wrote in message
nk.net...

"John Richards" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...
Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some
other form of testing for audio differences have merit?

Define "scholarly".

Research done by experts in the field of psychoacoustics, electronics, or
any related field that shows that it is possible to reliably hear subtle
differences without proper bias controls. Work that has the results of
people who can reliably hear subtle differences, sighted, complete with
references, and that has been peer reviewed.

Where did you come up with that definition?


The list I posted is contains work from some of the best known people in
their fields.

Known by you personally? How many of these references have you even read?

Where is there any work by anybody of similar stature that can demonstrate
that ABX or any other form of DBT desensitizes listener so that they don't
hear things they would otherwise be able to.

It seems the people who are so vocal in their opposition to ABX have only
anecdote, personal attacks, and the ability to argue endlessly. There is
no scientific body or group trying to refute or come up with a reliable
sighted protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment.

Maybe the people you refer to don't feel they need "a reliable sighted
protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment" to tell
them what they hear.

The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of
trained listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way to
determine subtle differences in audio components.

Then I guess you just answered your own question.