Michael Scarpitti wrote:

I would like you to explain how 'sighted bias' explains what I heard
in detail, not just in general.

If what you "heard" you only imagined, then we can't explain in detail what
you "heard," because we can't know everything that was going on in your head
at the time. What you *imagined* you heard could have been affected by the
order in which you listened to the amps, for all we know. All "sighted bias"
offers is a *possible* explanation for two things: 1) the fact that you
perceived a difference among these amps at all; and 2) the fact that, once
having identified a certain sound with each amp, your subsequent auditions
confirmed those impressions. That this explanation is indeed possible is a
proven scientific fact, and Steven Sullivan has suggested a few textbooks
which will confirm that.

A basic truth about listening comparisons is this: If you know what you are
listening to, then everything you've ever heard, read or thought about that
component can affect how you hear it. That's inescapable, my friend.

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.

If you really want to understand this, may I respectfully suggest that you
acquire some background in the science behind it. Sullivan has given you a
place to start.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee when you click here.
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy...n.asp?cid=3963