"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:CfBaqwpMQGTKFwrF@soft255.demon.co.uk...
> In message <Tp-dnQn95db27dXXnZ2dnUVZ8nudnZ2d@bt.com>, jasee
> <jasee@btinternet.com> writes:
>>DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Everything I write is subjectively, although I might refer to the test
>>> results as well.
>>>
>>> If you do think that subjective hi-fi reviewing is a waste of time
>>> then I totally disagree - there's a lot more difference in the sound
>>> quailty - or in reception quality - between different tuners than I
>>> was expecting there would be. Also spending more money does usually,
>>> but not always, give you better quality, whereas I thought that the
>>> law of diminishign returns would have kicked in so much that it
>>> wouldn't be worth spending quite a bit extra, but it does tend to make
>>> a difference.
>>
>>sujective hi-fi reviewing has always been wrong, because it is subjective.
>>Who wants to read what some reviewer _feels_ is a good tuner etc? Double
>>blind tests plus comparative technical data are, and have always been the
>>right way.
>>
> I think you're pursuing different lines of argument. I think DwF is in
> effect saying that subjective listening can pick out subtleties that
> cannot be _measured_ with current measuring equipment and techniques. I
> tend to agree with that (though subjective reviewers can get carried away,
> with terms like "musicality", and are easily mocked, often justifiably).
> What you (jasee) are saying is that double-blind tests are among the best
> ways - and I'd certainly agree with that, but these are double-blind
> _subjective_ tests. (And as an engineer/scientist I'd certainly agree that
> the technical data should be presented too.)

A double blind test is a double blind test, whatever it is attempting to
measure!

From the scientific point of view, you can test for anything and the results
should show whether 'it' exists of not. And it doesn't matter if the human
test subjects _are_ the sort of people who actually pay thousands of pounds
on interconnections or dogged 'traditionalists'.

I think you're confusing the issue by mentioning subjectivity in connection
with double blind tests: its simply not in it. Thats the point, subjectivity
is ruled out. There has to be an objective difference for a postive result
to show in a double blind test. If some aspect of musicality (or whatever)
can be reliably observed in double blind tests, then it exists! There's no
subjectivity about it. Of course it's always useful if you can back it up
with some comparative technical data.