jkeny wrote: > It appears to me that what is being demonstrated here is an attempt at > supporting Cliveb's conclusion based on a "blind test" that would hardly > be considered in any way reliable or scientific.
Interesting statement considering the fact that Cliveb started with "Let me pass on a personal anecdote". Has anyone made any claims based on that anecdote? > If you continue to support the invalid conclusions from invalid blind > tests such as cliveb's then I will continue to draw attention to the > hypocrisy in your position. Ah, OK, yes, that is a claim - so clearly you consider his blind test invalid. Do you consider it more or less invalid than the typical sighted test, and what, in your view, would constitute a valid blind test? "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=103776 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
