[Scott[_6_]]

On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 11:08:35 AM UTC-7, KH wrote:
On 4/22/2014 7:16 AM, Scott wrote:
=20
On Monday, April 21, 2014 4:02:48 PM UTC-7, KH wrote:
=20
On 4/20/2014 6:30 AM, Scott wrote:
=20
=20
=20
No, you're conflating "perception", inclusive of bias, with *audible*.
=20

=20
If you put the same component in two different boxes, one may well be
=20

=20
preferred over the other, sighted, but it will have zero to do with
=20

=20
*audibility*.
=20

=20

=20

=20
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.
=20
=20
=20
Uhmm, yes, because they sound different.
=20
=20
=20
Once again you gravitate towards the black and white and ignore the gra=
y 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 1=
00% of our perceptions.
=20
=20
=20
It is black and white. Sighted, you cannot *know* how much bias is=20
=20
introduced, or whether it suppresses differences or "creates"=20
=20
differences in perception where no audible differences are present. That=
=20
=20
is an established fact. So, virtually meaningless for any subtle=20
=20
differences in components where, from an engineering perspective, no=20
=20
audible difference should exist.

Alas, as John Atkinson said so wisely. Everything sounds the same except wh=
en it doesn't. You have now attached enough conditions that I think I can p=
robably mostly agree with you...now. Of course the goal posts have been mov=
ed so far that this is no longer the original assertion. That being "The su=
bjectivist audio press comes out with endless prose and poetry about what t=
hey hear in the latest products, but it is totally meaningless if it is don=
e under sighted conditions."