[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

...

I generally understand the advantage of blind testing. BUt here's what
I don't understand about people who say that any sighted testing is
invalid:

If you claim that I prefer the sound of one piece of gear over another
because the audition was sighted, it seems that it would be up to you
to
demonstrate that I have a bias that causes me to make my choice.

A cursory study of experimental psychology (arts program) or experimental
design (science program) would teach you that the bias must be presumed
to
exist.

I fully understand this. I've conducted graduate level research. But
I'm not arguing against the inevitability of bias.

Really? You had me fooled!

For example, say that based on a sighted audition, I state that prefer
the
sound of a certain Krell amp over a certain Rotel amp. You might say
that the audition is worthless because I have a bias toward:
A. Larger amps
B. More powerful amps
C. More expensive amps
D. Krell amps

No, all I have to say Jenn is that you're human. Humans are well known to
base their decisions on every piece of evidence that is available to
them.
Would you have it any other way? ;-)

But what about when the sonic choice is working AGAINST one's bias?

You've got a mess. Better to eliminate the possibility of bias as much as
possible.

However, if, in our imaginary audition, I find that I like the sound of
the Krell better, this seems to be working AGAINST my biases, because I
prefer smaller amps and less expensive amps, and I have no opinion
about
the amount of power as long as it plays my music well through my
speakers.

The gross error here Jenn is that you are so naive as to believe that you
reliably know what your biases are. Most people know more than a little
about their biases, but they are still often surprised when their biases
are
determined by scientific means.

I state that I have a bias toward less expensive gear. How can you show
that this isn't true?

Set up a test where the piece of equipment under test remains the same, but
we tell you that it is changing between gear that is more expensive and less
expensive.

Why is it not up to the person making such a claim to show that I
actually hold such a bias?

Because of human history over the past hundred or more years. The
presumption that people make decisions based on as much evidence as they
can
gather, has proven itself to be true over and over again.

No doubt. But but what if I've consistently shown that I have a bias
toward, for example, less expensive gear, and I choose a more expensive
piece based on the sound? How has my sighted bias affected this
decision?

This is a hypothetical question, and not worth worrying about until the
situation actually manifests itself.

The root of the problem is the sighted evaluation that makes your biases
significant parts of the evaluation. Any competent experimentalist would
just cut to the chase and do bias-controlled tests.

If I don't want to take a chance that you are basing your decision on
your
perceptions related to the identity of the product being listened to, the
proven approach is to simply keep you from knowing what you are listening
to
at the moment.

I totally agree, but this isn't always possible, is it?

I haven't got time to worry about hypothetical, made-up situations. Reality
calls!