[Scott[_6_]]

On Dec 12, 2:50=A0pm, wrote:
On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 9:20:22 AM UTC-5, Scott wrote:
Very poorly. Clearly Stereo review was a publication that had a very
clear preconception about how certain components sound. Clearly Stereo
Review was not a scientific journal and had no proper peer review
process.

True, but lack of peer review only means that their methodology has not b=
een independently validated; it does not mean that their methodology is fla=
wed.


But we really don't know. Actually we do know. It was quite flawed It
would have never made it through the peer review process. No big deal
but it ain't science.


The open-minded audiophile (obviously a minority taste, alas) should read=
those articles--and all the reports I cited--and decide for himself whethe=
r the methodology seems sound.


I did back in the day and found them very flawed.



As for preconceptions, every scientist has some preconception of how his =
experiment will turn out. If SR's preconception was that all CD players sou=
nd alike, they must have been quite
surprised to find an exception in their 18986 test!

I'm sure if they did find an exception they were surprised.



Since you are waving the science flag please show us the peer reviewed
published research that has "pretty much vindicated Hirsch."

Gladly, but, as I said, it is the subject of another thread. Give me a da=
y or two.

I don't see why it won't fit just fine in this thread. But we'll see
what you come up with in a day or two.



Then show us the science that establishes the facts. Until then I will
say back at you. Looks to me like you are mistaking your opinions as
facts.

I did.

No, you showed us absolutely no legitimate science. You showed us
nothing more than non scientific articles from non scientific consumer
magazines.


I presented multiple tests of dozens of devices over a period of decades =
by three different organizations. It is a fact that none of these tests cou=
ld show audible differences between
conventionally designed CD players and DACs. It is further a fact that no=
one has ever presented even a single empirically plausible counterexample =
to these findings. And it is further a fact that a peer-reviewed textbook=
(and there is nothing more carefully peer-reviewed than a science textbook=
) agrees with these findings.

You cherry picked from anecdotal evidence that has never met the basic
criteria of real scientific research. Pretty far from real science. If
you are going to wave the flag you better bring the goods. You ain't
gonna find the goods in consumer magazines.