Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Article: Why We Need Audiophiles (Read 502553 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1075 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
In Art Dudley's article where this point was made, this was clearly an attempt at humor. Consider it a blind test for a sense of humor: if someone took it seriously - as you have done - the presence of a sense of humor was not detected (under the circumstances of the test, of course).


Ah, so it was just a joke?  IMO, that's ripe bullshit, sir.  Certainly it was shot through with hammer-subtle sarcasm, but  the article was hardly just an attempt at humor. 


As demonstrated by the text you quoted, you must be yet another HA poster who lacks either reading comprehension or a sense of humor. Yes, it was humorous, unless you believe the question "When he signs his name as 'Randi,' does he dot the 'i' or draw a little heart over it?" was deathly serious. Art was clearly poking fun at a man who takes himself _far_ too seriously.

Quote
Quote
I am offering my inferences from observing Mr. Randi's behavior and reading his writings over many years. I was even a subscriber to The Skeptical Inquirer for many years. If I am wrong about Mr. Randi's source of income, please tell me how he makes a living if not from personal appearances and donations.


You DO love to move those goalposts, don't you?  Please tell me why that would matter at all here...


No goalposts moved at all. I am supporting my assertion that Randi is a publicity-seeking fraud with relevant questions about how he makes a living. I am still waiting for someone to prove that Mr. Randi does _not_ maintain his lifestyle from fees from personal appearances and soliciting donations to his foundation, both of which benefit from his habit of throwing red meat to true believers such as yourself on a regular basis.

Quote
...or matter any more than your making a living from editing a magazine that shills high-end gear.


More of the apparently obligatory namecalling. What, are you 10 years old?

Quote
Btw, I read the New York Post regularly on the premise that one should know one's enemy.  What's your rationale for having subscribed to SI?


Why does it matter to you? More in my next response.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1076 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Surely you would agree that negotiation of the terms of the Challenge was legitimate, particularly as Randi had already declared that he would never have to pay out the $1 million.

Fermer should have a hand at negotiating terms if he actually had something to lose besides his reputation.

Quote from: Stereoeditor on
regardless of his track record of dissembling and deceit?

Something about pots and kettles or stones and glass houses is coming to mind again.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1077 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on

Quote

Randi has, really does have bigger fish to fry than the audiophile fringe you cater to.


But why then should he have devoted so much time to my magazine? And please explain why he goes out of his way to attack Stereophile and Fremer rather than PFO and David Clark as mentioned above, if it is not to ride on our not-insubstantial coat-tails?


Devoted 'so much time'?  What proportion of Randi's efforts over a debunking careers spanning decades, do you believe he has devoted to audio? Im quite sure it's [minuscule]. And he actually did call out David Clark and others, in this excerpt from a JREF post  (note from following the link that audio constitutes a small fraction of the content):
http://www.randi.org/jr/111204hot.html#7

LOTS OF NOISE BUT NO ACTION

I'm told that I'm referred to as a "self-described liar and con artist," and "intellectually dishonest," by columnist Art Dudley in the November issue of Stereophile Magazine. More of that, later, when I undertake to educate Dudley — not an easy task, I can assure you. His article is a perfect example of waffling and obfuscation by an "expert" who apparently escaped committing himself on the Shakti Stones' ability to improve audio quality. He is not one of the mavens that I originally challenged to take the JREF million-dollar prize for accepting and endorsing the product, but I now add him to the list, along with Frank Doris at "The Absolute Sound"; Clay Swartz, Clark Johnson, and David Robinson at "Positive Feedback"; Larry Kaye, Wayne Donnelly, and Bill Brassington at "fi"; Bascom King at "Audio"; Wes Phillips at "SoundStage"; Jim Merod at "Jazz Times"; Dick Olsher at "Enjoy The Music"; Peter and May Belt at "P.W.B. Electronics"; and Benjamin Piazza at "Shakti Innovations," where they make this inane product. You know, not one of these fourteen vociferous commentators have even responded, in any way, to the challenge I sent them, individually, and published here on August 5th, 2004 — fourteen weeks ago! — at www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8. Strange, isn't it?


There goes your lack of reading comprehension again, krabapple.  I don't see David Clark's name anywhere in that quoted text. And there goes old Randi again, shooting from the hip - perhaps you could ask Mr. Randi when exactly it _was_ that Art Dudley reviewed the Shakti Stones?

Quote
What, btw, is your view of Shakti Stones and such Shakti devices as the Hallograph, Mr. Atkinson?  Do they really change -- they claim to IMPROVE it, but let's start from basics -- the sound in an audible manner, and if so, how?


