On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 01:47:37 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

Remember, a while back I introduced a scientific study published by Oohashi
et al that among other things suggests that a different form of
double-blind-testing may be more music-friendly (showing significant
differences where the more traditional quick-switching blind a-b or a-b-x
fail to show the difference). This should be a warning flag to the dbt
fraternity that some of the arguments put forth in the past by subjectivists
might have an element of truth to them.

No, because the key is still the double-blind element. In fact ABChr
is more commonly used than simple ABX by professionals in the field.
The 'subjectivists' OTOH don't seem able to hear these 'obvious'
differences unless they *know* what is connected.

Worthy of investigation, at least.
Instead, I was attacked for bringing the article to light, the researchers
were implied to be on the take, the existing orthodoxy was trotted out as
being "irrefutable", and a whole range of defense mechanisms were raised.

Did you consider that this *was* in fact sponsored 'research' with an
expected result?

This hardly suggests a search for truth. Rather it has the earmarks of a
rather pedantic "there-is-nothing-new-to-be-discovered" attitude here that
is rather more comfortable with the status quo than some of us believe is
healthy. So when this attitude is used to beat all conflicting observation
to death, it becomes onerous to people who are willing to consider the
orthodoxy but don't like being beat into submission with it.

The attitude has *always* been that we're all more than happy to
welcome new *evidence* of audible differences, but the 'subjectivists'
never seem to be able to find *any* way of providing it.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering