[Andrew Haley]

Scott wrote:
On Friday, September 27, 2013 12:00:48 PM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
Scott wrote:

High end audio community doesn't have a say so in submitting to real
scientific scrutiny.

What does this mean?

It means that makers of high end equipment have no control over what
scientists choose to test.

That high-end audio enthusiats can't do things
scientficially? because the priesthood will come and get them? Or
for some other reason? That only real scientists can perform
experiments?

The bottom line is that legitimate science has clear cut standards
and if the weekend warrior doesn't meet those standards then their
tests are considered anecdotal

By whom?

in nature and are junk in the world of real science and will never
be added to the collective body of scientifically valid
research. That is the reality of the situation. High end enthusiasts
can do all the DBTs they want but until they are subjected to peer
review they are junk in the eyes of real science.

I don't see why, as long as they don't mess it up.

It seems to me that you have a very old-fashioned idea about science.
It's not something only available to "real scientists": those with
special qualifications. Anyone can do it, as long as they're careful
enough. The goal I'm talking about isn't to impress the priesthood,
it's to find out what is true.

Besides that, more rigorous testing conditions aren't going to make
reviews any worse, even if they're imperfect. A little bit of
experimental control would inject a little reality.

No: the whole point of science is that if an experiment is done
properly the results will be valid no matter who does the experiment.

Yeah , if it is done "properly." And science has a protocol for
determining this. It's called peer review and if an experiment
hasn't endured the peer review process it remains anecdotal and junk
in the eyes of real science.

Why does "the eyes of real science" matter? The goal I'm talking
about is to inject a bit of honesty into audio reviewing. The Nobel
Prize committee can wait.

You don't even have to own a lab coat. All you have to do is not mess
it up.

And then actually subject it to peer review. Otherwise we don't know
you didn't mess up.

Again, it seems to me that you have a terribly old-fashioned attitude:
that unless you can get published in the Proceedings of the Royal
Society, it's not worth using a scientific approach. But people use
science all the time when measuring things and making things and
repairing things, and they don't expect to be peer-reviewed or
published. They just want to know the truth.

By the way, the man you quote, J Gordon Holt was pretty much the
inventor of subjective audio reviewing and never used DBTs in his
protocols. he also reported hearing differences between cables and
digital playback devices. Go figure....

And he saw the light. Good for him.

What light?

See the quote...

Finally, let me remark: if some of the claims that are made in the
audio press are true, there is a real scientific breakthrough to be
announced: the thresholds of hearing of certain kinds of distortion
must be far lower than anyone thought. Who could resist the
opportunity to make a famous scientific discovery? Which manufacturer
would not be delighted to publish ground-breaking results?

Andrew.