In article , Malcolm
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 12:27:23 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
[snip]
At the end of the day there's a simple answer. If you really can hear
these differences you claim then you should be able to demonstrate
them reliably to others in proper tests. But of course no one ever can.
No great point in that - given the fundamental flaws in such "tests".
Which of course is why they never produce any meaningful results.
Two sweeping and unspecific assertions, albeit rather dog-eared and
worn ones... :-)
Perhaps you can now:
1) Take one or two specific examples of such tests on audio items
or systems, and give the details of what "fundamental flaws"
thise particular tests had which allow you to dismiss their
results. E.g. take one of the well known and published tests
on amplifier comparisons, run so that decisions were on sound
alone and in a manner allowing statistical analysis, etc.
2) Give a testable reason for why that can then be extended
to allowing a sweeping dismissal of *all* tests where those
involved were unable to tell one item/system from another
when they only had the sounds to go on.
3) Explain also in specific terms why some tests *have* shown
people being able to distinguish one item from others when those
tests have been run in much the same way as the ones you
dismiss with the above sweeping assertions.
I've lost count of the number of times people have claimed that tests which
showed that those involved could not distinguish one item from another must
have "fundamental flaws". But this claim does not seem to be backed up with
any explanation which can be tested, or which accords with the assessable
evidence we have. The last time I asked someone about this all I got was
essentially a list of quotes, assertions, and claims by others who
said/wrote similar assertions, but no actual evidence, nor any proposal of
a test which could be used to see if their belief stood up or not.
You may recall that the scientific method is based upon assessement of
the evidence, and that any suggestion of a "flaw" needs to be specific,
shown to apply to the specific test, and that an alternative test then
needs to be done *so that a decision is based on evidence*. Not simply
on sweeping assertions that dismiss results you may dislike. Nor on
quoting 'experts' making similar sweeping assertions.
Slainte,
Jim
--
Electronics
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
)....
Linear Mode
