Originally Posted by SoNic67
Originally Posted by arnyk
Since you are an advocate for the existence of an audible difference, you are a far better listener for a blind test providing the results you claim. So, where are your results?
Why is it that people who agree with you are congenitally incapable of doing level matched, time synched, bias controlled tests that back up their claims?
How do YOU prove that they can't?
You've missed the point. Advocates can
do DBTs just as well as the rest of us, its just that they never seem to do them.
Just because you discard those results that don't match your religion
Never happens. Please stop libeling people that you disagree with. No matter what baseless and vile false accusations you make, we aren't dishonest. We don't do DBTs or any kind of proper listening test and then throw out the results that we disagree with.
DBTs were chosen because they are a widely accepted methodology for obtaining reliable results. They weren't chosen so that we could pick on hapless golden ears. In fact, many of use were golden ears when we chose them. We believed that any good test would prove the validity of the golden ear dogma of the day. We expected DBTs to confirm the audible differences that we thought we heard.
Unlike you, I don't sit in a vacuum making up false allegations and calling sincere hard working bright, well-educated, widely respected people liars. Last night I was at a birthday party that included the four early co-developers of ABX testing - we're still good friends after over 40 years. One is a MD, one is a well-known mainstream audio engineer of innovative products that have sold in the 100,000s and an AES Fellow, and one is a mathematician. We all agreed that we were shocked at the time at how large some measured differences were, and that nobody could or has ever heard them. The reason was that masking was not well understood at the time (late 1970s). Masking was not a total mystery, one of my friends went into his archives and found a 1954 copy of Beranek's classic Acoustics
and pointed out a chapter about psychoacoustics that mentioned masking. A great deal of what needed to be learned about masking in order to make our results understandable were more widely known after Zwicker and Fastl's Psychoacoustics Facts and Models (ca. 1989). We shared our experiences that if you try to replicate current knowledge about the thresholds of hearing for various artifacts using ABX tests, you get equal or better results as you find in various standard texts and standard documents.
and your test subjects are biased NOT to hear differences, it doesn't make you right.
If that is true, then do your homework and confirm it with legitimate tests. The golden ear community has had over 30 years to produce just one credible and reliable result that shows you to be right.
Doing ABX tests or any other valid kind of bias-controlled listening test is no mystery. The gross invalidity of the sighted evaluations that golden ears treat as their Holy Grail is abundantly well known the the Scientific Community. It is against the law
to use sighted evaluations in many kinds of testing where human health and life is at stake (e.g. drugs and medical procedures).
Why do you abuse honest people by promoting an illegal form or testing over one that is so widely accepted?