chung wrote:
They should
know better, but they don't seem to be able to allow even the possibility
that there are real differences and that you might have heard them.

No, they do, that's why they recommend the Harry Lavo's and Michael
Scarpitti's of this newsgroup to do controlled tests to see if those
differences are real. Heck, they even throw in real money to motivate
them, in the case of cables.

I wouldn't even recommend that, though it would be interesting to
see the results. I merely recommend that the Harrys and Michaels
of the audiophlie world simply acknowledge that they *could* be
mistaken about the reality of those 'audible' differences, for the
usual (and scientifically speaking , utterly unremarkable) reasons.

Even Harry has come out in favor of *some sort* of blind testing
for validating audible difference -- albeit in his preferred flavor.
To do so, but then to champion 'sighted' reports uncritically,
seems inconsistent at best. To then misrepresent the 'objectivist'
line, as ruling out the *possibility* of real audible difference,
seems to be wilfilly ignoring all the helpful posts we 'objectivists'
have made for *years* now here.

;

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director