As I have never tried either of these devices, I am agnostic on what effect they may have. Why don't you address your questions to someone who has tried them, krabapple?

Quote
Quote
I do know how he gets his information, But even the slowest student at journalism school knows that you still need do the appropriate amount of fact-checking. That Mr. Randi does _no_ fact-checking, gets names, attributions, and even supposedly direct quotations wrong supports my characterization. Or do you agree with a high-profile writer for a mainstream audio magazine who wrote on Usenet that it is acceptable to practice deceit when you attack those whom you feel deceitful?


Or, that he got *your* name wrong and mangled quotes from an AudioAsylum thread indicates not so much 'deceit' as that he just doesn't have much respect for your operation or the high-end generally (nor perhaps experience deciphering forum quote-nesting).


If you wish to explain Mr. Randi's endless errors in this manner, explaining that he is careless, sloppy, and incompetent rather than dishonest, sure, why not. It seems a self-defeating defense, but you're the true believer in this instance.

Quote
The first sort of oversight, perhaps, is an occupational hazard of dealing with charlatans on a daily basis.


No, it's circular reasoning: "I believe you are a charlatan therefore I will not do any due diligence in examining the evidence that will prove you are a charlatan." I can't believe that someone who subscribes to HA, who, it must be assumed, believes in logical argument, cannot realize this.

Quote
Such contempt, btw, was apparently returned by your own erroneous , poorly-researched characterization of the $1 million challenge when you wrote on AudioAsylum:

Quote
With respect to the Randi Challenge, it is worked so that the only way someone can collect the $1 million is to prove that they can detect the Device Under Test by purely 'psychic' means. If there is a real cause for the sonic difference, then Randi doesn't have to pay up, even if the test produces positive results. As Art wrote, "intellectually dishonest


But you yourself, krabapple, just wrote "The terms of the $1million challenge boil down to asking that the 'claimant' perform as claimed WITHOUT there being a known, [measurable], i.e., 'natural', explanation to account for it." Doesn't that mean that my "poorly researched" description of the Randi Challenge was correct, that the testee detect the Device by _un_natural, ie _psychic_ means? You seem to be arguing with yourself here.

Quote
Finally, for you do dun people for doing 'poor research' when your main apparent source of income is derived from editing a magazine whose methods of validating audio difference fly directly in the face of well-established scientific methodology, takes some yarbles.


Not at all. I am merely pointing out that judged by the standards of my own profession, let alone those of science, James Randi fails pathetically. That you agree with him on just about everything he writes does not change that fact.

As I said, you people live in a peculiarly black and white world. There are people with whom I disagree, Sean Olive, for example, or JJ, that I have immense respect for. There are also people who agree with much of what I believe whom I would cross the street to avoid. People are complex beings with multidimensional worldviews, something that does not appear to be appreciated by the emotionally stunted such as yourself, krabapple. :-(

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1078 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Surely you would agree that negotiation of the terms of the Challenge was legitimate, particularly as Randi had already declared that he would never have to pay out the $1 million.

[Fremer] should have a hand at negotiating terms if he actually had something to lose besides his reputation.


How does that legal phrase go? "Assumes facts not in evidence."

Quote
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
regardless of his track record of dissembling and deceit?

Something about pots and kettles or stones and glass houses is coming to mind again.


Yawn. Get back to me when you have something offer other than juvenile namecalling, greynol. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1079 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Surely you would agree that negotiation of the terms of the Challenge was legitimate, particularly as Randi had already declared that he would never have to pay out the $1 million.
[Fremer] should have a hand at negotiating terms if he actually had something to lose besides his reputation.

How does that legal phrase go? "Assumes facts not in evidence."

Pardon my usage of the word had; I mean has.

Fremer should have a hand at negotiating terms if he actually has something to lose besides his reputation.

What is your understanding of the consequences should Fremer fail?

When it comes to demonstrating an audible difference between speaker wire in a properly designed test, I am supremely confident that Fremer would fail.  For Randi to declare that he would never have to pay out could be interpreted as expressing a similar level of confidence instead of being interpreted that Randi was going to rig the test, could it not?

Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Get back to me when you have something offer other than juvenile namecalling, greynol.

I really don't want to belabor the point, but shall we tally a list of namecalling in this discussion and see whose is the biggest? 

From where I sit it appears you're only reinforcing my suggestion that you like to project your faults onto others.

Let's have another crack at this, shall we?
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: Frumious B on
Incidentally, notice how the Stereophile cats shifted the focus of this matter into a character referendum on James Randi...
I didn't raise the issue of the Randi Challenge

I think Frumious B is trying to put some focus on the way you've decided to handle the topic.  "Namecalling" seems to be the bulk (if not the totality) of it.
 

