[Scott[_6_]]

On Friday, September 27, 2013 11:58:58 AM UTC-7, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message=20
=20
...
=20
On Friday, September 27, 2013 7:04:32 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
=20
Audio_Empire wrote:
=20
=20
=20
That's true and to my mind it makes DBT null results more than a
=20
little suspect.
=20
=20
=20
As compared to sighted evaluations where all results are totally suspect.
=20
=20
=20
This kind of testing [the double-blind test] seems
=20
to have been "borrowed" from the hard sciences (drug testing,
=20
hypothesis testing, etc.) and I don't consider listening a hard
=20
science.
=20
=20
=20
Tell that to the Acoustical Society of America! Their motto is "Acoustics=
is=20
=20
the science of sound.", which of course includes audibility.
=20
=20
=20
What does this even mean? The question of audibility is a scientific
=20
one, and can be verified scientifically. Are you denying this?
=20
=20
=20
So it would seem but I suspect this is more based in a lack of familiarit=
y=20
=20
with science.
=20
=20
=20
I'm sure he isn't. But weekend warrior science isn't real science.
=20
=20
=20
Except it is. Here are 5 amateur scientists and their discoveries:
=20
=20
=20
Michael Faraday - discovered diamagnetism, electrolysis, and electromagne=
tic=20
=20
induction.
=20
Gregor Mendel - discovered genetics while his day job was in organized=20
=20
religion
=20
Robert Evans - various significant astronomical discoveries while his day=
=20
=20
job was also in organized religion
=20
Albert Einstein - discovered relativity when his day job was being a low=
=20
=20
level clerk in a government office.
=20
Thomas Edison - various inventions related to the telegraph while his day=
=20
=20
job was selling newspapers on a train in Michigan.

Anyone can discover stuff. It's nice, it's cool, it's unusual and most of a=
ll it doesn't fall under the umbrella of legitimate science until it has en=
dured the rigors that all science has to endure. So they really aren't exce=
ptions in the end.

=20
=20
=20
So if one wants to wave the science flag they need to have some=20
=20
legitimate science. that means peer reviewed published tests.
=20
=20
=20
Excluded middle argument. Its like saying that in order to call yourself =
an=20
=20
automobile racer you have to win the Indy 500.

There is no middle argument in real science. It's either gone through the r=
igors of proper scientific protocols or it is junk. There is no middle grou=
nd. With middle ground you end up with cold fusion.
=20
=20
=20
OTOH, if the premise of the test is simple enough, (like listening
=20
to wires) I think they are useful when they return a (inevitable)
=20
null result, but for more complex things such as D to A conversion,
=20
amplifier or preamplifier sound, etc., the return of a null result
=20
is far less reliable.
=20
=20
=20
Actually, with modern DACs null results are all you get. That's very=20
=20
reliable, no?

Depends on the methodology. But the fact is that it is not all you get unle=
ss you cherry pick. Cherry picking is very unscientific. "modern DACs?" wha=
t is your cut off date for "modern?"
=20
=20
=20
"As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its
=20
credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the
=20
kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example)
=20
that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since
=20
Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among
=20
rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me..."
=20
J. Gordon Holt, Stereophile Posted: Nov 10, 2007
=20
=20
=20
High end audio community doesn't have a say so in submitting to real=20
=20
scientific scrutiny. If real scientists want to test claims in a=20
=20
scientific manner and publish the results in a peer reviewed scientific=
=20
=20
journal there ain't nothin the high end audio community can do about it=
..
=20
=20
=20
This has of course happened on many occasions, with embarassing results f=
or=20
=20
the high-enders.

Many occasions? really? can you cite the scientifically peer reviewed resul=
ts and provide some sort of quotes of these "embarrassing results?" My unde=
rstanding is that science for he most part just doesn't waste precious time=
and resources on audiophilia. And the folks in the business of audio that =
are doing the sort of testing that would pass peer review tend to keep thei=
r work under wraps. I do not know of any peer reviewed scientific studies o=
n things like amplifier sound or cable sound or the sound of commercial dig=
ital players. But if there are, as you claim, many of them please fill us i=
n on the details. And please don't ask me to go buy some article from the A=
ESJ that may or may not be relevant. I don't want to spend 25 bucks just to=
find out you cited a completely irrelevant article.=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
Likewise it is not on the high end audio community to try to be what the=
y=20
=20
are not, legitimate scientific researchers.
=20
=20
=20
Does this give them a pass to the results of testing procedures known to =
be=20
=20
highly inaccurate as justification for making purchase decisions?

Purchasing decisions are on the consumer. If any given manufacturer is lyin=
g about the content or objective performance of their gear that is a proble=
m. If they are claiming it is subjectively better than the competition then=
it's on the consumer to audition the gear for themselves and decide for th=
emselves.=20