RonM wrote: > This is really just prime BS. Anyone with anything resembling an > education in science or a capacity for critical thinking can see it for > what it is. It's entirely supposition without so much as a single > remote kernel of truth at its core. > > In this context, "blind" testing is simply a mechanism for ensuring that > the subject has no way of knowing the nature of the sound source -- the > only judgment possible is one that is related ONLY to the sound itself, > not to some pre-existing supposition about what a source is supposed to > sound like. It's a way of ensuring that subjective judgments are made > based on actual auditory experience, as distinct from magical thinking. > > It's not really a question of subjective vs objective -- experience is > subjective, always, but that does NOT mean that it is unknowable or > unmeasurable. We can actually understand what gives rise to subjective > experience; separating the elements of experience that are related to > actual physical events (e.g. actual sound) from those that are related > to expectation, bias or magic, is what this kind of testing is about. > One's ENJOYMENT of sound can be the result of many factors, including, > for those exceptionally weak of mind, perceived but mythical results of > meaningless hardware tweaking; it doesn't mean that the perceived > differences are actually real. > > Personally, I'll go for real, and leave the mythical to the weak of > mind. > > R.
I guess there is a kernel of truth to what you're saying. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94418 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
