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 504579 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1050 –
Quote from: greynol on
Am I the only one who finds this response ironic?


I have no idea.

Quote
John, I said putting aside name-calling.


Your exact words were "putting to one side your _shoot-from-the-hip_ namecalling." I was trying to demonstrate, unsuccessfully it seems, that my characterization of Mr. Randi's behavior may have appeared to be "namecalling," but it was hardly "shoot-from-the-hip." I have formed my opinion of Mr. Randi over several years of  interacting with the man.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1051 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: andy o on
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).

Well, see also how he put quotes around how Randi "backed out". Pear backed out, and they couldn't then agree about terms.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1052 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
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.)



Randi considers you the charlatan.  Unhappily for you, he's the one with the proven record of exposing them. 

Before you claim to have sussed out Randi, let's remember that you didn't even have a clue who you were dealing with then. Indeed, when this was all going down Stereophile tried to make an issue of the fact that 'Randi' isn't his real name -- as if that was proof that Randi wasn't on the level.  That was pathetic. 


Quote
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_.


Again, regardless of your specious reasoning from what 'appears' to be the case to you, you really don't know who you're talking about here.

By your reasoning, btw, your own occupation hardly suggest you to be free from financial interest in the causes YOU champion.


Quote
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.



'High profile"?  Don't flatter yourself.  There's a world of idiocy out there begging for debunking -- and someone who's been called on the past by Nature magazine to debunk junk science, as Randi has, really does have bigger fish to fry than the audiophile fringe you cater to.  Randi had no more clue who you guys were that you did of him.  He couldn't possibly personally seek out every species of nonsense that humanity barfs up. He was *informed* by skeptics of the arrant nonsense that gets published in in your magazine and other 'audiophile' journals, and that was all after he was tipped off to the Pear Cables nonsense.  If you actually read his columns on his site, you'd know this; people are always sending him links to nutty stuff.

(Btw, one of the frequent contributors to Randi's website forum is that renowned sheep and 'true believer', and friend of yours if I'm not mistaken, JJ. )

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1053 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
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

There's actually a pretty obvious reason to "challenge" high-profile pseudoscience peddlers, like Sylvia Browne, Uri Geller, Peter Popoff and that actual scientist who "came up" with actual positive results for homeopathy (sorry, forget his name), among many others. And it's not the reason you so cynically say. He's gotta counter the Oprah effect (think The Secret or Jenny McCarthy's antivaccination scheme lately).

Just for debunking those four frauds I think Randi deserves all the publicity he gets, and more. Not to say all the others. He needs to be on network TV regularly.

Randi may or may not be a nasty person (All evidence I've seen is to the contrary, but he might not like you particularly either), but as the discussion some pages ago went, nice or rude or just being an ass doesn't make truth claims right or wrong.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1054 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
I have no idea.

Yes, and it is obvious.  You might want to read krabapple's reply; he surely understood the irony.

Hint: When I suggested you don't project much I was being sarcastic.  It had nothing to do with you ad hominem remarks about Randi.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1056 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Randi considers you the charlatan.  Unhappily for you, he's the one with the proven record of exposing them.


Except, if you read his criticisms of me on his website, they don't actually involve anything I have done or written. That makes him careless and deceptive at best and a fraud at worst.

Quote
Before you claim to have sussed out Randi, let's remember that you didn't even have a clue who you were dealing with then. Indeed, when this was all going down Stereophile tried to make an issue of the fact that 'Randi' isn't his real name -- as if that was proof that Randi wasn't on the level.  That was pathetic.


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).

Quote
Quote
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_.


Again, regardless of your specious reasoning from what 'appears' to be the case to you, you really don't know who you're talking about here.


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.

Quote
By your reasoning, btw, your own occupation hardly suggest you to be free from financial interest in the causes YOU champion.


Not at all. Mr. Randi is selling his opinions. By contrast, I sell physical products - magazines, CDs, SACDs, and LPs - that people find stimulating, informative, entertaining, and even educational. The continued success of my activities suggests that those who buy those products are in the main satisfied that they get a good value for the expense.

Quote
Quote
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.


'High profile"?  Don't flatter yourself.  There's a world of idiocy out there begging for debunking -- and someone who's been called on the past by Nature magazine to debunk junk science, as 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?

Quote
Randi had no more clue who you guys were that you did of him.  He couldn't possibly personally seek out every species of nonsense that humanity barfs up. He was *informed* by skeptics of the arrant nonsense that gets published in in your magazine and other 'audiophile' journals, and that was all after he was tipped off to the Pear Cables nonsense.  If you actually read his columns on his site, you'd know this; people are always sending him links to nutty stuff.


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?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1057 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on

Quote

Am I the only one who finds this response ironic?

I have no idea.

Yes, and it is obvious.  You might want to read krabapple's reply; he surely understood the irony.


Your question was ambiguous. There was the surface meaning -  "Am I the only one...?" - to which I thought it clear my literally correct response was referring.

There's the first level of irony - I am calling the inestimable James Randi names in the same thread in which I have referred to the fact that some HA posters have itchy trigger fingers when it comes to calling _me_ names - perhaps that was to what you were referring?

Then there's a deeper level of irony -  that I, whom some HA posters have made it clear they feel is a charlatan, am developing the case that _Mr. Randi_ is a charlatan.

I figgered that that last level of meaning was beyond you and that the previous one was not worthy of a response, so I gave you the correct answer to the obvious question. Sorry for descending to your level. :-)

Quote
Hint: When I suggested you don't project much I was being sarcastic.  It had nothing to do with you ad hominem remarks about Randi.


Of course you were. Though I thought moderators were supposed to stay out of the ring.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1058 –
I must admit I'm impressed.

If you look at the facts, the situation is pretty clear: Atkinson is selling a magazine repeatedly claiming that audible differences between many cables exist (besides all other kind of snake oil). Just focus onto this fact and then think about which one of the two qualifies for the bigger charlatan

Then read the recent discussion and acknowledge how well this man is able to pursue a debate on top of this sandy ground. I wouldn't say such makes one deserve having success, but it can at least help to explain it.

Aside from not agreeing to what he is saying, it is a really interesting and enjoyable read time and time again.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1059 –
Quote
Not at all. Mr. Randi is selling his opinions. By contrast, I sell physical products - magazines, CDs, SACDs, and LPs - that people find stimulating, informative, entertaining, and even educational. The continued success of my activities suggests that those who buy those products are in the main satisfied that they get a good value for the expense.


Sir, sorry for the wake up call, but *you* sell opinions and nothing more. It doesn't matter if those opinions are in magazines or in a web site. Randi sells facts and myth debunking. I just had to say this.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1060 –
Quote from: m0rbidini on
Quote
Not at all. Mr. Randi is selling his opinions. By contrast, I sell physical products - magazines, CDs, SACDs, and LPs - that people find stimulating, informative, entertaining, and even educational. The continued success of my activities suggests that those who buy those products are in the main satisfied that they get a good value for the expense.


Sir, sorry for the wake up call, but *you* sell opinions and nothing more. It doesn't matter if those opinions are in magazines or in a web site. Randi sells facts and myth debunking. I just had to say this.

Wow, there's a huge-ass claim implied there, that Stereophile somehow is educational, and furthermore, even more than Randi? His whole foundation is based on education, more than myth debunking just for debunking's sake. Freaking Phil Plait is gonna be his successor. He's like Internet Carl Sagan.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1061 –
Quote from: andy o on
that Stereophile somehow is educational
Just to name a quick example, the anechoic-chamber frequency-analysis plots that Stereophile provides are certainly worth something. To say that the magazine is devoid of educational value seems quite myopic to me.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1062 –
Quote from: Canar on
Quote from: andy o on
that Stereophile somehow is educational
Just to name a quick example, the anechoic-chamber frequency-analysis plots that Stereophile provides are certainly worth something. To say that the magazine is devoid of educational value seems quite myopic to me.

But do you think a publication that purports to be educational is allowed to engage in crass intellectual dishonesty and still get to be called educational, just because they do something right?

Just asking... maybe it is.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1063 –
Quote from: andy o on
But do you think a publication that purports to be educational is allowed to engage in crass intellectual dishonesty and still get to be called educational, just because they do something right?

Just asking... maybe it is.
Really depends on the function you use to combine educational values of sections of a publication into an overall assessment. If "crass intellectual dishonesty" is given a -1 and "superlative scientific experimentation and analysis" is given a +1, and there is only one +1 in a sea of -1s in some magazine, does that make the one +1 any less good? I would say that the publication is still educational, if only for the one article.

I'm not implying any particular distribution of scores in Stereophile magazine, just that the anechoic chamber tests fascinate me.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1064 –
Quote from: Canar on
Quote from: andy o on
But do you think a publication that purports to be educational is allowed to engage in crass intellectual dishonesty and still get to be called educational, just because they do something right?



I agree that Stereophile occasionaly and even frequently publishes valid and relevant technical informations. For example, when I was developing a speaker simulator for testing loudspeakers, I referred to the Stereophile Web site's extensive collection of loudspeaker impedance curves. Ironically, I found that a reasonable interpretation of that data suggested very strongly that Sterophile's current loudspeaker simulator for amplifier testing was not nearly stressful enough to be representative of the lousdpeakers that Stereophile recommends be used with the amplifiers they test.

But I digress, my speaker simulator controversy is a disagreement in the interpretation of valid technical information, IMO much of what Steroephile publishes is unsupported and unsupportable fantasy presented as if it were reliable scientific and/or technical facts.

