Why is science just a starting point and not an end point?

Take 100 people, who have hearing that "measures well" (Really good hearing)

Spend a year teaching those 100 people how to listen and what to listen for.

Teach them to understand critical listening. In the same way a sommelier would be educated.

Sit them down and have them do blind listening tests with the differing amps that have the same posted specifications.

And watch how they can differentiate between those amps...,

Take 100 people, who have hearing that "measures well" (Really good hearing)

Spend a year teaching those 100 people how to listen and what to listen for.

Teach them to understand critical listening. In the same way a sommelier would be educated.

Sit them down and have them do blind listening tests with the differing amps that have the same posted specifications.

And watch how they can differentiate between those amps...,

Very right ...

I will add that first music is a listening experience where there is no object (sound) which could be separated from the room//Ears/ in that order, and evaluated MAINLY with an electronic  tool instead of the ears...

Basic psychoacoustic science which is a science connected to physical acoustic but different with DIFFERENT goals must not be confused with it...

Some badly misinformed people  reduce even physical acoustic to electronic, not knowing then  what is psychoacoustic anyway...

To hide their ignorance they promoted blindtest to debunk  any audiophile experience beeing a "bias" without knowing what is a bias and WHEN  do we must erase it from an experiment ....

Because they really think that the taste of the soup is explained mainly by  the different  materials   constituting the saucepan and the temperature to be set...This claim  is even not untrue....But  proposing always ONLY to consider the materials adavantage of different saucepan and temperature for an explanation of the "particular" taste of a soup is  very limited to say the least...The ingredients(acoustical conditions and other parameters) play a more significant role sometimes in the experience...

 

AES E-LIBRARY
Ten years of A/B/X Testing

Experience from many years of double-blind listening tests of audio equipment is summarized. The results are generally consistent with threshold estimates from psychoacoustic literature, that is, listeners often fail to prove they can hear a difference after non-controlled listening suggested that there was one. However, the fantasy of audible differences continues despite the fact of audibility thresholds.

Testing has been done and the results using double blind tests, amplifiers have never been repeatedly identifiable on music if the usual matching and overload precautions were observed.

Humans have audibility thresholds no amount of training can overcome basic human anatomy.


You could say science has a starting and end point.

Are you a politician? You manage to avoid answering the question.

100 trained people...

Education matters!!!

How do you think Andrew Jones or John Devore tune their speakers at the final stages? With a calculator??? Or Nelson Pass with his amps???

I didn't avoid anything. Your 100 trained people would fare no better than the trained people in 10 years of ABX testing. Are you a politician that avoids the obvious?