That's rubbish - read the first paragraph of the conclusions again.
If that is your opinion, fine.
I addressed my post on page 5 to the first paragraph of the article, and point 2 is absolutely
scientifically correct. I just read the first paragraph of his conclusion in the article, and his
disparaging comments are as error filled and obnoxious as the initial paragraphs of the article. May
I be a direct as you are? After all, we are looking for the truth.
If I may, let me ask some questions in general?
1. I have yet to see proof that ABing 10 times in a row equates to normal listening, or just 1 or 2 abs
when comparing. Do you have such proof and would you provide it here?
2. I have yet to see this or other article being cleared by any Medical Organizations/hospitals.
3. The way testing is described, via the article and other "audio" posts/publications, is based upon
input data provided via AB or ABX "back and forths". (The states are hidden via double blind, so I
just used the simple term.)
As such, only "sight" is ever mentioned as a confound variable. This confound variable is dealt
with so as to prevent "sight" from influencing the input data.
The input data is used for calculating the confidence level, usually 95%.
Why is he not listing any other confound variables? I won't list any till you do.
4. I have one sample problem for you or others to consider, if I may. If a group of test subjects is at
a venue, some 50% of test subjects are in areas of increasing and maximum bass nodes,
and 50% are in decreasing and minimal bass nodes. Under what conditions would one obtain
a 95% confidence level?
By the way, if he believes mylar capacitors sound the same as polypropylene capacitors, well.....
Cheers.
steve