[Scott[_6_]]

On Dec 17, 6:43*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

...
On Dec 14, 8:17 pm, Barkingspyder wrote:



The nice thing about testing for difference as ABX does is that if there
is no difference detected you know that the more expensive one is not any
better sounding. Unless it has features you * * feel you must have or
you just like the look
better you can save some money. Personally, I like knowing that a
$2000.00 set of electronics is not going to be out performed by a
$20,000.00 set. Speakers of course, (the part that you actually hear in
a sound system)
are another story entirely.
heck if it makes you feel better about buying less expensive gear I guess
that's nice.

That comment seems to be descending a steeply downward angled nose. ;-)

Quite the contrary. I am actually happy to see people enjoying their
hobby. It is in the end a perceptual based en devour. If believing
everything sounds the same makes one happy that is great. If believing
wrapping the cat in tin foil and freezing pictures of your grandma
makes your system sound better that is great to. Unless you are the
cat. But misrepresenting science is not OK. I do take issue with
that.
..

*But you are putting way too much weight on such a test if you think you
walk away from a single null result "knowing"
that the more expensive gear is not better sounding.

Ignores the fact that we are repeatedly told that hyper-expensive equipment
sounds "mind blowingly" better and that one has to be utterly tasteless to
not notice the difference immediately.

And here is a classic case in point. You are getting ready to wave the
science flag again in this post and here you are suggesting that a
proper analysis of data would include taking audiophile banter into
account. Understanding he true significance of a single null result
does not require consideration of you or anyone else has been told by
other audiophiles. For that to affect the weight placed on any single
test result would quite unscientific thinking.


Also ignores the fact that all known objective bench testing and its
interpretation in conjunction with our best and most recent knowlege of
psychoacoustics says that no audible differences can be reasonably be
expected to be heard.

And here we have a gross misrepresentation of the facts.



*But hey, if it *makes you happy that's great.

It makes me happy to know that the best available current science actually
works out in the real world and that technological progress is still taking
place.

Makes me happy too. Not sure what has to do with my post though. I
suppose indirectly we should both be happy that the best available
current science is built on a rigorous execution of the scientific
method and an understanding of the weight that should be given to any
single result of any given piece of research. It makes me happy that
real scientists know better than to ever make claims of fact based on
a single null result.


It makes me happy that good sound can be available to the masses if they
throw off the chains of tradition and ignorance.

So it's a good thing that Stereo Review is dead then. :-)



But not everyone is on board with you there.

Exactly. Those who have invested heavily in anti-science probably did so
because they are in some state of being poorly informed or are in denial of
the relevant scientific facts. There can be very little rational that can be
said to change their minds because rational thought has nothing to do with
what they currently believe.

And there you go waving that science flag again. It's OK as far as I
am concerned that you believe whatever you want to believe about
audio. But I will continue to call you out on your constant
misrepresentations of real science.