Originally Posted by CharlesJ
But that implies that sighted testing is accurate to some degree, no? And DBT is just more accurate.
To this degree only: a person can
establish themselves as a more reliable difference-detector than average , i.e., a true 'golden ear'. This for example is the basis fo Harman's 'trained listener' subject pool.
It means their 'guesses' at differences are more likely to be correct than the average listener's.
It doesn't give them a free pass to act as if every difference they claim to hear, must be real (certain sound engineers I can name act this way....as do virtually all audiophile reviewes a.g. Mikey Fremer, who I don't doubt has good discriminating ears)
And typically none of 'us' know, on this side of the computer if 'they', on that side, are really 'trained' listeners. They can claim
to be such. Plenty of audiophile claim to have golden ears...I won't necessarily believe them, without some supporting evidence like, I happen to know for a fact that they've taken listener training, or.... they show me trustworthy DBT results.
Even then, if the claim is really extraordinary, trained listener or not, skepticism is the more rational response absent blind test and measurement results.