arnyk wrote: > The historical precedent for recognizing the egregious failings of > sighted evaluations goes back at least to 1977 and our first ABX tests. > > > I have to admit that at that time I didn't realize how biased the > sighted evaluations that I had done for more than the first third of my > life were, until I started doing blind tests. > > It was like lifting a veil from the listening experience. > > The above statement by jkeny is an obvious attempt to deflect attention > from the egregious flaws of the sighted evaluations that for example > jkeny uses to promote his questionable USB DACs. Just check his web > site - little or nothing but testimonials from people who rely on casual > sighted evaluations. > > Anybody who relies exclusively on really bad science like casual sighted > evaluations to hawk his wares is casting grievous aspersions on his own > work whether he realizes it or not. He's basically admitting that fair > tests don't support his products' very existence.
you keep hawking abx testing as being the gold standard, but as far as I can see it is totally irrelevent to anyone actually listening for changes. It's only used by objectivists who always claim to never have heard a difference, so what sort of endorsement is that ? Touch optimisations http://touchsgotrythm.blogspot.co.uk/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SBGK's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=52003 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103842 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
