[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com

I'll try to repay the compliment by being candid about my
prejudices. The first one is against people who invoke
"science" as their witness.

The leading practioner of that around here would probably be Middius.

It strikes me that the RAO scientists believe that they
hold the final answers.

That's completely unfounded. First off, who on RAO besides you and Middius
proclaims themselves as being guardians of scientific truth?

Secondly, isn't it true that all findings of science are provisional until
something better is found?

The essence of science is that it
is a living thing. When it comes to how the brain works
perceiving complex sounds it is still free for all.

All science is a free-for-all. Why bring this up as being a special problem
of human perception?

Except in RAO.

Well, with science being defended by Middius and Ludovic, yes RAO is quite
the precarious place.

The other prejudice is in favour of human art activity
being the one redemptive value for what we do to the
earth and to each other. I see perception of art as
essentialy an inviolate subjective property.

In fact the reproduction of art is quite distinct from perception of art. So
the parqagraph above may be poetic, but it has little to do with audio.

I include reaction to reproduction of music amongs artistic
perception activities, subjective by definition.

That's no excuse to throw reasonble attempts at making fair evaluations out
the door.

Any attempt at a mechanical "testing" of our infinitely
varied reactions to music is doomed to failure.

Then why rant and rave that ABX is a special kind of failure?

Same as
trying to test individual response to various ways of
reproducing a painting.

Terrible logic. Audio is not about the art of painting, its about the
technology of reproducing the image of a painting in such a way that it can
be enjoyed by many who are unable to see the painting up front and personal.

It is fair to ask whether a black-and-white 40 dpi halftone of a painting
reproduces the image of the painting more convincingly than a
high-resolution color plate.

At best you get a statistical majority for one way or the other. But what
about the
statistical minority? Are they wrong in deciding their own way?.

Muddled thinking at best.

In audio I'll trust the judgement of J. Gordon Holt or
Kalman Rubinson over their RAO competition.

Thats a decision you get to make Ludo, but it doesn't justify your constant
illogical attacks on one of the many attempts at reliable, fair audio
evaluation.

Why? Because by experience I decided that their choices (
based on their set of preferences/prejudices) are more
likely to correspond with mine.

IOW, the blind leading the blind. Or is it simply hero-worship?

Having said that (at excessive length) all I can say
reading your sources is that they confirm my prejudices.
Most blind tests are inconclusive because human variety
is infinite.

That's why blind tests are used to judge medical treatments - they are so
inconclusive.

If there is a majority preference like in
Sean Olive loudspeaker testing there remains a minority
that hears differently. It is up to you to decide whose
brains are more likely to resemble yours.

Ignores the fact that the majority of listeners tend to prefer the
loudspeaker that is more free of audible imperfections.


IIn conclusion: My feeling is that in the present state
of the art collective component listening tests are a waste of time.

Then why do you spend so much time writing about them, and almost nothing
else?

Ludo, your actions belie your posturing.