"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
.. .

wrote in message
oups.com...

He answered:
That any difference was too small to be audible.

I have a suggestion for him to prove his point without fail. It is an
article of faith in the chapel that tubed amplifiers are worse than
Solid State and that SET tubed amplifiers
are the worst of the worst. From "good" to "very. very bad" there
should be an "audible difference". If the "test" with his improved
protocol fails to make a decent-sized average audio buyers panel hear
that difference with statistical validity then what is the point of
it?.
My guess is that if he ever takes up the bet he will get another null
"The majority heard no difference" outcome.
But there is another terrifying scenario: They heard the differnce AND
liked the SET better. Horrors!
Two excellent reason to continue spouting speculation and avoid the
experiment

See, the trick is they will only test what they want to show as no
difference.

Paranoia runs deep. In fact its a lot more ego-satisfying for a listener to
say that he does hear a difference.

What they want to claim as different, they will NOT test.

If SET amps grew on trees we would have tested them long ago. But, who in
their right mind wants to pay money for such an intentional POS as a SET?
What SET manufacturer wants to sponsor a DBT of their product?

There "excuse" is
claiming that one is a subtle difference, but the other is an
obvious difference.

It's not an excuse, its already documented.

But maybe the test is so poorly
designed that it even obfuscates obvious differences.


Maybe there's a communist under every bed! ;-)

this is nothing they do not want to see, and
do not want others to see.

Double negatives, anybody?

Of course, the other major flaw is that it does not remove the bias of
preconceiving that things sound the same.

A paranoid myth that the high end audio wants to use to pull the wool over
people's eyes with.