jkeny wrote: > Given that two home administered tests (blind & sighted) are > fundamentally equal, > > Yet another self-serving false claim. > > Any casual audiophile test has these fatal failings: > > (1) Audiophile Sighted Casual Evaluations are not admissible because > they are not tests. That is, they do not involve comparison to a fixed, > reliable standard. > > (2) Audiophile Sighted Casual Evaluations are not admissible because > they involve excessively long switchover times, which makes them highly > susceptible to false negatives because they desensitize the listeners. > > (3) Audiophile Sighted Casual Evaluations are not admissible because the > do not involve proper level matching, which makes them highly > susceptible to false positives because people report the level > mismatches as sonic differences. > > (4) Audiophile Sighted Casual Evaluations are not admissible because > they do not involve listening to the identical same piece of music or > drama within a few milliseconds, creating false positives because people > report the mismatched music as sonic differences in the equipment. > > (5) Audiophile Sighted Casual Evaluations are not admissible because > they constantly reveal the true identity of the UUTs to the listener, > creating false positives because people report their prejudices and > preconceived notions as sonic properties of the equipment > > and any ABX test done with reasonable care using standard tools and > procedures is free of them. > > How can a reasonable person say that these two vastly divergent means of > performing listening tests "are fundamentally equal"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------ arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103842 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
