In rec.audio.opinion John Atkinson wrote:
wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.
And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.
John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message ) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.
And where is your evidence that the differences your writers
report -- often in terms not at all *subtle* -- are
anything other than faith-based?
You can't argue for science on the one hand, sir, and then
ignore it on the other. At least, in anywhere else
but audiophile-land you can't.
--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow