wrote in message ...
you can
meaure a sound wave, you cannot measure a listeners perception of the
musical accuracy of that sound wave in relation to others, with all the
minute timing cues, phase shifts, transient behavior, room patterns, etc.
factored in.

Measure it? No, of course not. But you *can* control for it. The good
old 'double-blind' test that appears to terrorize many purported
audiophiles can do a reasonable job of controlling for external factors
by removing visual cues from expectations. This obtains only if the
test is well-designed and well executed, and given sufficient time so
that aural memory may be overcome somewhat. Does anyone remember the
tests that Pepsi did to show that people preferred their product over
Coke if given a blind test? It was wildly successful in those areas
where most people did not drink much soda and had no really strong
preferences... Soda was a 'treat', not a standard beverage in those
cases. As Pepsi is sweeter, and as people prefer their 'treats' to be
sweeter, the tests were a great success. However, where and with people
that preferred a specific taste and/or a great deal of soda was sold,
the tests were about even, as the tastes are rather obviously different
when one is familiar with both, or even very familiar with one. This is
not to say that Pepsi did anything fraudulent, they merely skewed their
test regions to those that would likely show the best results. They did
not have the time or the inclination to take their subjects through
enough palate cleansing to make the test truly valid. Audio tests are
subjective (to the listener), and accordingly share in some of the same
colorations as the "Pepsi Challenge", and therefore have to be so
carefully designed so as to give the listener enough time to erase or
subsume built-in aural memories.

The difference between tube and SS is around the margins and dependent
on too many other factors such as speaker choice, source material and
many other variables to make any absolute statement relevant or
accurate. Each has its advantages, each has its deficiencies. Each can
do exactly what the other can do, if cost is no object. Repeat: If cost
is no object. As cost is often a factor, then physics gets involved...
more variables.

So, a general question: Why is it that certain segments of Audiophilia
is so adamantly against/frightened of double-blind tests?


A lot of this is straw-man stuff. Many subjectivist (myself included) are
not afraid of doublt-blind tests in general and have used them at times.
However, they are often not very practical in making purchase decisions.
Where almost all subjectivist scream bloody murder, however, is the
promotion of abx testing as the be-all and end-all audio test...as it is not
even a listening test, but rather an cognitive identification test which is
really a whole different thing...and it invariably uses short sound snippets
because it is too cumbersome to do otherwise...which further destroys any
attempt to establish normal listening context.

In my opinion, the best way to use double blind testing is a simple
level-matched a-b prefernce test. No identification needed No cognitive
thinking (if you can help it). Just "gestalt" listening and then
preference. Just switch back and forth a-b and b-a, starting at random and
remaining synchronized, and make a prefernce choice. If the variables are
truly no different, after many such comparisons the choice will be
fifty-fifty. If it favorable to one or the other variables, you've put the
odds on your side that that variable is better for you.