Quote Originally Posted by magictooth
In any case, E-Stat, you still didn't answer my original question: why is it that you believe that sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing?
I'll quote an audio reviewer named Mike Kuller who answered the question as to why he believes ABX testing is different from other observational (sighted) testing:

Because when normally listening to music, NO DECISION is involved. Relaxed listening to music is a "right brain" function. To make a decision about X requires switching to a "left brain" function. And this has to be completed in the split seconds that audible memory is quickly fading.

Music is a very insensitive program source for identifying differences because it is dynamic and constantly changing. Audible memory fades quickly. Audibility DBTs for use in psychometrics were designed to be used with test tones, noise artifacts and distortion products where they are very sensitive because the sounds are constant. Even pink noise is more sensitive than music, but is limited in its usefullness.

I have never seen a DBT published which found audible differences between stereo components described as "dynamic contrasts", "tonal color", "imaging", "soundstage reproduction" or any of the many other attributes we as audiophiles listen for.

With music DBTs don't seem to be sensitive enough to differentiate anything but gross differences. Those differences are described as loudness, or large band frequency response differences such as brightness or boominess.

For psychometric use (and new drug trials) DBTs have been scientifically validated and seem to be useful. Just look at all the positive results. For subtle, small differences between audio products, their use is unvalidated, psuedo-scientific and they appear worthless, hence all the null results.

rw