[Scott[_6_]]

On Friday, September 27, 2013 7:04:32 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
Audio_Empire wrote:
=20
=20
=20
That's true and to my mind it makes DBT null results more than a
=20
little suspect. 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
What does this even mean? The question of audibility is a scientific
=20
one, and can be verified scientifically. Are you denying this?

I am sure he isn't. But weekend warrior science isn't real science. So if o=
ne wants to wave the science flag they need to have some legitimate science=
.. that means peer reviewed published tests.=20
=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
Why should it be? The same tests apply to a DAC (which should be
=20
perfectly transparent in a bypass test) and a wire (which should also
=20
be perfectly transparent).
=20
=20
=20
It's not about "hard science", it's about honesty:
=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
=20
J. Gordon Holt, Stereophile Posted: Nov 10, 2007
=20
High end audio community doesn't have a say so in submitting to real scient=
ific scrutiny. If real scientists want to test claims in a scientific manne=
r and publish the results in a peer reviewed scientific journal there ain't=
nothin the high end audio community can do about it. Likewise it is not on=
the high end audio community to try to be what they are not, legitimate sc=
ientific researchers. By the way, the man you quote, J Gordon Holt was pret=
ty much the inventor of subjective audio reviewing and never used DBTs in h=
is protocols. he also reported hearing differences between cables and digit=
al playback devices. Go figure....