ludovic mirabel wrote:
Jim West wrote in message ...
In article , ludovic mirabel wrote:
Jim West wrote in message ...

I always wonder why those who find flaws in DBT for audio systems do not
write up their theories and submit them to the peer reviewed journals
that specialize in psycho-acoustics. Your theories would be much better
received here with the backing of favorable review.

The objectives (introduced artefact recognition) and selection of
subjects is completely different in psychometrics from a "test"
promoted as feasible for the run-of -the -mill audio consumers (young
and old, amplified music and chamber music listeners etc. etc.)
The difference is as much as between the rigorous medical drug
research testing with objective bodily changes validation and the
question and answer psychoacoustic test. Apples, oranges and bananas.

If you are saying that it is unreasonable to expect every consumer to
perform a DBT before making a purchase, I would agree. But making the
results of controlled DBTs to those consumers who are interested is
another thing altogether. In any event, the poster to whom I responded
said that DBT for audio systems is unscientific under any conditions.
Postive peer review would certainly bolster this statement for me
personally.

Two questions: How will you select your test subjects for a
"controlled DBT"?

Audiophile magazine reviewers who routinely reports audible differences in amps
and cables and CD transports to the public, would be a logical choice.
Let's test *their* claims, since their claims drive a significant
part of the high-end industry.

And what the heck, let's throw in those who strenuously object, here , to skeptical
questions about their claims of difference. You included.

Any objections, Mr. Mirabel?


--
-S.
______
"You're an abuser Sullivan....a base beast with
intellect but little intelligence to show for it" -- KENNEH!