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1080 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote
What, btw, is your view of Shakti Stones and such Shakti devices as the Hallograph, Mr. Atkinson?  Do they really change -- they claim to IMPROVE it, but let's start from basics -- the sound in an audible manner, and if so, how?


As I have never tried either of these devices, I am agnostic on what effect they may have. Why don't you address your questions to someone who has tried them, krabapple?


OK, so this guy Atkinson's not serious.

Please, people, DO NOT FEED THE TROLL

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1081 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
There goes your lack of reading comprehension again, krabapple.  I don't see David Clark's name anywhere in that quoted text. And there goes old Randi again, shooting from the hip - perhaps you could ask Mr. Randi when exactly it _was_ that Art Dudley reviewed the Shakti Stones?



You got me there, sir; I really should have omitted 'David Clark' from my post.  But reading comprehension requires that we note the Randi says Dudley *escaped* committing himself on the Shakti Stones' abilities-- and that Dudley was NOT one of the 'mavens' that Randi originally challenged.  Randi's note above is, in fact, simply a response to Dudley.  Randi had already denounced Shakti Stones as the nonsense they are, and Dudley failed to engage that, whilst unloading a pile of...just good fun, according to you ...on Randi.  If Dudley has no interest in committing himself to Shakti Stone powers, I'm confident one could find something inane that Dudley has endorsed...maybe LP or CD demagnetizers?


Quote
Quote
What, btw, is your view of Shakti Stones and such Shakti devices as the Hallograph, Mr. Atkinson?  Do they really change -- they claim to IMPROVE it, but let's start from basics -- the sound in an audible manner, and if so, how?


As I have never tried either of these devices, I am agnostic on what effect they may have. Why don't you address your questions to someone who has tried them, krabapple?



What earthly point would there be in that, sir, unless they had tried them under controlled conditions?  And as for agnosticism, that's really appropriate when there is no weight of evidence on one side or another; one could claim to be 'agnostic' about a report of a perpetual motion device, but that would not make one admirably open minded. 


Quote
If you wish to explain Mr. Randi's endless errors in this manner, explaining that he is careless, sloppy, and incompetent rather than dishonest, sure, why not. It seems a self-defeating defense, but you're the true believer in this instance.


Mr. Randi's supposedly endless' errors on a matter that constituted a fraction of the items on JREF's plate during a brief span of its existence, really pale beside the whopper of an error underlying your chosen profession.  And your endless attempts to shift the onus onto Mr. Randi, who is merely one of the more famous skeptics to note the emperor's-clothes aspect of audiophilia, are transparent politics.

Quote
No, it's circular reasoning: "I believe you are a charlatan therefore I will not do any due diligence in examining the evidence that will prove you are a charlatan." I can't believe that someone who subscribes to HA, who, it must be assumed, believes in logical argument, cannot realize this.


Oh, come now sir; like the Red Queen you apparently can believe ---or at minimum remain 'agnostic' about  -- at least six dubious things before breakfast....otherwise how could you possibly continue in your job editing an 'audiophile' magazine? Compared to that, surely championing Randi despite errors of detail, because he is fundamentally correct about what is wrong with the high-end, of which you are a prominent representative if there can be said to be any at all, is not beyond the pale?  Gordon Holt, on the basis  of the essay of his lambasting the high-end, would have gotten the details right, but STILL have made the same point as Randi.  A more important difference is that Randi is willing to put money on it.


Quote
Such contempt, btw, was apparently returned by your own erroneous , poorly-researched characterization of the $1 million challenge when you wrote on AudioAsylum:

Quote
With respect to the Randi Challenge, it is worked so that the only way someone can collect the $1 million is to prove that they can detect the Device Under Test by purely 'psychic' means. If there is a real cause for the sonic difference, then Randi doesn't have to pay up, even if the test produces positive results. As Art wrote, "intellectually dishonest


But you yourself, krabapple, just wrote "The terms of the $1million challenge boil down to asking that the 'claimant' perform as claimed WITHOUT there being a known, [measurable], i.e., 'natural', explanation to account for it." Doesn't that mean that my "poorly researched" description of the Randi Challenge was correct, that the testee detect the Device by _un_natural, ie _psychic_ means? You seem to be arguing with yourself here.



