Originally Posted by Volcan
All - Noone is willing to offer a single well conducted study for critique.
Define well-conducted study, and then explain who is going to pay for it. If you've got the deep pockets and are willing to pay, there people around who might be willing to re-invent the wheel for you, one more time.
If everyone of the DBTs of CD players referenced here was perfectly conducted, which I very seriously doubt, the very broadest, most generous conclusion that can be drawn is:
For some listeners, in some settings, with some CD players there may be no perceived difference in sound quality during short term listening tests.
That is a truism that contrasts with what some people seem to be looking for:
For all listeners (billions and billions of them), in all settings (more billions and billions of them), , with all CD players (even more billions and billions of them), there will always no perceived difference in sound quality during listening tests involving all musical works ever recorded (even more billions and billions of them) of all possible durations (an infinitude of them)."
What actually happened is:
For a representative set of critical trained listeners, in settings designed to be diagnostic, with typical CD players, there were no reliably perceived differences in sound quality during the most sensitive listening tests that could be done.
Back here in the real world, it doesn't get a lot better than that.
Because of the very small sample size, any attempt to extrapolate these results to imply that for the general population there is no difference in sound quality is absurd and laughable.
Wrong. It's whats known as critical case testing. It is the same basic means that is used to do the most important kinds of tests that are done today including situations where human life is at stake.
I think that any so called DBT experts here who propose otherwise need to do a little more homework.
Please cite your professional qualifications to credibly make that accusation. Not liking the outcome of what's been done so far is not enough.
Please remember that the testing procedures you are criticizing were developed by degreed professionals including a number of PhDs, have passed a variety of high-level reviews by major professional organizations, and have been published in refereed scientific journals.
Demanding that tests whose results have caused them emotional trauma and/or financial loss be done again in accordance with impossibly tough standards is a well-known technique that is used by medical charlatans, for example.
I hear someone saying is that since the existing tests don't prove that his favorite horse is a winner, they want us to believe that the problem is obviously the fault of the tests, not the horse.