"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"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.

That's easy to resolve. No harm is done if you treat a
larger difference like it was a smaller difference. The
worst that can happen is that the small difference-oriented
test gives an outstandingly strong positive result for
differences.

The harm comes when, in response to my statement that I despise the sound of
QSC amps, which is actually my specific position with respect to those amps,
you attempt to disqualify my comment from consideration.
By my own standards, my comment cannot be considered authoritative, but it
is still worth consideration by a prospective buyer. Naturally, he should
qualify it with his own ears. If he can't hear the difference that I am so
sure I hear, he should go with his ears and save some money.

ABX is POTENTIALLY (note emphasis) a more accurate method of testing than
sighted comparison, yet, if I understand you correctly, it has lead you to
make the incorrectly formed, and to me, manifestly untrue statement, "All
properly operating amplifiers sound the same." Something is wrong here. All
methods of investigation can be contaminated by bad assumptions. If you were
less certain of what you purport to prove, your results would be more
interesting.

Ultimately, it takes a minimum of three ingredients to be a good scientist:
1. Good experimental procedure
2. An unbiased attitude
3. An open mind
You are simply too combative, too vociferous, to be a good scientist. If you
were repudiated in a way that resulted in widespread, definitive rejection
of what you think is true, it would be a major blow to your ego. Your ego is
too wrapped up in this.
For me, arguing my beliefs, baiting the bears, and taking it on the chin in
this group is a diversion. It's like sparring for exercise.
What is it for you? What make you think that all these middle aged guys, who
like to play with their toys, would benefit in any meaningful way from your
work? Has it ever occurred to you that if you actually did convince them
there was no magic, that their lives might be worse?