happens, I've become aware of an argument that objective
reality does not exist at all:
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/morein.html

Bob Morein

Arny Krueger wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
If that's your reaction to my presentation, Mr.
Krueger, then there must have been a reason why
you are saying now that I am lying but didn't say so
then.

Where might you have lied, John?

Go play your word games with soneone else, Mr. Krueger.

Now do tell us: if, when we debated in person, you
thought I was lying about my experiences with amplifiers,
why didn't you say so then?

Where have I said that since then?

groups.google.com

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson wrote:
ScottW wrote:
I would suggest the most likely explanation for your
experience
was that non-audio stimuli DO have influence on sighted
listening. The Quad was ugly, unimpressive to your
friends and
you hated it. Get over it.

Hi Scott, perhaps you are not aware of how arrogant your
statement
sounds. First we have Arny and the "torresists" sockpuppet
telling
me I am lying. Now we have you telling me that you can
read my mind
and diagnose what I was feeling 25 years ago.

Here's your second chance to make an honest man out of
yourself John. Just quote where I said that you were lying
about your experiences with those amps 25 years ago.

x`ScottW wrote:


I am not keeping company. I found Arny's comments
completely
contradictory to his usenet comments in both content and
demeanor.

That speaks to your perceptual difficulties, Scott.

I felt he attempted to disarm you by his claims that he
could show amps
have different sonic signatures but that left him without
a position
to defend or one for you to attack.

There was nothing new about this information.

It was disingenuous, but Arny's
positions have never been stable so it was not surprising.

My positions evolve very slowly, but their complexity may be
too much for poorly-trained casual readers to fully
comprehend. Two words: reliable audibility.

Bottom line is this - your experience does nothing to
bring into
question the validity of the DBT protocol nor your
personal test
experience. Arny showed up in NY with a substantial
change in
position nullifying any meaningful debate.

I was simply responding to Atkinson's description of the
debate. This led to me recounting information that has been
on the web for years.

Upon hearing the debate I
felt like I witnessed a boxing match between 2 Don King
fighters.

I defer to your expertiese in that area, Scott.

Guaranteed draw. Too bad the battle with Fremer wasn't
included,
might have at least been entertaining if not enlightening.

I'm still waiting for Fremer or Lavo to say something
intelligent.