wrote in message
oups.com...
Summary:
DBT and ABX have blinding in common. And there the resemblance ends.
Medical research DBTs rely on objective data for confirmation. In ABX
all one has is the listener's impression.
ABX procedure still lacks proper research validation and there are
grounds for suspicion that instead of "revealing subtle
differences" it obliterates them. It does not qualify as the opposite
of sighted listening.
On the other hand wisely used single or where possible double blind
listening can be a valuable addition to sighted listening when in doubt
about preference.
Contrary to ABX procedure one concentrates on "Do I like it
better?" not "Is it different?" (A much more confusing and less
interesting question to answer.)
It is important to keep in mind that your results are an opinion only.
Blind or not it is YOU listening and nobody else.
Also keep in mind that if today you hear no difference experience may
change your perceptions in the future, That is what training is all
about
What follows is lengthy background, You may stop right here.
------------------------------------

yes, and in the ABX test, there is not even the option to
respond that it sounds the same, if that is what one perceives.
It forces the respondent to lie, and then it adds the lies with
the responses based upon perceptions of differences.



A persistent confusion between the two is propagated in the audio
forums. Sometimes from ignorance sometimes deliberately to attach the
questionable to the reputable. Whenever stumped for argument ABX
becomes just plain old "DBT" (Even slight forger NYOB has enough
low cunning to use this dodge).
DBTs were first developed in the forties of the last century by the
Medical Research Ccil of the U.K. by its statistics division headed by
statistician Bradford Hill and physician Richard Doll Dbts soon
became the gold standard of medical research in Great Britain and
spread worldwide from there.
The progress in medical therapeutics since those years is inconceivable
without DBT.
That it WORKS is confirmable by the objective data. Using DBT
researching physician does not know if he is giving an inert placebo or
the "real" drug-nor does the patient)
What decides if it is effective or not is not the patient or doctor's
impression but improved function and better survival statistics. If
before penicillin 100% died of bacterial endocarditis and since only
50% or less no room for controversy is left. Patients' opinion if
unsupported by objective data is only interesting as the evidence of
inevitable placebo effect/bias.


Take antihystamines for example. Many are approved as safe and
effective, partly based upon DBT studies. Yet, one
particular formula might work better for one person, and another
formula better for another person.
I respond to Allegra, Claritin does absolutely
nothing for me. That is because I am unique, and not exacly like
any other individual.