"John Richards" wrote in message
.. .

wrote in message
k.net...

"John Richards" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"John Richards" wrote in message
.. .

wrote in message
nk.net...

"John Richards" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...
Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that
some other form of testing for audio differences have merit?

Define "scholarly".

Research done by experts in the field of psychoacoustics,
electronics, or any related field that shows that it is possible to
reliably hear subtle differences without proper bias controls. Work
that has the results of people who can reliably hear subtle
differences, sighted, complete with references, and that has been
peer reviewed.

Where did you come up with that definition?


The list I posted is contains work from some of the best known people
in their fields.

Known by you personally?

A Couple I have met and heard speak, others I've talked to on the phone
and others I either read or whos work I'm aware of.

How many of these references have you even read?

Irrelevant. What has the other side to offer?

Where is there any work by anybody of similar stature that can
demonstrate that ABX or any other form of DBT desensitizes listener
so that they don't hear things they would otherwise be able to.

It seems the people who are so vocal in their opposition to ABX have
only anecdote, personal attacks, and the ability to argue endlessly.
There is no scientific body or group trying to refute or come up with
a reliable sighted protocol for determining subtle differences in
audio equipment.

Maybe the people you refer to don't feel they need "a reliable sighted
protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment" to
tell them what they hear.


Then how can they be so sure that ABX or other forms of DBT are not
reliable.
If you assert that sighted listening is reliable, there ought ot be
some evidence.

If there is no evidence, then it's just denial and has no merit.

The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of
trained listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way
to determine subtle differences in audio components.

Then I guess you just answered your own question.


I didn't require an answer to that question,

I know, you're just stirring the pot.

I want to know what if any scientific validity the other side might
claim to have. It seems reasonable that if you are gong to deny the
current scientific approach, there ought to be something of equal or
comprable scientific effort to put in place of ABX.

The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The
other side has.....?

Well let's erect an alter and give them praise, amen!


As expected, nothing to offer as proof theat ABX or any form of DBT is
invalid, and nothing to offer to demonstrate some sighted form of sighted
listening is effective.

If you are looking for proof and can't find any, then I'd say there might
not be any.

Bingo.

If there is proof but you just don't want to do the research,
then why should someone else do it for you?

I'm not asking for anybody to do research for me, I just thought rational
humans would want to have some basis for their beliefs in a procedure that
has been repeatedly cited as unreliable, as is the case for sighted
listening.

Personally, I don't give a
rat's ass if there is "proof" or not. Either way, the onus is on you to
satisfy your own doubts!

I don't have any doubts that sighted listening is flawed, but if there were
some valid research that showed there might be some reason to reconsider,
i'd certainly be willing to consider it.

Why can't the anti DBT side provide something better than anecdote?
Theobvious answer is because there is nothing.

You're tripe is boring me - onto my "blocked sender" list you go. Adios.