[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 27, 7:25=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:52:11 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):


Many tests have been "published" the problem is most of them are
anecdotal and some who advocate blind testing as needed for "proof"
have been caught cherry picking from the anecdotes. One can see clear
as day hopw easily one particular anecdote was attacked due to the
undesirable results.

If you notice, I was speaking SPECIFICALLY about DBTs


I was speaking about blind tests too.

and was answering a
poster who thinks that expecting the average audiophile to conduct DBTs i=
s
"silly".


He is right. It is silly to expect anything of other audiophiles.




DBTs are useful for removing bias effects. That can be applied to
any test where bias effects are in play. There is nothing unique in
audio about telling differences between two aleged similar items. Fact
is bias is in play and has an affect on preferences even when gross
differences in sound are present. That some audiophiles would limit
their use of bias controls to try to prove a point they already
beleive about differences seems futile. If you think about it.
removing bias from the audition process is far more important when
there are audible differences than when there are not audible
differences. Think about it.

I have. Double blind tests show that difference either exist or do not WH=
EN
biases are removed. Seems to me we are saying the same thing. Remove the
sighted or expectational biases, and even "true believers" can see the tr=
uth
of these so-called "differences" (although many still won't admit it).


No we are not saying the same thing. what I am saying is remove the
bias and one can get an unbiased opinion on sound quality even when
the differences are gross. My point being that if two things sound the
same and someone prefers one over the other because of biases that
person does not get objectively inferior sound. He gets the same sound
but enjoys it more. OTOH when differences are real but preferences are
swayed by bias then one runs the very real risk of choosing
objectively inferior sound because of bias effects. This audiophile
really does loose out due to bias effects. So while some audiophiles
are obsessing over who is right about what sounds the same they are
missing the boat when bias effects can actually have a real
detrimental effect on one's choice of components. I find that
extremely ironic.







Like I said, DB or ABX tests are really for finding differences, not f=
or
determining which is better.

That is simply not true. DBTs are really for removing bias effects.
Bias effects are in play always when we are talking about subjective
evaluations of perceptions.

I dunno, when sighted tests find differences that DBTs show not to exist,
then I would say that it's good at revealing whether or not the differenc=
es
are real or imagined. In other words, we're saying the same thing, you ju=
st
like the way you word it better 8^)

That wasn't my point. You asserted that DBTs were limited in use to
finding differences. They have a much broader range of use which
includes determining unbiased preferences.


For most products, all one needs to know about a product can be gleane=
d f=3D
rom
a spec sheet or a simple demonstration.

That will not eliminate bias effects at all.

Who said it did?


You said all one needs for *most* products can be gleaned from a spec
sheet or simple demo. Apparently in *most* cases you are not concerned
with bias effects in one's process of choosing. Why the limited
concern for bias effects when they are always in play if not
controlled?