No, sir, that's another bit of sophistry on your part.  Leaving aside that Randi himself corrected your misapprehension of the challenge, if you and Fremer are claiming to hear difference from cables due to known physical properties, then by all means say so and also describe what these properties are, so those claims can be tested; but do not expect to qualify for the $ million challenge for, e.g., hearing a difference between a cable with an equalizer inline versus one without.  However, if you are claiming that the causes of difference are natural but are as yet unmeasured/unknown, then the $1 million could be yours.  The only remaining alternative is something forever beyond the powers of science to verify -- i.e., supernatural. So in both of the latter two cases -- where your detection powers would be real, yet fly in the face of known science -- you could qualify for the challenge, and if you proved your case, JREF would have to pay up.  So why not go for it?


Quote
Not at all. I am merely pointing out that judged by the standards of my own profession, let alone those of science, James Randi fails pathetically. That you agree with him on just about everything he writes does not change that fact.


The 'standard' of your own profession is to be in constant denial of -- and occasional polemical war with -- the value of a basic scientific method that goes to the core of your professional activities.  This isn't about whether I agree with everything, or 90% , or 50% of what Randi writes.  It's about whether audiophiles are willing to test their more dubious claims of audible difference.  Are you?

Quote
As I said, you people live in a peculiarly black and white world. There are people with whom I disagree, Sean Olive, for example, or JJ, that I have immense respect for. There are also people who agree with much of what I believe whom I would cross the street to avoid. People are complex beings with multidimensional worldviews, something that does not appear to be appreciated by the emotionally stunted such as yourself, krabapple. :-(


While you wonder at my emotional stature and the palette of my world, I marvel at how someone with a physicist's training could sleep at night, doing what you do every month.  So call us even.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1082 –
Quote from: greynol on
When it comes to demonstrating an audible difference between speaker wire in a properly designed test, I am supremely confident that Fremer would fail.  For Randi to declare that he would never have to pay out could be interpreted as expressing a similar level of confidence instead of being interpreted that Randi was going to rig the test, could it not?


Of course it could.  And that is probably how someone employing unbiased reading comprehension -- and certainly if it's in the context of what else Randi has written -- would interpret it.  It is not always arrogant to assume nonsense will turn out to be nonsense.

From what I've seen over the years, this attempt to paint Randi as someone who would never pay out, is utterly typical of true believers in various beliefs whom Randi/JREF has 'aroused', most of whom never seem to have read the full terms of the challenge in the first place.  Again and again, on the JREF forum and elsewhere, big pants swagger in to claim the challenge is 'rigged' and again and again they are pointed to the terms of the challenge that refute their claim.

The AudioAsylum thread I linked to hashes this particular aspect of Mssrs. Dudley and  Atkinson's sophistry out more fully.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1083 –
Oh for goodness sake.

HA descends further into rec.audio.opinion.


This is all argument about argument. The point, if there ever was one (post 1067 nearly got back to it!) has disappeared over the horizon.



When someone blind-tests two cables that measure the same in the audio band, do nothing silly that would upset an amplifier, using a well designed amplifier and sensible speakers - and someone actually proves they hear a difference - then we'll have something to talk about.

So far, all the claims we see are as scientificly proven as saying "the earth is a triangle", and have the same cost/benefit as the Emperor's New Clothes.

If there's an audible difference, prove it.

If you can't prove it, shut up or get banned.


David.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1084 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
As I have repeatedly said, neither Stereophile nor its writers hold any opinions whatsoever on the Pear cables. None of us have tried them out and none of us have written about them, despite Mr. Randi's projections. We remain agnostic.


Ah, but I assume that there are other brands of extremely costly cables on which you are not agnostic that do get coverage in Stereophile.  If Pear were demonstrated not to produce any audible difference in sound quality then wouldn't that also cast some reasonable doubt on the brands that you do endorse?  Now a journalist wouldn't care one lick about that sort of thing and would just want to expose the truth wherever it led because his readers would undoubtedly have an interest in finding out whether the high priced cables were actually any better than Radio Shack cables.  They would want to know if their money might not be better spent on other things.  A product salesman, on the other hand, would want to circle the wagons to protect his interests, especially if he didn't have confidence that the product would stand up to investigation.  Incidentally, you all ready told us you were a product salesman on the previous page of this thread.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1085 –
Quote from: MichaelW on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote
What, btw, is your view of Shakti Stones and such Shakti devices as the Hallograph, Mr. Atkinson?  Do they really change -- they claim to IMPROVE it, but let's start from basics -- the sound in an audible manner, and if so, how?


As I have never tried either of these devices, I am agnostic on what effect they may have. Why don't you address your questions to someone who has tried them, krabapple?


OK, so this guy Atkinson's not serious.


