[Andrew Haley]

Scott wrote:
On Apr 1, 4:59?am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Audio Empire wrote:
Another way to put this, I think, is that while Arny believes that
since there is no evidence of peer-reviewed support for what he
calls "audiophile myths", it means that no evidence HAS or CAN be
found supporting those propositions, while many of the rest of us
takes that lack of evidence to mean simply that serious science
hasn't "tackled" the issue (nor are they likely to do so). You can't
find evidence if you don't look for it.

I think you're being grossly unfair. It's a matter of record that
Arny did once believe what he calls "audiophile myths", but he wasn't
satisfied with that, so he did some experiments himself. To say that
his experiments weren't "serious science" because they weren't funded
or sanctioned by a research institute is mere prejudice. Surely it's
better to have more people doing science, not keep it confined to an
ivory tower.

It's not prejudice. It's how science works. I had exactly the
opposite experience. I was a hard nosed objectivist who scoffed at the
notion that a tube amp could sound better than a modern SS amp and
mocked audiophiles for thinking one could get better sound than
digital audio by "dragging a rock over a piece of plastic." Yep that
is what I would say. So I did some blind comparisons. Wow was I
wrong!

Right, so you're not absolutely opposed to the idea of non-scientists
doing experiments.

Neither Arny's nor my blind tests are anything other than anecdotal
evidence in the eyes of real science.

Think about how negative this sounds. You're implying that there is
never any point to anyone who is not an official scientist doing a
careful experiment. They might as well guess, because their results
won't be valid anyway. Care and diligence is a waste of time.

So it is not unfair much less grossly unfair to make this
charcterization when Arny pulls out the science flag. It's only
better to have more people doing "science" so long as they are doing
it up to the standards set by the scientific community.

There, I agree totally. What matters is how well the experiment is
done. But it's a matter of degree: some experimental controls are
surely better than none, even if the experiment isn't perfect.

Andrew.