[Scott[_6_]]

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 10:39:04 AM UTC-7, news wrote:
What Scott says may be true, but when you do it blind you remove all of=
=20
=20
those prejudices. But remember there are (at least) two kinds of blind=20
=20
tests, difference tests and preference tests. For a wine tasting, you cou=
ld=20
=20
either ask them their reactions and preference toward two unknown samples=
=20
=20
(preference testing), or you could simply ask them if they can tell ANY=
=20
=20
difference between the two.
=20
=20
=20
HOWEVER, it is not sufficient that they tell you whether they can tell a=
=20
=20
difference, they must prove it in a statistically significant manner by=
=20
=20
doing it at least 16 times, because if they only guessed one time it coul=
d=20
=20
be luck. So, for example, if they can tell the white from the red, or the=
=20
=20
fancy from the table wine, at least 12 out of 16 times (95% level of=20
=20
confidence) then they would have proven that there is a difference, but n=
ot=20
=20
a preference. If they can't even do THAT, then not only could they not ha=
ve=20
=20
a preference, but they cannot even tell under blind conditions whether th=
ere=20
=20
is any difference between the two at all.
=20
=20
=20
The obvious connection to audio is if someone is trying to sell me a $15,=
000=20
=20
set of speaker cables, the easiest way for him to prove that he can hear =
an=20
=20
improvement with his own product would be to test his ability to tell a=
=20
=20
difference between them under blind conditions. If he can't even do that,=
=20
=20
then he cannot convince me that he hears an improvement with his fancy=20
=20
wires. Of course I could take the same test, but if I flunked it he would=
=20
=20
just give the standard phrase, well you can't hear it but I can. So you m=
ake=20
=20
him put his ears where his mouth is.
=20
=20
=20
The subjectivist audio press comes out with endless prose and poetry abou=
t=20
=20
what they hear in the latest products, but it is totally meaningless if i=
t=20
=20
is done under sighted conditions.

No, it is not "totally" meaningless. yes it is flavored with sighted bias. =
But honestly so are your personal perceptions of your own stereo. Does that=
make your perceptions meaningless? You have talked about those perceptions=
at length and have come up with some very unconventional beliefs on stereo=
playback based on those perceptions.=20

They will never say "well, this new=20
=20
$50,000 amplifier is certainly the same as all other decent amplifiers."=
=20
=20
That wouldn't show the fineness of their hearing or advance their magazin=
e=20
=20
sales.

So why did Stereo Review/Sound and Vision say just that for all those years=
? By the way, you don't know that those unnamed 50,000 dollar amps sound th=
e same as all other "decent" amps. (whatever you may mean by "decent" amps)
=20
=20
=20
But most of us know all that. Just saying for the benefit of the newbies=
=20
=20
lurking in.
=20
=20
Yeah me too.=20