wrote in message
ink.net...

"John Richards" wrote in message
.. .

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?

A Couple I have met and heard speak, others I've talked to on the phone
and others I either read or whos work I'm aware of.

How many of these references have you even read?

Irrelevant. What has the other side to offer?

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.


Then how can they be so sure that ABX or other forms of DBT are not
reliable.
If you assert that sighted listening is reliable, there ought ot be some
evidence.

If there is no evidence, then it's just denial and has no merit.

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.


I didn't require an answer to that question,

I know, you're just stirring the pot.

I want to know what if any scientific validity the other side might claim
to have. It seems reasonable that if you are gong to deny the current
scientific approach, there ought to be something of equal or comprable
scientific effort to put in place of ABX.

The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The
other side has.....?

Well let's erect an alter and give them praise, amen!