Sighted Testing IS King!! Silly me - all those years wasted...

[magictooth]

I see no relation to cable sonics and "cutting up" people.


Reread the last paragraph of Mr. Kuller's comments.

rw

You need to reread the posts. It is pretty clearly delineated what I was referring to. If you can't get it after a couple more tries, well we probably shouldn't be talking about it anyways.

As for Mr. Kuller's last paragraph (and entire point of view on this subject), this is another self serving pile of junk. This is the classical "my hypothesis makes sense for my point of view, hence it is correct." Take another example: religious leaders condemn a homosexual lifestyle as leading to the moral decay and the descent into the seething morass of the general population. It makes sense if it fits your view of the world. Is it proven? Or how about some people who spout off about video games leading to an elevated level of violence these days. It makes sense because there's lots of violence in some games and that has to rub off on the players. Has this been proven?

The same thing with your esteemed Mr. Kuller. He fits a hypothesis to meet his needs. You take it as gospel. His words aren't proven nor do they, in fact, make sense to somebody a little more versed in science.

As I've stated three times now, you've skirted my original question: are the words of Mr. Kuller the main foundation for your belief that sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing?

[E-Stat]

As for Mr. Kuller's last paragraph...

It simply answers your last objection.

...then why should these researchers anesthetize and incise into 100 innocent people in order to eliminate any possibility of psychosomatic response?

I guess I need to repeat the relevant part of Kuller's comments that preclude your concern.

For psychometric use (and new drug trials) DBTs have been scientifically validated and seem to be useful. Just look at all the positive results.

The reason for your objection is unfounded because both he and I acknowledge that in some cases, (those proven to work), such tests are fine. Sheesh.

As I've stated three times now, you've skirted my original question: are the words of Mr. Kuller the main foundation for your belief that sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing?

When multiple audio reviewers from multiple publications and I having diverse backgrounds, systems, biases, musical preferences arrive at a similar conclusion as to the audibility of any number of components, I find that a more compelling result than that of any DBT I've seen. Usually the conclusions I draw are not the one that I should draw based upon component cost or ownership. It's that simple. It is evident you care far more about the topic than I.

rw

[magictooth]

The reason for your objection is unfounded because both he and I acknowledge that in some cases, (those proven to work), such tests are fine. Sheesh.


When multiple audio reviewers from multiple publications and I having diverse backgrounds, systems, biases, musical preferences arrive at a similar conclusion as to the audibility of any number of components, I find that a more compelling result than that of any DBT I've seen. Usually the conclusions I draw are not the one that I should draw based upon component cost or ownership. It's that simple. It is evident you care far more about the topic than I.

rw

For your first part, I've repudiated your claims that blind testing is effective for one type of test but not another. You've yet to give me adequate reason to believe what you and another audio reviewer believe to be true.

For the rest, Monstrous Mike just stole my thunder in the other thread. I was going to say (and will say) that while I am doing most of the inquiring, I certainly can empathize with how Copernicans and Galileans felt in the Inquisition times. The hard headed religious judges and censors of the time would not listen to reason, but said that it was God's way or the highway.

You say that you and several audio reviewers share conclusions about the audibility of differences in components. What does this have to do with a sighted test being better than a blind test? It sounds mostly like there's a bunch of old boys sitting around scratching each others' backs. There isn't one iota of sense in what you have just told me.

It's the same scenario as I laid out above with regards to certain religious zealots or anti-gaming big mouths. You (and they) want to fit a conclusion into a hypothesis without first obtaining results. Normally a hypothesis is proposed, test results obtained, and a conclusion drawn.

As well, I've indicated from the start that it is not the cost, but rather the sighted environment that is the determining factor in whether you can hear a difference.

[E-Stat]

You've yet to give me adequate reason to believe what you and another audio reviewer believe to be true.

Fine. I'm content to leave it at that with a difference of opinion.

I need to make preparations for more important issues like shipping arrangements for my new U-1s and selling the 2+2s.

rw

[magictooth]

Fine. I'm content to leave it at that with a difference of opinion.

I need to make preparations for more important issues like shipping arrangements for my new U-1s and selling the 2+2s.

rw

Is that a point for the blind testing naysayers out here? A concession that the basis sighted testing in audio is as flimsy as a fashion model's lingerie?

BTW, congrats on the new speakers. I'm sure that they'll make a difference.

[E-Stat]

Is that a point for the blind testing naysayers out here?

A point? If you like, I'll give you a gold star!

BTW, congrats on the new speakers. I'm sure that they'll make a difference.

Have you heard either electrostat yourself?

rw

[magictooth]

A point? If you like, I'll give you a gold star!


Have you heard either electrostat yourself?

rw

I actually haven't gone speaker auditioning in a while. I'm not sure if any of the local stores would carry such an upscale model in stock. As an example, the most expensive speakers that I heard were Tannoy Churchills that were going on a nation wide tour of dealers. The highest model of Tannoy that this dealer normally carries is the Dimension series. Admittedly, I haven't looked in a while.

[FLZapped]

The same thing with your esteemed Mr. Kuller. He fits a hypothesis to meet his needs. You take it as gospel. His words aren't proven nor do they, in fact, make sense to somebody a little more versed in science.

As I've stated three times now, you've skirted my original question: are the words of Mr. Kuller the main foundation for your belief that sighted testing is better than or equivalent to blind testing?

Which does point out that E-Stat indeed has something to prove against his own words.

-Bruce