EddieM wrote:
wrote
EddieM wrote:



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.


This is one of the few valid assertions that objectivists make. And
should any audiophile decide to delve into scientific research on
audibility of different components they had better do their testing db
if they wish it to be taken seriously by science.


Very well and you agreed with the Objectivist that sighted evaluation
isn't a valid listening technique because it's not science.


No.







Objectivist believe that preferences and biases are such a hindrance
on that basis that they say it invalidate sighted evaluation.


That's where they begin to blow it.


The problem
I suppose with strict DB you propose is that it does not seclude nor
sequester the listener's from his own prejudices.


Hold on here. What DB tests did *I* propose and for what purpose?




That is, when
comparing in strickly double blind, wouldn't deeply held preferences
themselves skew and masked your ability to determine which of the
unknown components is preferable to you *as you compare* how the
two components of equal class sound different from one another.


I do like to do SB comparisons but I like to combine them with sighted
evaluations. IME the results are usually the same. When the results are
in conflict I go back and do them again. More often than not different
results are reconciled in a second round of comparisons. In the rare
instance that there is no reconciliation I generally go with the
sighted evaluation. That is because that is how I listen normally. I
make no claims that my methods are scientifically valid or that they
are any better than other methods. I do claim that they work for me
though.








I for one am not looking to do scientific research. Are you?


I guess because DB is a scientific research on audibility of different
components that it will tell me if I'm imagining things.


*If* you are up to the task of doing them well enough they probably
will. There in lies a BIG problem.






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.


That is also true. Hearing acuity tests are done blind.


And when done blind, it will show if I'm hearing things, well I
don't know.


No, it will show if you are not hearing things. Think about it.







What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?


Nothing. But it doesn't cut it in scientific research.



Well if there's nothing wrong with sighted evaluation, they still
have to do DB to find out for sure if they're hearing things.


"They" being whom? Audiophiles? Audiophiles do not *have* to do any
such thing. They make no claims of scientific varification of their
experiences. Objectivists OTOH actually do if they are to be taken
seriously in their claims. So far they have yet to meet the rigors
demanded by science. Ironic isn't it?





Scott Wheeler