[bob]

On Apr 2, 5:30=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 12:25:27 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

If DBTs don't prove anything, why are they accepted by peer-reviewed
psychoacoustics journals?

Are they? Where, then, are these peer reviews?

In peer-reviewed journals. Duh. You can find others, if you care to
look. But even a single accepted article suffices to prove that they
are accepted.

What you won't find in any psychoacoustics journal is any comparative
listening test that ISN'T double-blind.

And do psychoacoustic journals
test audio gear?

Of course not. As I said earlier in this thread, scientific journals
don't waste space on old news. And the fact that several categories of
audio gear are audibly transparent is very old news in the
psychoacoustics field.

Could it be that the real scientists have a different standard for
what constitutes proof than you do?

I doubt it, Because certainly Arny has not satisfied my standards for pro=
of
yet. =A0

Oh yeah, that follows logically. ;-)

Remember, I'm not anti-DBT, I just have a few niggling doubts about its
efficacy for testing audio equipment.

What you call niggling doubts, I call pseudoscientific
rationalization. It's like saying, "I agree that naturally occurring
carbon dioxide traps heat in the lower atmosphere, but I have a few
niggling doubts about whether man-made carbon dioxide does so."

You're grasping at straws.

And whose standard should we
trust, in that case?

Only those who prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt

This from a man who can't present even one iota of plausibly
scientific evidence in favor of his position.

bob