willemj wrote,
"Double blind tests are only part of the argument, of course. Starting point is that there is no existing physical theory that can explain such 'night and day' differences."
>>>>Uh, actually there are physical theories that explain the differences. You just prefer to ignore them.
willemj wrote,
"The next part of the procedure is to look at measurements. Since these do not show anything of potential significance either, the listening test is the last part."
>>>Sorry but we've already established we don't know what to measure. We cannot measure audiophile characteristics of sound such as transparency, soundstage dimensions, musicality, presense, the sense the sound is like paper mache, those sorts of things. So if you can't measure it the only thing left is listening.
Here, expectation bias is an amply documented problem, hence the preference for double blind.
>>>>>Actually expectaion bias is not as widespread as naysayers claim it is. It's an old wives tale, like placebo effect. Besides naysayers DON'Texpect a thing to work so it must be reverse expectation bias. Experienced audiophiles know enough to eliminate expectation bias from consideration. It's the noobs who fall prey, if anyone. Expectation bias and blind testing at the no of the day are simply naysayer arguments that are fallacies.
willemj wrote,
"It is true expectation bias is only one of many potential issues, and it is of course true that there are many ways to mess up a test procedure/be dishonest. However, there is ample opportunity for those who believe that there is a difference, to do their own tests, document their methodology and demonstrate that there is difference."
>>>>Sorry, wrong again. It's not up to the believers to do the testing. The naysayers wouldn't believe them if they did, anyway. Naysayers are by definition unswayed by any evidence that does not conform to their foregone conclusion. Sound familiar?
