[KH]

On 4/22/2014 7:02 PM, Scott wrote:
On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 11:08:35 AM UTC-7, KH wrote:
On 4/22/2014 7:16 AM, Scott wrote:

On Monday, April 21, 2014 4:02:48 PM UTC-7, KH wrote:

On 4/20/2014 6:30 AM, Scott wrote:



No, you're conflating "perception", inclusive of bias, with *audible*.



If you put the same component in two different boxes, one may well be



preferred over the other, sighted, but it will have zero to do with



*audibility*.







I am not conflating anything. If you put two different components that are known to sound different in those same boxes the sound difference will also affect preference.



Uhmm, yes, because they sound different.



Once again you gravitate towards the black and white and ignore the gray in between. We actually do hear things under sighted conditions and what we actually hear also affects what we think we hear. Bias hardly makes up 100% of our perceptions.



It is black and white. Sighted, you cannot *know* how much bias is

introduced, or whether it suppresses differences or "creates"

differences in perception where no audible differences are present. That

is an established fact. So, virtually meaningless for any subtle

differences in components where, from an engineering perspective, no

audible difference should exist.

Alas, as John Atkinson said so wisely. Everything sounds the same except when it doesn't. You have now attached enough conditions that I think I can probably mostly agree with you...now. Of course the goal posts have been moved so far that this is no longer the original assertion. That being "The subjectivist audio press comes out with endless prose and poetry about what they hear in the latest products, but it is totally meaningless if it is done under sighted conditions."

You need to read more carefully. I have put *no* conditions on
anything. The "subtle" comment above only acknowledges that no one ever
argues that speakers, for example, need blind testing to hear the
obvious audible differences. You know that, clearly.

It's clear that sighted testing is subject to bias - unrelated to the
actual audible signal. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else knows how
bias affects any given reviewers perception, only that it *will* affect
it. So, as I originally said, the statement "The subjectivist audio
press comes out with endless prose and poetry about what they hear in
the latest products, but it is totally meaningless if it is done under
sighted conditions." is perfectly accurate if the *sound* is the only
thing of interest. No goalpost moving or conditions. If you're
interested in a reviewers Gestalt of a piece (I have no idea why one
would, but...) then feel free.