Wylie Williams wrote:
"Rajappa Iyer" wrote
Would you consider expressing an opinion such as "SACD sounds great"
as inviting a discussion on DBT?

Obviously, and fortunately no documentation to prove that is needed beyond
RAHE itself.

If so, I'm at a loss to understand
what exactly can be discussed without inviting DBT harangues.

Nothing.

And you base this on your long experience here, yes?

I mean, it would be nice to discuss the merits and demerits of different
equipment / media without having to be constantly and repeatedly
subjected to the same old mantras (e.g. "since you did not have a
controlled test, you imagined the differences") harangues.)

Yes, it would be nice, wouldn't it.

At core, it seems to me that there's an unwillingness on the part of
*subjectivists* to acknowledge uncertainty. If subjectivists were
to write, 'SACDs sound great! Don't know if it's the format or the
mastering, though" or "These new cables certainly seem to make a difference!
I could be wrong, though." They'd almost certainly get *no*
flak from skeptics. Subjectivists seem simply unwilling to
acknowledge the existence of perceptual error.

"Objectivists" are unwilling to acknowledge that (sighted)
'hearing is believing' in many cases. But in this case, they
have good scientific backing for it: the mounds of data
confirming the existence of perceptual error.

--
-S.