"The Audio Critic" B.S. or what?

Someone above wrote: "Nonetheless, I vigorously defend every free person's right to stick weird dots on their equipment, color the edges of their CDS, reposition AC cords in astral shapes, perch their components on exotic materials even when -- in fact ESPECIALLY when under the influence of drugs or alcohol." That post summarizes the view of "If I like it it's OK". Of course it is. No one is seeking to limit your rights to act foolishly, even if you act like eber, David-Diva99, or anyone else. But most of us are trying to learn more absolute, objectives truths here. To hear a proclamation of our well-known rights is quite boring, and totally unenlightening. To hear incoherent blabble from eber and David-Diva99 may seem funny at first but quickly becomes boring too. Their mouths are too large for their heads ! To hear smart discussion points, whether I agree or them or not, from the likes of Leafs, ficciones, Jostler and Darvek, among others, is enlightening. Again: there are many limitations in the use of objective testing in audio. However, its not too hard to tell that a great many incumbents don't want any progress to be made in that camp. For know, I'll continue to find useful the opinions of the reviewers I respect more given their independance and track record. But I'm still hoping the search for more objective tools continues. I would also like some magazine to start doing modified blind testing, perhaps not for all of its reviews, just some, as an experiment.

There is a good elemental discussion of blind testing at the GoodSound website in the advise section. http://www.goodsound.com There is a link to ABX site which may have some info on double blind testing you find interesting. Charlie

I just checked out this magazine. My measure of an audio magazine is how much I agree with it. For example, I tend to agree with TAS or Stereophile magazine descriptions of 'transparent', 'warm', or has 'digital haze'. I read Peter Azcels 'lies' articles and found that virtually everything he said contradicted what I had learned by my own experiments and experiences. His dogmatic, vehemently argued theorems and axioms pertaining to audio were completely devoid of both empirical facts and inductive or deductive reasoning. I also noticed he used a lot of caps.

John_l: Vehement and dogmatic Aczel certainly is, and the "Lies" article was Peter at his worst. He was trying to cover a lot of ground in very little space, and wound up with a summary, rather than an argument. But judging a magazine by your agreement with it seems to me to be a good way to avoid learning anything new. As for your own "experiments and experiences," their exact meaning depends on how they were conducted, a subject on which Aczel has had a lot to say in the past. You might try checking out a few more issues, or ordering some back numbers.

John 1: Respectfully, I suggest that it's difficult to grow when we limit ourselves to those in agreement with us. There is occasional emotion within the pages of TAC. Much of it, I believe, is engendered by frustration with the deception which is perpetuated by many of the predominately subjective enthusiasts periodicals (you know of which I mean). I do understand how unappealing criticism of personal belief systems can be. It took several years in the past for some of mine to fall. But, if a claim cannot be reliably demonstrated to others, then that claim must be considered untenable.