Steven Sullivan wrote:

Norman M. Schwartz wrote:

"bob" wrote in message
...

It has been demonstrated that there are differences in audio
reproduction which can be detected in so-called short-term
quick-switching tests which cannot be detected in longer-term
comparisons. There have been no demonstrations of any differences in
audio reproduction which can be detected in longer-term comparisons but
not in so-called short-term quick-switching tests.

Do you disagree with this?


More importantly, do you agree with this? Putting it bluntly, how often have
you put your money where your mouth is? How many times have you bought a
multi-thousand dollar component because you sensed its "superiority" over
your own in a short term quick-switching test? I suspect never.


about as ofted as I have bought medicine based on randomized blind trials
I conducted myself.

To the extent that said trials are NOT short term tests for the efficacy
of a given drug??

In fact the trials you mention are actually the equivalent of VERY long
term listening tests. Do we need to mention the names of numerous drugs
that NEVER made it to market after "passing" intial short term "blind
trials" only to be yanked quickly after very negative consequences were
found in a minority of users? How many drugs proved dangerous even after
they were bling trial tested, taken to market, used for years and
found to kill people??

Seems like a poor analogy to me.

_-_-bear


Should I therefore disagree with the premise that such methods are indeed the
most reliable way to determine the effectiveness of medicine?