"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


Did Stereo Review and S&V fund DBTs?

Yes, AFAIK the authors of a goodly number of articles
that included the results of DBTs were paid reasonably
well.

Funded indirectly, then. Presumably the authors were paid
for the article, not the test itself.

Right. Note that it was the authors themselves, many of whom were
independent subcontractors, that footed the bill for the blind tests.
These
are the tests that Atkinson says that Stereophile can't afford.

What Stereophile can't afford is unpopular articles.

Well that, and Stereophile can't afford to rock its own boat very much.

I agree that Atkinson can't afford them - he can't afford the
consequences.
IMO the probabable results of fairly-run equipment tests would eviscerate
his magazine's technical stance that just about everything sounds
different,
and reduce or eliminate his reviewer's ability to invent what many
purchasers perceive to be facts.

Gotta like those measurements.

Some of them are botched and misleading to raise irrelevant concerns.

They're even compared to the subjective impression.

Comparing data to noise doesn't shed a lot of light.



Note that subscribers get this hype about how authoratative SP is, while
advertisers are told that SP is a magazine of opinion.

Authoritative? I'm a subscriber, and I haven't noticed SP claiming to be
the last word for anything.

One example of many:

http://www.stereophile.com/news/10170/

"Stereophile Magazine, published monthly, was founded in 1962 and is the
country's oldest and largest-circulation magazine reviewing high-end audio
components. Stereophile Magazine provides the world's most authoritative
information about high-end audio and music systems."

Finally, should anybody lose their mind and think that Middius is being
honest when he paints me as being Stereophile's only critic:

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