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 499608 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1025 –
Hmm interesting, the author of this dismally scientifically failed article is going to be editor of popsci.com. Yeah, I still read gizmodo, but it doesn't pretend (too much) to be a science blog. I don't read popsci, but I know it's well known. It kind of makes me think I (and YOU, and YOU, and YOU...) could be an editor too! (no disrespect).

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1026 –
Quote from: andy o on
Hmm interesting, the author of this dismally scientifically failed article is going to be editor of popsci.com. Yeah, I still read gizmodo, but it doesn't pretend (too much) to be a science blog. I don't read popsci, but I know it's well known. It kind of makes me think I (and YOU, and YOU, and YOU...) could be an editor too! (no disrespect).


Maybe he'll finally get some adult supervision, or maybe he'll become the next John Atkinson, and Popular Science will slide down the slippery slope that Stereophile did under JA.  Who knows?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1027 –
OK, I don't know why (maybe there's a god after all, but he's a prankster), I keep stumbling upon stuff related to this giz article.

It seems I'll be switching my gadget news blog too, I mean just the titles are hilarious. There's a post about the giz post at Boing Boing gadgets.

And Our Hero responds do defend his, um, honor, by NOT cupping dogs' balls!

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1028 –
            

I think Fremer should update his HA profile:

Quote
I am senior contributing editor at Stereophile. I have never been forcibly dragged from a room. I own the stereo I have. I am not a trust fund baby. I do not feel dog balls to be sure both have descended. I have produced two very successful DVDs on turntables and analog. I supervised the Academy Award nominated soundtrack to the movie "TRON."

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1029 –
Quote from: analogcorner on
Because Fremer has so many years experience in comparing audio, I suggest, he should take the James Randi challenge to earn the million dollars and to prove finally, that somebody can listen (not see) a difference between different audio cables

Has there ever been a statistically valid proof? Would you please point me to one? It should be easy to conduct.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1030 –
Quote from: andy o on
OK, I don't know why (maybe there's a god after all, but he's a prankster), I keep stumbling upon stuff related to this giz article.

It seems I'll be switching my gadget news blog too, I mean just the titles are hilarious. There's a post about the giz post at Boing Boing gadgets.


I'm afraid the author there makes a dubious assumption of his own
Quote
His tests, of course, were entirely subjective. Mahoney's conclusions emerge with an unremarkable discovery--that a 256kbs MP3 played on an iPod doesn't sound as good as a well-kept vinyl record on high-end gear.


why is that *unremarkable*? A high-bitrate mp3 via an iPod, *if* fed to the same high-end gear, would likely sound very good indeed. It will of course likely sound DIFFERNT from the LP, but that's for other reasons than format and playback gear quality.

 

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1031 –
Quote from: Squeller on
Quote from: analogcorner on
Because Fremer has so many years experience in comparing audio, I suggest, he should take the James Randi challenge to earn the million dollars and to prove finally, that somebody can listen (not see) a difference between different audio cables

Has there ever been a statistically valid proof? Would you please point me to one? It should be easy to conduct.


For the record, Michael did accept Randi's challenge, but Randi backed out.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1032 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: Squeller on
Quote from: analogcorner on
Because Fremer has so many years experience in comparing audio, I suggest, he should take the James Randi challenge to earn the million dollars and to prove finally, that somebody can listen (not see) a difference between different audio cables

Has there ever been a statistically valid proof? Would you please point me to one? It should be easy to conduct.


For the record, Michael did accept Randi's challenge, but Randi backed out.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

They couldn't agree to terms, it's not that one of them backed out. Of course most Randi supporters would say that Fremer backed out. I've read discussions back and forth on who backed out, but someone must be lying or at least distorting the truth a bit.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1034 –
Was this the test? According to the Wired article, it doesn't seem that "Randi backed out".


http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2007/10/10-tips-for-dea/

Quote
In this latest funhouse, Michael Fremer, audiophile and Stereophile editor, accepted a challenge, with the backing of Pear Cables, to prove that the firm’s $7,000 leads are better than standard-fare one can pick up at Best Buy. It’s not gone well for the challengers, with Pear backing out and Fremer frustrated by the all-too-public negotiations between Randi and himself.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1035 –
Fremer wasnt' going to use Pear cables.  He wanted to use cables of his own choosing.  Randi 'backed out' when he was informed, quite reasonably, that Fremer's terms would potentially allow use of cables with crude built-in equalizers -- one of the high-end's many hilarious 'improvements' to well-functioning technology (LP demagnetizers? Tice clocks?  mpingo discs? cable lifters? People touting such things should be ashamed of themselves).  As such any credible test of cables with little boxes in line would include a bench test.  The negotiations foundered over which cables would actually test the proposition that cables sound different.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1036 –
krab can you link to those discussions as far as where the breakdown occurred? I honestly could not figure out exactly how that happened.

