Julf wrote: > I think we disagree on that one. > > > > And you accuse others of deflecting inconvenient questions? > > It does show that you try to discredit blind tests based on criteria > that you would never apply to sighted tests. According to you, blind > tests are worthless, but sighted tests without any controls are totally > OK. > > In many ways, your argumentation reminds me of creationists, who very > selectively apply the few scientific words they have learned in an > attempt to mislead an uneducated lay audience. Too bad some of us > actually understand the science. Given that two home administered tests (blind & sighted) are equal in their unreliability, I prefer to use the one that is most like my normal listening - the sort of listening I will be using to enjoy said device if I decide to hold onto the device. I personally find it much more reliable (it has proved itself to me over time) & useful then the pseudo-scientific, home-administered blind listening that is often attempted to be perpetrated as somehow more reliable, scientific, believable. And if you don't have blind test results then ......
So your attempt at trying to show that I think sighted listening is superior based on scientific principles, is silly - as I already said. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ jkeny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35192 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
