jkeny wrote: > Yes - 'Here' > (http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/uptone-audio-regen-listening-impressions-24078/index9.html#post420456) > & 'here' > (http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/uptone-audio-regen-listening-impressions-24078/index32.html#post443010)
Which one of those is not based on audiophile casual sighted evaluations? How do we know that the opinions stated are not affected by the following: (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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