Are there any known interconnects that have impedance networks in them besides MIT?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1037 –
m0rbidini and krabapple have it right. Actually the ones who backed out were Pear, and then it all went to hell. The irony of all this is that Gizmodo themselves were the ones who brought the Pear nonsense out into attention, and the ones mocking audiophools. That writer is no longer with Gizmodo though, it's been a while.

Axon you might want to go to randi.org and do a search there for pear cable or audiophool. The subject had been covered too by Gizmodo and other popular gadget blogs/sites.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1038 –
Quote from: andy o on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: Squeller on
Quote from: analogcorner on
Because Fremer has so many years experience in comparing audio, I suggest, he should take the James Randi challenge to earn the million dollars and to prove finally, that somebody can listen (not see) a difference between different audio cables

Has there ever been a statistically valid proof? Would you please point me to one? It should be easy to conduct.


For the record, Michael did accept Randi's challenge, but Randi backed out.

They couldn't agree to terms, it's not that one of them backed out. Of course most Randi supporters would say that Fremer backed out. I've read discussions back and forth on who backed out, but someone must be lying or at least distorting the truth a bit.


See krabbaples's post below yours. He agrees that Randi backed out, the reason being that he felt that the cables Michael Fremer wished to feature in the test once Pear Cables had backed out included "equalizers" (though I don't believe anyone has shown that the cable boxes introduce changes in the audioband response).

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1039 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
See krabbaples's post below yours. He agrees that Randi backed out, the reason being that he felt that the cables Michael Fremer wished to feature in the test once Pear Cables had backed out included "equalizers" (though I don't believe anyone has shown that the cable boxes introduce changes in the audioband response).


Well, luckily there are still sane people around. To test the assertion that cables do sound different - as claimed many times by Fremer and your magazine - it is just reasonable scientific methodology to exclude all interference, that is not central to the assertion in question. For example, why would you allow cable boxes, if the basic claim already covered plain cables?

If Fremer was trustworthy he could have allowed Randi to pick any of those cables for which he has claimed to hear a clear difference in public (e.g. in Stereophile).

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1040 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: Squeller on
Quote from: analogcorner on
Because Fremer has so many years experience in comparing audio, I suggest, he should take the James Randi challenge to earn the million dollars and to prove finally, that somebody can listen (not see) a difference between different audio cables

Has there ever been a statistically valid proof? Would you please point me to one? It should be easy to conduct.


For the record, Michael did accept Randi's challenge, but Randi backed out.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

LOL! That's what all charlatans say happened. More likely, Fremer refused to be tested in controlled conditions.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1041 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
See krabbaples's post below yours. He agrees that Randi backed out, the reason being that he felt that the cables Michael Fremer wished to feature in the test once Pear Cables had backed out included "equalizers" (though I don't believe anyone has shown that the cable boxes introduce changes in the audioband response).


If Fremer was trustworthy he could have allowed Randi to pick any of those cables for which he has claimed to hear a clear difference in public (e.g. in Stereophile).


Agreed.

It appears that the posts related to the Fremer/cable challenge are no longer at Randi's site. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

I did go over a number of other challenges that were proposed but never happened. Invariably there is considerable backpedalling on the part of the people who come foreward to meet the chanllenge. Usually this results in them proposing some kind of complexified test with questionable relevance and/or blindness, as compared to their initial proposal. In the end, people often try to blame their failure to "man up" on Randi or one of his agents. Some times they get pretty violent about it.  No surprise.

Blind cable comparisons are not rocket science. Larry Greeenhill did some pretty good ones with the Audiophile Society of Westchester County back in the 1980s, if memory serves. Of course they failed to produce the *desired* results from the standpoint of the "all cables sound different" advocates.

That all cables have non-subtle characteristic colorations and masking has not been audioiphile *revealed truth* for all time. If memory serves, this urban legend  emerged about the same time that we started getting goodly amounts of ink about ABX. As the argument goes, no ABX swtichbox can possibly be sonically transparent because it necessarily adds some cabling and those horrible inherently masking relay or switch contacts. This bedtime tale must not have sold well enough because it was shortly followed by the newer audiophile revealed truth about DBTs, which is that all ABX comparisons involve hurried comparisons of vanishingly small snippets of music, and are therefore inherently flawed. That was followed by Moncrieff's epistles about performance anxiety, etc.


Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1042 –
Quote from: ShowsOn on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on

For the record, Michael did accept Randi's challenge, but Randi backed out.

LOL! That's what all charlatans say happened. More likely, Fremer refused to be tested in controlled conditions.


With respect and putting to one side your shoot-from-the-hip namecalling, you shouldn't be so dismissive unless you have read what's in the record. Michael didn't refuse to be tested under controlled condition, neither did he back out from Randi's Challenge. Instead, he suggested the methodology of the test be designed by editors of Scientific American magazine with whom, I believe, both he and James Randi were acquainted.
 
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1043 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
With respect and putting to one side your shoot-from-the-hip namecalling, you shouldn't be so dismissive unless you have read what's in the record. Michael didn't refuse to be tested under controlled condition, neither did he back out from Randi's Challenge. Instead, he suggested the methodology of the test be designed by editors of Scientific American magazine with whom, I believe, both he and James Randi were acquainted.


Where might someone find an reliable version of that record?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1044 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
With respect and putting to one side your shoot-from-the-hip namecalling, you shouldn't be so dismissive unless you have read what's in the record. Michael didn't refuse to be tested under controlled condition, neither did he back out from Randi's Challenge. Instead, he suggested the methodology of the test be designed by editors of Scientific American magazine with whom, I believe, both he and James Randi were acquainted.
 
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

With respect, you are disrespecting James Randi's long standing record of being able to discover and discern charlatanism in all its forms. Spoon bending, faith healing, homoeopathy, audiophile nonsense, he has seen it all.

ShowsOn

Thankfully Not the Editor of Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1045 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
With respect and putting to one side your shoot-from-the-hip namecalling, you shouldn't be so dismissive unless you have read what's in the record. Michael didn't refuse to be tested under controlled condition, neither did he back out from Randi's Challenge. Instead, he suggested the methodology of the test be designed by editors of Scientific American magazine with whom, I believe, both he and James Randi were acquainted.


Where might someone find an reliable version of that record?


It used to be archived on Randi's website, but appears, as you point out Mr. Krueger, to have been deleted. (At least I can no longer find them.) I do have copies of the relevant pages from the Randi site archived. My point remains that a) despite the religious belief some have expressed on this forum in James Randi's actions, it was Randi, not Fremer, who backed down, and b) far from refusing to be tested under blind conditions, Michael himself suggested responsible third parties who would design and proctor the test.

I fail to understand why you guys live in such a binary world. Let's hypothesize that Michael is wrong about cables and Randi is correct. Nevertheless, Michael lives his life an an admirably ethical manner and James Randi appears, at least from my own interactions with him, to be an unrepentant, dishonorable old carnie, earning a living from fleecing the marks who flock to his church.

John Atkinson
Edtor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1048 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote

James Randi appears, at least from my own interactions with him, to be an unrepentant, dishonorable old carnie, earning a living from fleecing the marks who flock to his church.

With respect and putting to one side your shoot-from-the-hip namecalling, you don't project much, do you John?


Assuming you are referring to this text I wrote, in all my personal dealings with James Randi, the man appeared to be as crooked as a $9 bill. If he told me the sun came up in the East, I would check. If you wish, I would be happy to post the entire email exchange I had with Randi to this forum, so you can judge for yourself what kind of man he is. (It has already been posted to rec.audio.high-end back in 2007, and partially by Randi on his website, so I wouldn't be breaking any confidences.)

Regarding my opinion of Randi's business activities, I note that his sole source of income appears to be fees from speaking engagements and donations to his foundation from those who believe he shares their skeptical views. His actions and behavior are intended, in my opinion, therefore to maximize that source of income. Hence, at least when it comes to audiophiles, it appears that he goes after those with the highest public profile _regardless of whether those he attacks have actually behaved as he has described on his website_.

Why else would he challenge a high-profile contributor, Michael Fremer, to the highest-profile audio magazine, Stereophile? Michael had never tried the Pear cables featured in the Challenge, nor had Stereophile ever published anything on Pear cables.  It was instead David Clark who actually reviewed the Pear cables for a relatively low-profile webzine called Positive Feedback Online. Not much mileage there for a publicity vampire like Mr. Randi to entertain his true believers, eh? Hence my disdain for the man.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile