darrenyeats wrote: > But the fact sighted impressions are unreliable doesn't mean they are > wrong.
Unfortunately that is logically pretty close to "just because we have no evidence that unicorns might exist, we can't prove they *don't* exist". > There is no mention of double blind listening in his working method Just because there is no mention of it in that specific interview doesn't mean double blind listening isn't part of his working method. > just because it's sighted doesn't mean it's WRONG. It just means you > haven't proved it's right, it might be psychological - and that's a > DIFFERENT THING! Right. So the next step, if you think you can hear a difference, is to verify it. By double-blind listening. > We had the example on PFM of a skeptical listener hearing no difference > between sources - turns out they differed wildly in output level, way > above received wisdom of audibility - but he heard no difference. > Expectation bias cuts both ways, remember that. Indeed. So sighted listening allows for bias both ways, double blind removes the bias - whichever way your bias goes. "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=101342 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
