"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:R76dc.219224$po.1109853@attbi_s52...
"josko" wrote in message
news:C8Zcc.92430$JO3.44977@attbi_s04...

*snip*

Just as in wine appreciation, for which it takes quite some time to
acquire the tools of judgement, the evaluation of the subtler facets
of sonic reproduction is best left to experienced 'palates'.

Since you raised the comparison to wine appreciation, how do you explain the
need for wine tastings to be blind? Might it have something to do with
eliminating the expectation bias that would come with seeing the label and
knowing what you were tasting? Would you trust your own palate to select
for purchase a case of $100/bottle wine without having engaged in a blind
tasting? Would you trust a wine review that wasn't conducted blindly? Why
do you deny yourself the same tools in the audio world?

I am
almost sure that I would not be able 'discern' the differences between
the $50 Monster cable and the $100 cable if I had just started into
audio.


snip

Those who claim that there are no differences must be using crummy
sources or transducers.

Those who claim that there are differences between a $50 Monster
interconnect and a $100 Monster interconnect should try using a test
with implemented bias controls.

That guards against 'bias' of one kind, but the simple fact is that
without high-resolution transducers and high-quality sources and
amplification, no differences between cables can be heard even when
they do exist. It is also necessary to have a well-trained,
EXPERIENCED, ear. I promise you, that if you try listening through
Stax Lambdas you'll hear many more differences than you do through any
ordinray loudspeakers. EVERYTHING is heard: cables, amps, RF traps,
you name it.

In other words, it is not a matter of 'procedure' but a matter of
'equipment and experience'. A test can be perfectly unbiased and yet
be completely worthless.

However, biased test is worthless by definition, and any sighted test is
biased. I just wish that those who can detect differences between
cables and amps would really start trusting their ears alone, not their
eyes. Before that, any argument about "equipment resolution" and
"experience" is pointless.

It cannot be worthless 'by definition' or your argument begs the
question (I thought you knew that). You lose at once.

You have to PROVE that the bias is ALWAYS stronger than any ability to
hear ANY differences. In other words, even if I grant you that there
may be 'some' bias, (and I certainly do not grant this as a universal
truth) that does not rule out the possibility that the strength of the
difference overcomes the bias. 'Bias' could be considered just one of
many impediments to hearing the differences. Room temperature and
humidity, cleanliness of the contacts, the physical condition of the
auditor, etc, all could play a role. If I hear differences on several
separate occasions, at different times of the day, this would tend to
average out the factors, including the 'bias' you speak of. The
existence of 'bias' in and of itself in no way invalidates ALL
auditory sighted testing. That's why there is such a thing as
repetition of tests. I always do that.

Repetition of tests in the presence of bias merely serves to reinforce the
effect of the bias. You cannot be the only human involved in product
testing who is immune to sighted bias. You have proved a lack of basic
understanding of how this mechanism works. In your preceding discussion,
substitute a Coke-Pepsi taste test for the audio test and then tell me that
bias has no place in the world.