My impressions of Peter Aczel, and his magazine are quite the opposite [message #892 is a reply to message #889] |
Thu, 30 September 2004 13:23 |
akhilesh
Messages: 1275 Registered: May 2009
|
Illuminati (3rd Degree) |
|
|
I think his approach is scientific, and i LOVE the content of the back issues of the audio critic. You are right, John, a lot of the audio community do not like him at all. I beg to differ though, on this one. I think he is great! PLus for $29.95, how can anyone lose? My advice, again: Get the 13 issues and read for yourself. -akhilesh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Dr. Floyd E. Toole [message #917 is a reply to message #902] |
Fri, 01 October 2004 11:49 |
Manualblock
Messages: 4973 Registered: May 2009
|
Illuminati (13th Degree) |
|
|
Wayne Thanks again for those papers. Science in the Service of Art. Nice reading; nothing really new or to disagree with. The anecdotal description of the listening tests; while entertaining, have no real value w/o knowing the size of the statistical sample, of whom that sample is composed, and what other subliminal cues have been detected and neutralised. I know he takes a stab at doing just that and he states unequivically that this is not a rigidly controlled scientific example. However it does postulate scientifically derived conclusions and as such requires some rigor. This is hard to debate because there are emotions and personal allegiences involved. Maybe that is the real subjective/objective conundrum. To be truely objective, you would have to be anonymous, and self-funded. None of those around. I will say this, it's a better debate than that travesty we were subjected to on Thursday night at 9pm EST. Jeez, what an embarrasment! To be continued.
|
|
|