I don't get your point. I might be skeptical about, for example, the Hallograph. However, despite James Randi's mistaken allegation that Stereophile has reviewed the Hallograph, I have never tried it. So how can I have any opinion of it?

So let me get this straight:

If I truthfully say that I am agnostic about these products because I have never tried them, I am "not serious." But if I say they do or do not have an effect without having tried them, I would be foolish. And if I said they can't work, despite not having tried them, I would be arrogant. So, yes, krabapple's troll would appear effective. However I respond, that response can be condemned.

The latter position is arrogant, BTW, because it assumes I am in all possession of _all_ relevant knowledge. It is usually expressed along the lines of "I can't think of any reason why this product should have an audible effect, therefore it doesn't." That strikes me as hubris.

Quote
Please, people, DO NOT FEED THE TROLL


Surely the troll is the person who asked me about the  Shakti products?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1086 –
About Atkinson's chutzpah of accusing others of charlatanry, some excerpts from his magazine:

JPS Labs Aluminata interconnect, speaker cable, AC cord, $2900 per meter:

Quote
Taken together, these unusual interconnect, loudspeaker, and AC cables brought a new measure of spaciousness, scale, smoothness, heretofore unimagined detail, and overall musical ease and naturalness to my music system. And they did it while sounding neither dull nor bright—just right.


Nordost Valhalla interconnect & speaker cable, $4200/m pair with banana-plug or spade termination; additional length, $1900/m. Interconnect: $3300/m pair with RCA termination.

Quote
It was immediately obvious that the Valhalla interconnects were something special. They had a clean, open, airy sound, and moved the soundstage boundaries out, to farther than I had ever heard in my system. They opened up the spaces between orchestral sections as well, and even the spaces between individual instruments within the sections. One very clear example that I noted was in Heifetz's performance of the Sibelius Violin Concerto, with Walter Hendl conducting the Chicago Symphony (RCA LSC-2435). In the first movement are some double-bass passages that clearly define the adjacent side and back walls. With the Valhalla cables, the walls were much more tangible and farther out, and the space itself was better illuminated than with my reference Nirvana SX-Ltds.


While usually not being too shy to publish measurements, even if the accompanying interpretation seems often questionable, Stereophile does not publish measurements for cables like the above. I guess we all know why.  There is an exception though: Sometimes measurements are so fcuked up, that they do publish them (Harmonic Technology CyberLight) to underline what a trustworthy source they are. Just to continue the charlatanry in the next issue without measurements again.

John Atkinson:
Quote
I am puzzled that Harmonic Technology, which makes good-sounding, reasonably priced conventional cables, would risk their reputation with something as technically flawed as the CyberLight.


This also brought up a little anecdote about how much you can trust Fremer's DBT rejecting, golden ears. Here is what he had to say about the same product:
Quote
I'm not yet ready to give up, but I am prepared to risk jumping into hyperbole hell. I believe that what I think now, and have thought almost since I first installed Harmonic Tech's new CyberLight Wave and P2A LAM cables in my system, is true: The CyberLights represent one of the greatest technological breakthroughs in high-performance audio that I have experienced in my audiophile lifetime. Gulp.


Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1087 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on

If you wish to explain Mr. Randi's endless errors in this manner, explaining that he is careless, sloppy, and incompetent rather than dishonest, sure, why not. It seems a self-defeating defense, but you're the true believer in this instance.


Mr. Randi's supposedly endless' errors on a matter that constituted a fraction of the items on JREF's plate during a brief span of its existence, really pale beside the whopper of an error underlying your chosen profession.


Yet the errors are a large proportion of Randi's writings about Stereophile. I must assume that if he is careless with the truth when it comes to his examination of me and my magazine, he is probably equally careless about all he writes about.

Quote
And your endless attempts to shift the onus onto Mr. Randi, who is merely one of the more famous skeptics to note the emperor's-clothes aspect of audiophilia, are transparent politics.


I am trying to get true believers, such as you appear to be, to examine Mr. Randi's writings objectively and dispassionately.

Quote
Quote
No, it's circular reasoning: "I believe you are a charlatan therefore I will not do any due diligence in examining the evidence that will prove you are a charlatan." I can't believe that someone who subscribes to HA, who, it must be assumed, believes in logical argument, cannot realize this.


Oh, come now sir; like the Red Queen you apparently can believe ---or at minimum remain 'agnostic' about  -- at least six dubious things before breakfast....otherwise how could you possibly continue in your job editing an 'audiophile' magazine? Compared to that, surely championing Randi despite errors of detail, because he is fundamentally correct about what is wrong with the high-end, of which you are a prominent representative if there can be said to be any at all, is not beyond the pale?


