There's a number of things I'd like to respond to, so let's gather them all in one post:
honestguv;410861 Wrote: > > cliveb;410749 Wrote: > > The Blind Testing Controversy> > > There is nothing controversial about blind testing. Sorry - I didn't mean to suggest that there is any doubt about the validity of blind testing per se. I was only referring to the arguments it causes in the audio world. I was originally going to use the title "The Blind Testing Bunfight", but felt that word might be too UK-centric. On reflection, "controversy" was the wrong word to use. opaqueice;410870 Wrote: > > cliveb;410749 Wrote: > > The Objectivist typically considers that to allow oneself to be > > influenced by these other factors is some kind of character flaw.> > > While I obviously can't speak for others, I haven't found that > characterization to be at all accurate. In I don't think I've ever > encountered that view, despite reading more comments on this debate > than I care to admit. CatBus made the same comment: that Objectivists are not making such an accusation. I've therefore clearly misinterpreted the things I've seen written on these and other forums for many years now. Countless times I've seen phrases like "you're deluding yourself" and "you're imagining it". Reading between the lines, these phrases seem to be implying that this delusion/imagination implies some level of gullibility. CatBus;410880 Wrote: > > cliveb;410749 Wrote: > > The Objectivist seems to take the view that since there is no difference > > in the detectable soundfield (as evidenced by a blind comparison)> > > Usually I'm not this pedantic, but it seems to make a difference > here. Failing to demonstrate a perceptible difference in a > double-blind test does NOT mean that the difference can't be > perceived! Not sure I understand exactly what you're saying here. Are you pointing out that a double-blind test can only give a statistical confidence level, and that 100% proof is never possible? Or are you saying that, having failed to detect a difference in a blind test, a difference might be perceived by some other comparison method? CatBus;410880 Wrote: > Failing to prove the existence of something is not the same as proving > the lack of something. Perhaps in mathematics "proof" has this rigorous meaning, but in all other areas, nothing can ever be "proved". Therefore we take the pragmatic view that "proof" means "almost certainly true on the basis of the evidence". And if someone scores 50% in an ABX test with 20 or more test runs, I contend that their inability to perceive a difference is "proved beyond all reasonable doubt". -- cliveb Transporter -> ATC SCM100A ------------------------------------------------------------------------ cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=61877 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
