General Asylum

Comparing a "test" to similar tests in the past three decades is as objective as one can be

209.104.141.158

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display All Email ] [ General Asylum ]

Richard BassNut Greene

(A)

In Reply to: But don't you see you're shooting down yourself? posted by kerr on December 29, 2005 at 10:06:48:

You never dismiss a test methodology simply because you don't like the results, as golden ears do.
But when a test methodology produces much different results than all other similar tests in the past three decades, you must question the test methodology.
And I'm glad I did -- because it appears there was no audibility test at all.
No attempt was made to prove listeners could differentiate among amplifiers = no test.
Assuming something to be true is not science.
Assumptions need to be tested.

Follow Ups:

But your conclusions are anything but! - kerr 09:46:09 12/30/05 (1)
> But when a test methodology produces much different results than all other similar tests in the past three decades, you must question the test methodology. <
You're not questioning the methodology - you're saying the methodology was wrong. Why don't you request a copy of the article and read it yourself? Until you know what was actually done, you're embarrassing yourself. And that embarrasses ME! I respect you as an "adversary" (although we're probably more alike than you realize but I'm not admitting that to YOU or anyone el.... DAMN!) and when it seems as though you're attacking a test that doesn't fulfill your expectations instead of questioning it, you're hurting your own case for objectivity. With all due respect, read the article before you respond further. Just a little friendly advice from me to you... or is it from YOU to you, since you write all my posts?
- I questioned the label "DBT" -- and so far it seems that label was misleading - Richard BassNut Greene 10:40:31 12/30/05 (0)
  There could be an objective method to gain useful knowledge from a subjective audition:
  If a component's brand name was hidden, an audiophile could listen and write down his subjective impressions.
  That could be repeated for 10 amplifiers -- each audiophile working alone would listen to an amplifier and write down his comments.
  Then he would move on to the next amplifier, for a total of 10 amps.
  Listeners would not be allowed to talk to each other, or compare notes to come to a "consensus".
  The unedited subjective comments could be published as is.
  If the listeners could really hear differencee among all the amplifiers, they should be expected to make similar comments about the sound quality of each amplifier.
  While this would not be proof that amp differences are always or usually audible, it could be evidence that they were.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Kimber Kable

You can not post to an archived thread.