[[email protected]]

On Dec 2, 12:45�pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 1, 3:02?pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message

On Nov 30, 8:32?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message



No. But I did see the obvious anti vinyl bias in such a
broad sweeping claim. Perhaps if you had done the
comparisons with bias controls in place I might have
taken your assertion more seriously.
Single blind tests = essentially no adequate bias
controls.
That simply is not true.
Nobody has taken single blind tests seriously since Clever Hans *talked*
back in the early 1800s.

They have their limited uses -- there are experiments where the
experimenters cannot eithically 'blind' themselves, e.g. sham surgery.
But for experimetnal psychology, DBT is the way to go.
For experiemental psychology peer reviewed publication is maditory for
initial acceptance of any data or conclusions among scientists and
academics. Is this the level of rigor you are suggesting should be
applied to audiophilia? The same as experimental psychology?

If the standards of proof of 'audiophile' claims are to be lower, then
let's acknowledge that the chance of its claims being false, are thereby higher.

That is obviously true but it does not answer the question. Where do
you wish to set the bar? Do you wish to set the bar for audiophiles at
the same level as that of conventional science? Do you wish to demand
the same level of rigor and the same standards of acceptance of
evidence to audiophiles and their assertions about sound quality as is
used in conventional science? I would like to avoid the problem of
moving goal posts when there are any discussions of "proof" and
"validity."