[Scott[_6_]]

On Friday, September 27, 2013 12:00:48 PM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
Scott wrote:
=20
=20
=20
High end audio community doesn't have a say so in submitting to real
=20
scientific scrutiny.
=20
=20
=20
What does this mean?

It means that makers of high end equipment have no control over what scient=
ists choose to test.

That high-end audio enthusiats can't do things
=20
scientficially? because the priesthood will come and get them? Or
=20
for some other reason? That only real scientists can perform
=20
experiments?


The bottom line is that legitimate science has clear cut standards and if t=
he weekend warrior doesn't meet those standards then their tests are consid=
ered anecdotal in nature and are junk in the world of real science and will=
never be added to the collective body of scientifically valid research. Th=
at is the reality of the situation. High end enthusiasts can do all the DBT=
s they want but until they are subjected to peer review they are junk in th=
e eyes of real science.=20
=20
=20
=20
No: the whole point of science is that if an experiment is done
=20
properly the results will be valid no matter who does the experiment.

Yeah , if it is done "properly." And science has a protocol for determining=
this. It's called peer review and if an experiment hasn't endured the peer=
review process it remains anecdotal and junk in the eyes of real science.=
=20

=20
You don't even have to own a lab coat. All you have to do is not mess
=20
it up.

And then actually subject it to peer review. Otherwise we don't know you di=
dn't mess up.=20
=20
=20
=20
By the way, the man you quote, J Gordon Holt was pretty much the
=20
inventor of subjective audio reviewing and never used DBTs in his
=20
protocols. he also reported hearing differences between cables and
=20
digital playback devices. Go figure....
=20
=20
=20
And he saw the light. Good for him.


What light? He never recanted any of *his* subjective reviewing.=20