And this sums up the disagreement we have, krabapple. Your position devolves to trusting Randi in the face of evidence to the contrary, despite his untrustworthiness on details, because you agree with his opinion of the larger picture. My position is that if Mr. Randi can be so careless about presenting facts correctly, his opinion on the larger picture is open to question. I don't see how those two positions can be reconciled.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1088 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
When someone blind-tests two cables that measure the same in the audio band, do nothing silly that would upset an amplifier, using a well designed amplifier and sensible speakers - and someone actually proves they hear a difference - then we'll have something to talk about.

Hear hear.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1089 –
Thanks for sharing the link...
http://stereophile.com/cables/805harm/index.html

Quote from: Fremer link=msg=0 date=
If you hear what I heard, for the first time in your life you'll hear no cables whatsoever. When you switch back to any brand of metal conductors, you'll know you're hearing cables—because what's transmitted via CyberLight will be the most gloriously open, coherent, delicate, extended, transparent, pristine sound you've ever heard from your system


Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise against signal level:


Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise against frequency:


So there you have it - Fremer thinks 1% THD and 72.8dB SNR is "pristine sound".

I guess this little cable is like a vinyl simulator!


You can't say Stereophile is all bad. They published this!

You could argue it's to prove what a trustworthy source they are, but I think they're just having a bloody good laugh at their readers. I'm sure they know the score, but they also know their readers are too science-shy to understand the implications - the main one being that their highly respected reviewers like easily audible noise and distortion, and hate untarnished sound.

Cheers,
David.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1090 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
And this sums up the disagreement we have, krabapple.


???????????????

No!  The disagreement that many of us have with you John, is *not* limited to whether or not John Atkinson can distract people with well-wriiten nit-picking sessions.

Our disagreement is with those put the pursuit of good sound reproduction and intellectual honesty behind their personal desire for personal fame and profit.

Quote
Your position devolves to trusting Randi in the face of evidence to the contrary, despite his untrustworthiness on details, because you agree with his opinion of the larger picture. My position is that if Mr. Randi can be so careless about presenting facts correctly, his opinion on the larger picture is open to question. I don't see how those two positions can be reconciled.


The whole Randi/Stereophile affair is just another example of how certain people disemble and distract rather than honestly face the facts.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1091 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Thanks for sharing the link...
http://stereophile.com/cables/805harm/index.html

Quote from: Fremer link=msg=0 date=
If you hear what I heard, for the first time in your life you'll hear no cables whatsoever. When you switch back to any brand of metal conductors, you'll know you're hearing cables—because what's transmitted via CyberLight will be the most gloriously open, coherent, delicate, extended, transparent, pristine sound you've ever heard from your system


Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise against signal level:


Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise against frequency:


So there you have it - Fremer thinks 1% THD and 72.8dB SNR is "pristine sound".

I guess this little cable is like a vinyl simulator!


Based on various measurements of vinyl playback that I'm familiar with, the Harmonic Tech device might even be *worse* than vinyl. Certainly, that general trend of 1% THD with signficiant amounts of harmonics greater than third, should sound worse than a well setup vinyl system.


Not all of the SP reviewers seem to be as insensitive to rather large amounts of nonlinear distortion as Fremer. John wrote:

"... there  was a"hummy" quality to the sound of bass guitar, with the tonal emphasis shifted away from the fundamental to the harmonics, and closely miked voices, such as Willie Nelson's on "Stardust," took on a bit of a bark. Dynamics seemed exaggerated, with climaxes sounding louder than I was expecting. In the long term, I found the CyberLight's presentation rather relentless."

However this prefaced with the following:

"There was a coherence to the stereo image, a nice three-dimensionality to the sonic objects within the soundstage, and a vivid overall presentation."

This might be a clue to what vinylphiles appear to like so much about vinyl. "...three-dimensionality to the sonic objects within the soundstage, and a vivid overall presentat..." is their interpretation of an artificially colored sound that many of us perceive as being "gritty, nasty, and grundgy".

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1092 –
Quote from: krabapple on
And your endless attempts to shift the onus onto Mr. Randi, who is merely one of the more famous skeptics to note the emperor's-clothes aspect of audiophilia, are transparent politics.

Quote from: Stereoeditor on
I am trying to get true believers, such as you appear to be, to examine Mr. Randi's writings objectively and dispassionately.

Ha! Surely your use of the words "objectively" and "dispassionately" were added to this post as some kind of in-joke. When do you ever exhibit these tendencies when testing equipment?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1093 –
Quote from: ShowsOn on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
I am trying to get true believers, such as you appear to be, to examine Mr. Randi's writings objectively and dispassionately.

