[[email protected]]

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 bee=
n independently validated; it does not mean that their methodology is flawe=
d. The open-minded audiophile (obviously a minority taste, alas) should rea=
d those articles--and all the reports I cited--and decide for himself wheth=
er the methodology seems sound.=20

As for preconceptions, every scientist has some preconception of how his ex=
periment will turn out. If SR's preconception was that all CD players sound=
alike, they must have been quite surprised to find an exception in their 1=
8986 test!=20

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 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. I presented multiple tests of dozens of devices over a period of dec=
ades by three different organizations. It is a fact that none of these test=
s could show audible differences between conventionally designed CD players=
and DACs. It is further a fact that no one has ever presented even a singl=
e 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.

bob