" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"John Corbett" wrote in message
...
In article , "Harry Lavo"
wrote (re
http://www.hfm-detmold.de/eti/projek...paper_6086.pdf):


It is certainly a test that probably is as good an abx test as could be
done.

Huh?


Meaning, they paid attention to most details.




See below.


I didn't rule out chance...I said it was less likely since the
distribution
was not a normal bell curve but rather something resembling a Poisson (an
inference, BTW, heightened by the fact that they all used earphones
suggesting that the differences were there but masked by room ambience.)

But aren't the subjectivists always saying that listening should be done
in
real world applications? I suggest to you that there is vastly more
lsitening done by audiophiles in situations where there is room ambience
than through headphones.

Of course this is true. But if you have ever moved into direct range of
your speakers, or as I do listen to music at night while falling asleep, and
you do it with good headphones, you become well aware that you can hear much
more detail thatn normal in-room listening (not however, that listening to
music on computers with crappy earphones this is not always or perhaps even
usually true.)




Since the test proctors did not do follow-up evaluation of the four who
scored well, it is impossible to know for sure whether or not these
results
were real, or chance. I believe the Poisson distribution and the use of
headphones suggests "real".

Of course you do.

The fact still remains that even if you wish to argue that there might be
that tiny percentage of people who actually heard a difference, they are
very likely not the type of people who might work for a subjectivist audio
magazine. They are still not able to hear such differences without
headphones, making the differences virtually the same as non-existent in
normal conditions.

They were musician/engineers in training. Why would not some of them end up
reviewing equipment, as many of the folks on RAP do?