68.210.75.16
In Reply to: RE: "And he's (Holt) right." posted by rick_m on November 06, 2009 at 07:41:56
My, my, such anger. Sorry, I should have added a MHO, YMMV. And I should have been more clear. The thing Holt was right about was that most of the audiophile press, public and providers have:
"flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal."
There are exceptions among high-end products and companies, but they are certainly not the rule. And I know from recent, local, personal experience that if you suggest that such measurement might be an indication of reality, you get shouted down very quickly. Yeah, I think Holt was pretty right on that count. Does it bear sole responsibility for the state of the audiophile endeavor? Probably not. Do you care what other people think? If you did not, your answer to people with Holt's and my POV would be ACTUALLY subjective. It would be something on the order of "I really don't care if this gear is objectively inferior to stuff that costs a fraction of what it does, I like the way it sounds and I'm willing to pay the price."
But it seldom stops there. The science must be dismissed or discredited. The subjective choice must be declared superior.
P
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ Go Green ]
[ Take5 ]