If you study the means that have historically used to perpetrate frauds and charlantry, selected truths are generally part of the mix.

Furthermore every source of reliable scientific information will make occasional errors if they are operation long enough.

However, Stereophile does not make just occasional errors, but in my opinon and the opinion of many, Stereophile uses a large body of reliable scientific facts to create the impression that they are a source of reliable information in order to systematically convince consumers that wild fantasies and technical charlantry are actually true and reliable facts that can be used to support purchase decisions.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1065 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Not at all. Mr. Randi is selling his opinions. By contrast, I sell physical products - magazines, CDs, SACDs, and LPs - that people find stimulating, informative, entertaining, and even educational. The continued success of my activities suggests that those who buy those products are in the main satisfied that they get a good value for the expense.


Gentlemen...It seems to me as though Mr. Atkinson has just openly admitted that he is a primarily a product salesman and not a journalist.  IMHO a true journalist interested in reporting the unvarnished truth would have nothing to fear from Randi.


Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1066 –
Incidentally, notice how the Stereophile cats shifted the focus of this matter into a character referendum on James Randi while the initial and far more important question about whether or not the Pear cables actually produce an audible difference in sound quality is left by the wayside.  That is precisely what a product salesman (or Dick Cheney) would do.  A journalist would find a way to get to the bottom of things, with or without Randi's participation.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1067 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
... in all my personal dealings with James Randi, the man appeared to be as crooked as a $9 bill.

WOW! So your opinion of Randi is ANOTHER thing you have in common with Uri Geller and Peter Popoff! Where will the similarities end!?
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
If he told me the sun came up in the East, I would check.

Shouldn't you KNOW that the sun rises in the East?
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
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.

You sound jealous!
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
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_.

And you publish glowing reviews of rediculously priced crap because that's what the readers of your magazine want to read.

It is funny how often you accuse people of doing things that you do every day!

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1068 –
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; that was "squeller," who wrote "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." I was a) explaining that Michael _had_ accepted Mr. Randi's Challenge, b) correcting the misstatement that it was Michael Fremer who backed out of the Challenge, and c) pointing out that the almost religious belief some HA posters have in the purity of Mr. Randi's motives and behavior is contradicted by  reality.

Quote
... while the initial and far more important question about whether or not the Pear cables actually produce an audible difference in sound quality is left by the wayside.


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.

Quote
A journalist would find a way to get to the bottom of things, with or without Randi's participation


Thank you for the sermon, but as far as I am aware. Pear cables don't qualify for coverage in Stereophile because of the company's lack of retailers who stock and sell them; see http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/307awsi/ for an explanation of my policy on how we select products for review in Stereophile.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1069 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
I was a) explaining that Michael _had_ accepted Mr. Randi's Challenge,

You have not demonstrated that Fermer accepted _Randi's_ challenge.  I really wish you'd stop bending the truth over this matter.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1070 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
I was a) explaining that Michael _had_ accepted Mr. Randi's Challenge,

You have not demonstrated that Fermer accepted _Randi's_ challenge.  I really wish you'd stop bending the truth over this matter.


I am sorry for being blunt, but I am really not responsible for your lack of reading comprehension. The email exchange between Randi and Fremer that Randi published clearly showed that Fremer accepted the Challenge. Pear Cables backed out, then Randi backed out, but as far as Michael is concerned, he is still ready and willing to cooperate along the terms he has outlined, including the participation of the test designers and proctors from Scientific American.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1071 –
My lack of reading comprehension is fine, certainly better than your honesty.

Fermer's willing to accept a challenge based on _his_ terms, not Randi's.  As far as "backing out", how is it Randi's fault that Pear would not put up their cables?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1072 –
Quote from: greynol on
My lack of reading comprehension is fine, certainly better than your honesty.


Nothing I said in that earlier post contradicts what I have said today. And for a moderator, greynol, you sure are willing to get down and dirty. If you really wish to get involved in the argument, perhaps you need to step down as a moderator of the forum?

Quote
Fremer's willing to accept a challenge based on _his_ terms, not Randi's.


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. By passing the design of the test and its proctoring over to responsible and dispassionate third parties, in the form of editors for Scientific American. this would have eliminated any temptation on Randi's part to load the dice, surely. Or do you feel that people should trust Randi always to do the right thing, regardless of his track record of dissembling and deceit?

Quote
As far as "backing out", how is it Randi's fault that Pear would not put up their cables?


No-one said it was. There's that reading comprehension thing of yours again, greynol. But why would Randi insist that the Challenge  be restricted to the Pear cables when Michael Fremer, as  am getting weary of explaining, had never tried the Pear cables, had never written about them? Yes Pear backed out, Randi backed out, but Fremer did not.

Those who keep claiming that Fremer backed out are just plain wrong. You and others on this forum seem to find it impossible to comprehend that someone whose beliefs align with your own, Randi, nevertheless behaves dishonestly, and that someone whose beliefs and actions are at odds with yours, Fremer, has behaved with integrity in this matter. What a peculiar, bipolar, black and white world you all live in. :-)


John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile.
 

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1073 –
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.  But I'm happy to let HA judge for itself.  Here's what Dudley wrote in your Nov 2004 issue:

Quote
The Amazing Artie
Robert Zimmerman, Gordon Sumner, Reiner Frigyes, Roberta Joan Anderson, and Bill Harkleroad (footnote 2) all discarded the names they were born with in favor of newer, better ones, as their performing careers took off. Now we can add another name to the list: Randall Zwinge. Think of Zwinge as a brass player: He toots the same horn over and over, desperately hoping that the audience will notice him instead of the other performers on the stage.

Zwinge is an illusionist—a self-described liar and con artist—who discovered early in his career that he could make more money by debunking the work of other illusionists. So he reinvented himself as James Randi and hit the road as—èt ready for it—The Amazing Randi.

In one of those lucky-for-us-but-unlucky-for-him twists of fate, the bottom pretty much fell out of the debunking industry, and Mr. Zwinge came to realize that only a steady stream of publicity would ensure his continued income. So Zwinge the showman has been forced to hit the rhetorical road, as it were, moving from town to town, looking for new stones to overturn. Perhaps unsurprisingly, he has stumbled on our little world.

I'll spare you the details of the latest yawn-inducing and intellectually dishonest "Randi Challenge"—anyone who's ever heard of Shakti Stones can probably guess what it involves (footnote 3). My point in writing this is to issue a taunt of my own, which I hereby dub "The Artie Challenge." I will personally give Randall Zwinge a hundred billion zillion dollars of my own money if he can answer two questions to my satisfaction:

1) Why is it that a tough-minded seeker of the truth finds it necessary to change his name?

2) When he signs his name as "Randi," does he dot the "i" or draw a little heart over it?

Answers may be submitted to me via e-mail only, care of John_Atkinson@Primediamags.com. Thank you.



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

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?


Quote
Quote
By your reasoning, btw, your own occupation hardly suggest you to be free from financial interest in the causes YOU champion.


Not at all. Mr. Randi is selling his opinions. By contrast, I sell physical products - magazines, CDs, SACDs, and LPs - that people find stimulating, informative, entertaining, and even educational. The continued success of my activities suggests that those who buy those products are in the main satisfied that they get a good value for the expense.


I have to admit puzzlement at this nonsequitur.  But I'll try to run with it.  You mainly 'sell' a magazine that sells opinions --yours included -- on audio, and which is supported largely by advertising by makers of audio gear.  And if 'continued success' at that is some sort of validation of the opinions expressed -- including opinions about matters that couldn be scientifically tested -- then  surely Randi's decades of success is no less validating.  Which stance, is , of course, nonsense, because charlatans can have long-standing careers.


Quote
Quote

'High profile"?  Don't flatter yourself.  There's a world of idiocy out there begging for debunking -- and someone who's been called on the past by Nature magazine to debunk junk science, as 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 miniscule. 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

Quote
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?


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?


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


I would advise HA readers to peruse that whole AA thread -- which both JA and Randi participated in -- to get more of the flavor of what Randi was dealing with (e.g., morons like Rob Doorack, whose repeated hysterical claims that the JREF challenge is 'rigged' merely echoed what Atkinson and Dudley were claiming with less aggro but more poison)

Regarding what some mainstream audio magazine writer wrote, you'd really best quote'n'link when you make such claims, so we can be sure you  aren't decontextualizing out all out of recognition.

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.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1074 –
The terms of the $1million challenge boil down to asking that the 'claimant' perform as claimed WITHOUT there being a known, measureable, i.e., 'natural', explanation to account for it.  To the extent I made my voice heard at JREF forum, it was to argue that Randi should insist that any cables chosen for the challenge -- by Fremer or anyone -- be tested first to show that they don't have some readily-measured, likely-to-be audible 'coloring' effect on the signal -- which is to say, *distortion* -- either by design or misdesign or misapplication (e.g., 22 g wire in a 100 meter installation).  Most cables would pass such a test.  Some 'high end' cables will not.  No one says no two cables can ever sound different.  But there is no reason why most should.  Cables that show no objective reason to sound different, yet are claimed to sound different, are the only fair game.  The other cables are just examples of audiophile silliness, along the lines of SET amps, NOS DACs, and rah-rah over LPs.  Yes, they are more likely to sound different, and we can predict that from measurements, and so f*cking what?


Regarding the whole Scientific American angle,  that was news to me, and I have to wonder why SA, which is a respectable popular science magazine but one with no particular technical expertise in either audio, sensory testing methodology, or debunking, would be considered the best 'third party' for this?