In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
. com,
wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:


I look forward to a magazine-purchased Halcro-Wavac
comparison in S&V.


I was under the impression that equipment was loaned to
magazines for review. Is there a special surcharge for
reviewing the more expensive models?

Arny criticized Atkinson because Stereophile borrows
while S&V buys review samples, so I was having some fun.

Never said any such thing.

"Ahh, the Atkinson defense. Remember, this is the guy who
reviews power amps that allegedly sell for fractions of a
million dollars, but can't afford the wherewithall that
competing magazines like Stereo Review and its sequel
Sound and Vision have used for their DBTs in the past."

There's the quote. I stand corrected.

Good character becomes you, Stephen.

At any rate, it was delusional fun. AFAIK S&V gets
review samples from vendors, same as ever.

While buying avoids one kind of bias for inexpensive
gear, a magazine with "fractions of a million dollars"
investments would have an obvious interest in the resale
value of the reviewed devices.

False claim based on false premise.

Upon further review, it seems you were comparing apples
and oranges, as they say, by juxtaposing the false
premise that Stereophile buys its review samples and the
assumption that Stereophile can't afford to do DBTs.

I never said or suggested that Stereophile does any such thing.

Implied by "Stereophile reviews that allegedly sell for fractions of a
million dollars, but can't afford the wherewithall" for DBTs.

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.

I know they've published reports of them.

...starting back in the late 1980s.

The old Audio magazine also funded a number of DBTs. AFAIK, even Stereophile
has funded a few DBTs.

Thanks,

Stephen

"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.

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.

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

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.

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. They're even compared to the subjective
impression.

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.

Stephen

"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

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"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.

The price of transparency.

They're even compared to the subjective impression.

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

Comparing subjective impressions to measurements can be enlightening.

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."

LOL! All bow down to the masthead boilerplate!

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

Middius doesn't say that, and the Randi thing is silly as Stereophile
doesn't make supernatural claims.

Stephen

In article , MINe
109 wrote:


What Stereophile can't afford is unpopular articles.

This indicates a dliemma for many commerical magazines. They may well have
established a group of frequent readers who have views and expectations of
what they want to read in the magazine. Any change of stance or content
risks losing some of those established readers.

In the longer term, newer readers might start buying the mag. But changes
of content can be risky. So any sigificant change may be "unpopular" if it
conflicts with expectations of those who are used to seeing what they have
become accustomed to in the mag.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , MINe
109 wrote:


What Stereophile can't afford is unpopular articles.

This indicates a dliemma for many commerical magazines. They may well have
established a group of frequent readers who have views and expectations of
what they want to read in the magazine. Any change of stance or content
risks losing some of those established readers.


I don't see it as a dilemma. The established group are established
because they like the content. The content was established because it
was what the editor and staff chose to publish. Jut like it was never a
dilemma for magazines like Stereo Review to print reviews which
routinely claimed that certain components sound just like all others in
the same catagory. Both reflected the beliefs and experiences of each
magazines' editors and staff. Each also has their audience. I don't
believe that either operates/operated out of fear of ****ing off the
readers with review content.




In the longer term, newer readers might start buying the mag. But changes
of content can be risky. So any sigificant change may be "unpopular" if it
conflicts with expectations of those who are used to seeing what they have
become accustomed to in the mag.


Over he years Stereophile has evolved and has published many a review
or article that managaed to anger some of it's readers. Yet the
magazine survives. I have never heard of any instane that a review has
been rejected due to the oinions expressed. IOW there is nothing to my
knowledge to prevent a reviewer from stating they cannot distinguish a
product from others like it by sound. I see no evidence that any
reviewe does not believe the content of their review.


Scott