"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On 15 Jan 2005 16:46:05 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:


My basic problem is I believe the blind testing itself knocks out many
significant "ways" of hearing beyond just sight, and none of the
arguments
here have convinced me otherwise. Until the testing is verified not to
interfere with open-ended evaluation of differences, and until the
"disappearing" is investigated in more depth than it has been, I and
others
will continue to trust our basic instincts.

Several years ago I conducted a test which the participants believed
to be sighted. They all heard the differences quite distinctly every
time, and had no problem at all identifying the two components under
test.

The only problem was that the cables I was changing were not in fact
the ones carrying the signal. The real cables remained unchanged
throughout the test.

So without the pressure of blind testing, the participants were all
relaxed enough to hear the differences easily. Shame really that there
were no differences to hear.


Yep...the first conclusion you can draw from this is that people don't
expect to be lied to.

The second is that people can easily imagine differences where none exist
*IF* they have a reason to believe such differences should exist.

None of this proves that people can't hear real differences sighted.

Nor does it prove that blinding does not remove some real differences that
are perceived under different listening conditions.

This is why blind testing really works, and why the results it gives
can be trusted.

Yep, seems logical on the face. But not proven via controlled testing,
especially as regards to something as slippery as open ended evaluation of
audio components.