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

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? 

Speakers aren't amplifiers we were discussing amplifiers. I agree trained listeners would have a better chance identifying speakers.

Pass purposely creates a sound with his amps,  take an amp that measures the same, I doubt in blind testing it would be identifiable.