"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:EBg1c.104120$Xp.454675@attbi_s54...
Bruce Abrams wrote in message
...

*snip* previous quote
Michael, before anyone can answer the question of why you heard what you
thought you heard, the question must first be answered, "Did you really
hear
it." This is the same question that consumer researchers must answer
all
the time and the reason that blind testing is the only testing
methodology
that is ever considered. What you're asking is the equivalent of being
presented with a can each of Coke and Pepsi with labels in full sight,
telling us you prefer the Coke and then asking us to tell you why you
liked
the Coke better. Until you can prove under blind conditions that you
can
distinguish between the two, there is no reliance on your initially
stated
preference.

No way. The burden of proof is on you.

I have asserted no position that requires proof. All I've suggested is that
in order for the anecdotal experience from your uncontrolled, sighted
comparisons to be relied upon, those experiences should be confirned by a
blind protocol test. In asserting that you heard what you heard, knowledge
of psychology be damned, it is your position that requires proof.

I heard these differences as
plain as could be. It sometimes takes a while, listening to various
snippets of music, before all (or at least most) of the sonic
character is revealed.

If you read your previous sentence, you'll find the answer as to what bias
must be controlled for. It is obvious from your words that you believe that
different (nominally competent, operating within their power limitations,
etc.) amplifiers have different sonic characters. You believe this deeply
as evidenced by all of your posts. How can you profess to sighted listening
in an unbiased fashion when confronted by this deeply held belief? Do you
honestly believe that you are uniquely in the world capable of eliminating
such psychological realities? That would be a most remarkable and arrogant
claim, and would fly in the face of generations of psychological research.

They may sound the same when listening to soft
female vocals, but then you put on something with big bass thwacks,
and it immediately becomes clear that one has more 'slam' and speed
than the other. That's why I would go back and listen again and again,
to try to get a general impression of each amp using a variety of
music types.

And here again, you are trying "to get a general impression of each amp."
If you believed that the amps all fundamentally sounded the same, you would
be listening in a completely different way, for completely different things
which would yield a different set of biases.

The Harmon Kardom simply did not 'jump' when called for.
It simply limped along, smoothing out the dynamics and making them
soft and fluffy.

Blind testing of drugs consists typically NOT of comparing two drugs,
such as Zoloft and Paxil, but of a placebo and the genuine drug.

That is exactly the point. If the protocol would be either drug A or drug
B, the patient would have an expectation of efficacy, similar to your
expectation of finding audible differences between the amplifiers. That's
why a placebo is used as the control. If you insisted on a comparative
blind test of audio equipment, the ABX protocol was developed for exactly
the same reason.

The
analogy to audio listening evaluations is not close. Do you know that
the effectiveness of Zoloft and Paxil can be established, even though
the mechanism of action is not completely understood? If the patients
display and report improved mood, the drug works.

If there wouldn't be the control of the blind protocol, you'd never know
whether the drug was working or if it was the placebo effect. Why do you
continue to deny this mechanism in the audio listening?

*snip*
Measurements of audio equipment are not comprehensive.

That's why I never suggested that equipment be evaluated based on
measurements. Listening tests are important, blind listening tests.

They are cited
simply because they can be measured.

Not exactly. They are cited because they do assess the competence of an
amplifier. If an amp severely rolls above 10kHz or below 50Hz, or clips at
10 watts of output into a non-reactive 8 ohm load, why would I bother
wasting my time listening to it.

*snip*

So, when you measure signals in audio, you're simply measuring what
you can measure easily: where the light is better. Whether all audible
differences have anything to do with what can be measured is unknown.

I haven't heard this argument in a long time. Perhaps you could tell us
what audible differences can't be accounted for by present audio
measurements.

Till then, I'll trust my ears and not your pronouncements.

So far, I have yet to make any pronouncements.