Originally Posted by arnyk
If you wish to disqualify all listening tests involving audiophiles, including any that you yourself might participate in, please be my guest!
Interestingly enough many of the points listed above from BS 1116-1 were part and parcel of the recent AVS jitter tests. Please show that you have a clue by listing them.
As usual you're demonizing ABX tests and giving a free pass to sighted evaluations, which is a very old game.
I seem to have pressed upon a nerve.
For the useful purpose of being accurate, I will correct your perversion of the central theme of my statements.
Firstly, I have never publicly voiced an opinion about ABX testing, in general; so your "As usual" comment is a misnomer.
Secondly, my comments are specific and in reference to audio ABX test, and not any other ABX testing, certainly not all ABX test, as you have also miss-stated.
Thirdly, I am not demonizing audio ABX testing, but rather supporting the tapering of their sloppy implementation, in determining/measuring audible differences and potentially related goodness and shortcomings.
I do believe, if a major sampling (statically significant of a global mean) was organized, and administered, by appropriately accredited professions (i.e. not a lay person), etc., etc., etc. that the results would be worth looking at. However, in that no such endeavor has taken place, the existing efforts, are decidedly of little to no value, from a scientific perspective, which is not to suggest of absolutely no value.
You mean to demonize me, for what you interpreted as supportive, of the discrediting of audio ABX testing; but it is impossible to discredit something that has not attained creditability. Audio ABX testing doesn't have a pedestal from which to be thrown down from, as it's still in it's maturation.
I look forward to its scientific usefulness, when it matures.
I hope this eases the pressure that I've unwittingly placed upon one of your nerves.