Bruce Abrams wrote in message ...


If you allow for the fact that sight *may* provide a bias that overrides
true differences than you must control for it, always. Failure to do so
leaves open the possibility that you may have been influenced by sighted
bias. There would simply be no way to know whether the listening results
were valid or bias influenced, and no amount of arm waving shouting "DON'T
TELL ME WHAT I HEARD" will change that fact. Bias controls are necessary
not because the biases always exist, but exactly because they may exist.

I would like you to explain how 'sighted bias' explains what I heard
in detail, not just in general. To claim 'you heard differences
because you expected to' is not an explanation at all. It does not
account for, for instance, the nature of the differences I heard
(dynamic compression, brightness, dullness, etc.). It is the same as
explaining fire by invoking 'phlogiston'. It 'explains' nothing.