In Reply to: RE: True posted by Pat D on December 8, 2014 at 16:37:24:
Although I said it was rare, not impossible.So taking your reasoning above, you were convinced based on the results of various DBT's. And yet, a thinking person such as yourself would be someone I would guess would not blindly (heh! sorry...) accept such results without some research into the validity of DBT's, particularly those that use the ABX Comparator. Not to mention the problems associated with quick snippets of music vs long term exposure.
In other words, how do you know you were not duped by a magic trick (Hey kids, watch me make sonic differences disappear!)? And I'm not baiting you - I'm truly interested... and I think others would be as well. You might be the novel approach that's needed to spice up this debate. Shoot, I thought people just fell into their side but it sounds like you were either pushed or you jumped to the other.
Edits: 12/09/14
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- I stand corrected - kerr 04:54:25 12/09/14 (11)
- RE: I stand corrected - Pat D 11:14:57 12/10/14 (10)
- One can make any number of observations to the obvious... - E-Stat 15:50:08 12/12/14 (2)
- RE: One can make any number of observations to the obvious... - Pat D 18:53:21 12/12/14 (1)
- RE: One can make any number of observations to the obvious... - Tony Lauck 19:25:07 12/12/14 (0)
- Science, once again rears its... - mkuller 19:04:40 12/11/14 (5)
- RE: Science, once again rears its... - Pat D 18:27:33 12/12/14 (4)
- "Whoever said that an audio DBT was a test of audio component differences?" - E-Stat 07:16:15 12/13/14 (3)
- RE: "Whoever said that an audio DBT was a test of audio component differences?" - Pat D 16:14:11 12/13/14 (2)
- I'll leave you with this episode of the absurd :) - E-Stat 17:00:20 12/13/14 (1)
- RE: I'll leave you with this episode of the absurd :) - Pat D 10:32:44 12/14/14 (0)
- Great Debate - kerr 04:58:22 12/11/14 (0)