"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Scottie said:

That doesn't just mean rationally
acknowledging the value of scientifically valid tests performed by
experienced R&D professionals in real enterprises. It also means you
have
to believe that a very few "tests" that are done without real
scientific
controls, in which both the participants and the proctors are
predisposed
to not hearing differences, are sufficient for all audio equipment and
all
listeners.

That's just BS

How rude.

and and a cheap attempt to smear all objectivists by
forcing association with Arny. You need to give that agenda a rest
when having meaningful input.

You still don't read very well.

You also have to believe that any difference somebody thinks
they heard in real-life listening, but that disappears during a "test",
is
illusory.

More BS.

Gracious, such hostility!

You just need to allow the test protocol every opportunity
to reveal the difference heard in "real-life listening". Long sessions,
music, noise sources, tones, rapid switching etc.
Anything the subject feels is necessary to allow positive blind
detection.

It's still a "test" and it's not the same as listening for enjoyment.

It's not supposed to be the same you ****ing twit, it's much more revealing
than listening for enjoyment.