[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 3, 2:59=A0pm, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Apr 2, 5:30=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 12:25:27 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):
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 p=
roof
yet. =A0Remember, I'm not anti-DBT, I just have a few niggling doubts a=
bout its
efficacy for testing audio equipment.

And whose standard should we
trust, in that case?

Only those who prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt

YIKES!

Lemme see if I can help.

DBT as it applies to audio equipment (only) is useful for one (1)
thing: Discerning audible differences via a relatively short test.
Period.

Not true at all. It's useful for any sort of aural testing in which
bias may be an issue. It is quite useful for preference comparisons



It DOES NOT EVEN ATTEMPT to suggest one item being better/worse than
another, only audibly different within that test period or not.

That depends on the DBT design. A DBT most certainly can and often is
designed to make such a determination.

It
DOES NOT EVEN ATTEMPT to predict the long-term viability of one choice
or another for any given user. Only that one unit is (or is not)
audibly different within that test period or not.

To reason from the specific (piece A is-or-is-not audibly different
from piece B within THAT test) to the general - DBT is the be-all/end-
all *or* DBT is necessarily fatally flawed - is a classic fallacy. As
perceived from either camp.

DBT tests are necessarily short and therefore necessarily cannot be
predictive of long-term effects that may simply be too subtle to show
in a short-term test. It is useful as a screening mechanism. No more.
Nor does it even pretend to be any more than that.

No they are not "necessarily short." They can be as long as they are
designed to be.



Audio venues & the staffs thereof - If speakers and other transducers
were the only valid subjects of discussion, most of them would be
instantly out of a job.

What's an audio venue? Not really sure who you think would be out of a
job here. Audio review publications that believe this still sell
magazines. Audio retailers still sell product whether or not the buyer
believes one way or the other...who would be out of business again and
why?



Esoteric electronics manufacturers - if the $200 amp performs
indistinguishably from the $15,000 amp - the same. The $200 amp guy
might be pretty happy - but the $15,000 guy might not.

So it's the makers of esoteric electronics? This is what percentage of
the audio industry?

Can we put you in the catagory of believing all amps sound the same?