Ha! Surely your use of the words "objectively" and "dispassionately" were added to this post as some kind of in-joke. When do you ever exhibit these tendencies when testing equipment?


This question has been knocked around SE Michigan for about 30 years, ever since we starting doing ABX tests of audio equipment.

*The question* simplified to this: "What are these guys thinking"?

Afer about 30 years of watching JA & associates dissemble, up front and pesonal for the last 10 or so, I would like to share the following:

(1) Very few people who are doing things that are very wrong and destructive are actually sociopathic enough to admit to you that they know they are doing wrong and will tell you that they don't care and are going to keep on doing it.  Of course their behavior tells a different story.

(2) The vast minority of people will not readily resort to personal behavior modification to resolve even a severe crisis. Look at the recidivism among crimiinals and addicts.

(3) Most people, heck almost all people,  even when faced with absolute proof that they have done or are doing wrong, will try to cut themselves out an exceptional case that justifies their situation.

In the case of audiophilia, as I have previously mentioned some of the better minds around are trying to resolve personal crisises created by irrational beliefs related to audio.  They've got just about every world view and philosophy at their disposal.  Post-modernism is just one of many.

Notice the conveneient change-up. Atkinson seems to truly believe that your average HA reader-skeptic is a "True Believer".  The object of this "True Believer"-ship is variously Randi-ism, Scientism, or simply being too cheap to beleive that what Atkinson sells isn't overpriced audio jewelry and/or snake oil.


Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1094 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
And this sums up the disagreement we have, krabapple.


???????????????

No!  The disagreement that many of us have with you John, is *not* limited to whether or not John Atkinson can distract people with well-wriiten nit-picking sessions.


Which nits amount to things like, getting the name of the Tice clock wrong, and attributing an eyebrow-raising AudioAsylum sentence Stereophile columnist Art Dudley wrote about dowsing, to Stereophile editor John Atkinson, who was participating in the same thread...along with some rabid pro-Stereophile posters.

Meanwhile, month in and out, Stereophile and TAS represent 'authority' in the 'high end', on the basis of patently flawed methods for determining audio quality.

2bdecided has, of course, gotten to the same nub of it that Randi got to regarding such 'authoritative' reviews of cables, tweaks, CDPs, amps, and as we've seen, lossy encoding:  show us that these differences either SHOULD (measurements) or DO (DBTs) exist under properly controlled, nonpathological  conditions.  If you won't because you know you can't, you're frauds or mere profiteers.  If you won't because you believe 'it won't work' or you 'don't believe in DBTS' , you're ignorant of science and should desist from propagandizing against things you don't understand (like mp3s, apparently).

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1095 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
In the case of audiophilia, as I have previously mentioned some of the better minds around are trying to resolve personal crisises created by irrational beliefs related to audio.  They've got just about every world view and philosophy at their disposal.  Post-modernism is just one of many.

It seems to me that Stereophile uses graphs and charts to create an impression for uninformed readers, and perhaps a feeling for themselves, that they are doing something with scientific rigour. When actually they seem to have absolutely no idea what the graphs illustrate. (e.g. the use of graphs to measure the performance, rather than the operation, of lossy encoders).

Some post-modernist writing in the Humanities shares similar traits. In some articles of this sort, charts, diagrams, graphs, and strange symbols are included seemingly to give the work the appearance of scientific rigour, of course applied for completely unscientific ends.

The free associative nonsense on this page that supposedly explains how a particular piece of audiophile quackery (MachinaDynamica's Intelligence Chip) works is firmly in a post-modernist tradition. It contains all sorts of scientific, pseudo-scientific, science fiction, and out right nonsense terms surrounding diagrams of Schrodinger's cat and Harry Houdini (I kid you not) pasted together in a way that ultimately explains absolutely nothing.

So I do think that ONE motivation for audiophilia quackery is a firm belief by some that they are doing something scientific.

Of course others are straight out con-artists.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1096 –
While Atkinson's crusade against charlatanry is funny and contradictory, he is somewhat right about the black & white attitude around here. It's a thin line to sustain a financially successful audio magazine over decades. As much as you demand a strictly objective publication, how many of those are still around? Atkinson has succeeded where many have failed. He is serving a very broad audience under the Stereophile umbrella, idiots and informed readers and it has worked out quite well over the years. Idiots find the prose they need to enjoy their overpriced ego extensions and some of us find valuable measurement data. Is it envy that aroused so much negative energy?

