"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"EddieM" wrote in message
. ..

The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more
specifically,
sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process
for determining
if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound
different.


Further, Arny stated on # 53:33 that sighted listening is
not a reliable
way to pass or fail a listener in terms of his hearing
acuity.

What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?

Nothing, depending on the situation.

The problem with sighted listening is that when the
differences are small, it can be very unreliable.

Taken by itself, that's a very reasonable statement.
The apparent disagreement is that you believe that far more components fall
into the class of "small differences" than I do. "Jenn" agrees with me that,
depending upon the individual, this class varies.

It is undoubtedly the case that many people select equipment based on
irrational influences. Even unseen, the brand/cost of an item, the
recommendation of a salesman, or peer pressure, can influence the decision.
In many cases, the decision is made by a wealthy person who has more money
than experience or perceptual ability.
So what is it that makes this issue so inflammatory and polarizing? THe
exploitation of the concept of "unique sound" by the merchandising
establishment is one cause of irritation. On the other hand, there is the
enjoyment of audiophiles in the exchange of anecdotal listening experiences.
When this activity is condemned on the basis of inadequate controls, it
interferes with the social experience of the hobby.

Some people may wish to keep this argument going forever, because some
people like to argue. Personally, I would be quite satisified if my advice
to others in this forum about hifi choices were not attacked because of the
lack of scientific controls. A person should not be criticized for lack of
authoritative proof unless he claims to be authoritative. Then, an entirely
different standard applies.