New vs Vintage
On Apr 2, 6:49=A0pm, bob wrote:
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.
Actually you will find a few of those here and there. Sometimes bias
just isn't an issue.
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.
Well OK....if the reason is that it's been covered in the past so
extensively that it is old news/established conclusions based on a
substantial body of evidence that would explain why it isn't being
covered *now* But audio is a reletviely new technology in the grand
scheme of things so there must have been a time when it wasn't old
news. So what about the peer reviewed research that was done back when
it was news not old news? Can you cite the old news/body of peer
reviewed research from the past that supports your assertions of
transparency?
|