|
|
|
|
Seeing/hearing and sighted/blind tests
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 18:02:38 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:vcL0c.95418$4o.117983@attbi_s52...
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:32:27 GMT, lcw999 wrote:
However, not one has been found who can do this when they don't *know*
what is connected, so your 'respect' is rather misplaced.
The simplest explanation to account for audible differences among
components is audible differences among components....the burden of
proof is therefore upon YOU, not me....and I am not satisfied with the
mere assertions you have presented so far...
You are completely incorrect, and you are burying your head in the
sand. What, you think that the 'ojectivists' were not at one time
'true believers'? Both Tom Nousaine and I have related how we shared
your view of personal infallibility - right up to the point when we
were caught out by not listening to what we thought we were listening
to (if you follow...).
That is why we now use blind tests, and it's why we *know* that
sighted testing is fatally flawed, since expectation bias totally
swamps any *real* differences. This is easily proven by the 'false
sighted' test that you have been told about many times. No Michael,
both measurements and many decades of psy research prove that *you*
are the one who is in the wrong here, and that sighted listening can
simply *not* be given any credence for cable or amplifier comparisons.
Why are you so afraid to simply *try* a blind comparison? You will
find it to be a learning experience - if you wish to learn.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
|