AudioBanter.com - View Single Post - science vs. pseudo-science

In article ZG%bb.416971$Oz4.206670@rwcrnsc54,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:P7Fbb.406164$Oz4.197010@rwcrnsc54...
In article ,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:

Something else started being called "DBT" which out of courtesy
I will call "DBT" 3.- suggested for comparing components;

Please, if nothing else, the test under discussion is most definitely
a "double blind test". You may not agree with the results, but it is
most certainly a DBT under every definition I am aware of. Talk about
your strawmen.

Double Blind it is. "Test" it is not. A test by definition has to
be replicable by the test subjects who are its constituency: ie a
motley crew of "audiophiles" from the car boom- box enthusiasts to
middle aged chamber music lovers. Individual performances differ
widely as reflected in the reports of ALL of the existing "listening
tests". Providence arranged that our results, yours and mine, are not
transferable. That is the kind of test it is when you force it onto
inappropriate topics like COMPARING COMPONENTS.
Try again.

I think it is you that needs to try again. How is it not a "test"?
And how is it not replicable? Just because you say so? So one could
not take the same people who were in a specific DBT and get the same
results a second time? Is that not the definition of "replicable"?

And why would you include "car boom-box enthusiasts" in your
definition of an audiophile? I certainly wouldn't include them
myself. Must you again stretch the meanings of commonly understood
terms just to be able to prove your point?