Stereophile is a very valuable brand and I think it is threatened by the internet much more today than it was during usenet times. There is an explosion of opinion everywhere and even when printed on glossy paper opinion alone won't sell forever. So I think we are going to see a shift towards more objective audio journalism anyway. No matter how loud we bark at him or not. Anechoic chambers and expensive measuring equipment and expertise will become more important to contrast the web crowd.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1097 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
And this sums up the disagreement we have, krabapple.


???????????????

No!  The disagreement that many of us have with you John, is *not* limited to whether or not John Atkinson can distract people with well-wriiten nit-picking sessions.


Which nits amount to things like, getting the name of the Tice clock wrong, and attributing an eyebrow-raising AudioAsylum sentence Stereophile columnist Art Dudley wrote about dowsing, to Stereophile editor John Atkinson, who was participating in the same thread...along with some rabid pro-Stereophile posters.


Interesting stuff in that post...

"I did *not* accept the challenge, not only because I've never tried Shakti Stones (and have no real interest in doing so at this time), but because the challenge is obviously a sham. All I did in my column was to ridicule Zwinge's meaningless and ultimately dishonest challenge by issuing an equally absurd challenge of my own.

"It isn't that I wouldn't be interested in a million bucks (sorry for the double negative), but that Zwinge would never *pay* a million bucks: The game is rigged.

I would agree that Randi's game is rigged, in the sense that games are invariably rigged in favor of the house by means of the application or mis-application of science. Randi *rigged his game* by demanding that science as we know it today be violated. I'm very  happy that science as we know it today is reliable enough that this sort of *rigging* can be safe enough that people are willing to stake interesting amounts of cash on it. Back in the day, when accepted science said that heavy objects dropped faster than light ones and that the world was flat, science wasn't such a sure thing.

"Even if I could read minds or bend spoons by whistling "Turkey in the Straw," I wouldn't bother accepting a challenge that's impossible to win under any circumstances.

In the above sentence we might see a Freudian slip indicating that Art Dudly agrees with our opinion of Stereophile.

"Zwinge and I actually have some things in common: I earn money by helping a relatively small audience feel good about their love of music and expensive (and sometimes weird) audio equipment.

Dudly shows his ignorance of English Etymology at this point. Love of music is Musicophilia, Audiophilia is something else which is inclusive of but not limited to audio gear that is either expensive or weird. He justfies his weird behavior on the grounds that it makes a small group of people feel good. Very giving and theraputic of him, no? ;-)

"Zwinge earns money by helping a relatively small audience feel good about hating people they consider superstitious.

A little bit of  projection here? Who said anything about hatred before Dudly blurted it out? Apparently Dudly was slipping on Freud's banana peel several times when he made that post...

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1098 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
While Atkinson's crusade against charlatanry is funny and contradictory, he is somewhat right about the black & white attitude around here. It's a thin line to sustain a financially successful audio magazine over decades. As much as you demand a strictly objective publication, how many of those are still around? Atkinson has succeeded where many have failed. He is serving a very broad audience under the Stereophile umbrella, idiots and informed readers and it has worked out quite well over the years. Idiots find the prose they need to enjoy their overpriced ego extensions and some of us find valuable measurement data. Is it envy that aroused so much negative energy?


I don't think anyone is calling for Stereophile to go full on Spock or anything like that.  OK, maybe SOME are calling for full on Spock, but I'm sure as heck not.  However, it's certainly entirely impossible to publish an informative, lively and entertaining magazine that doesn't bullshit its readers and talk up bogus products like LP demagnetizers and such.  The subjective vs. objective argument seems to be one facet that people have latched onto here, but the issue really strikes me as more about honesty vs. dishonesty.  You can be subjective and still be honest.  As far as I'm concerned someone can be as subjective as the day is long if that's what floats their boat.  Just don't try to mask your subjectivity with a bunch of graphs to give an illusion of objectivity and don't lie to me in an effort to sell me crap.  I just want good advice, honest opinions and products that deliver something rather than nothing.  That doesn't sound like a recipe for a magazine/e-zine/blog that nobody would latch onto to me.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1099 –
Quote from: Frumious B on
The subjective vs. objective argument seems to be one facet that people have latched onto here, but the issue really strikes me as more about honesty vs. dishonesty.  You can be subjective and still be honest.  As far as I'm concerned someone can be as subjective as the day is long if that's what floats their boat.  Just don't try to mask your subjectivity with a bunch of graphs to give an illusion of objectivity and don't lie to me in an effort to sell me crap.

Haven't you just pointed out that honesty and the subjective / object debate are inter-related?  You can't be honest about your subjective opinions, unless you know the limit of your opinions. Objective testing determines what those limits are, in a way that is honest to the people who read your claims.