I am using a computer in the CEDIA Expo press room and forgot to log in. Yes, the response above is from me.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

>But when posters start demanding in non-blind-test threads that others substantiate their opinions with such tests, then I think a line has been crossed.

Actually John, I suggested that people consider doing some tests that were

(1) Level-matched
(2) Time-synched
(3) Bias-controlled

IME most audiophile listening tests are none of the above.

BTW, the jump from "Bias controlled" to DBT is a pretty good-sized one, all by itself.

I seem to recall a poster named Bamborough who lectured all of RAO about the fact that just because all Siamese cats are cats, doesn't mean that all cats are Siamese, or some such. Do you remember reading that, John?

In a similar fashion, the set of blind tests and the set of bias-controlled tests overlap, but they aren't the same set.

Actually John, I suggested that people consider doing some tests that were

(1) Level-matched
(2) Time-synched
(3) Bias-controlled
_____

Sigh. OK, please consider the following mild observations:

1. Level matched - it is possible that system A sounds better than system B at a different level. It may not be fair, but, it is possible. Higher or lower isn't the secret, just different. Trying to remove all variables doesn't make the comparison fair, just simple minded. At one level system A wins, at another level, system B wins. Which level is fair? Some third level that makes both systems sound like garbage?

2. Time synched - If the beat gets lost between samples, we will all choose the dark side? Or, at the very least, may be hoodwinked into buying useless junk?

3. Bias controlled - we are picking out record players (OK, CD players, whatever) - there is no requirement for Absolution from the technical elite.

You may have honest reservations about the value, or at least the price, of some equipment.

I may have honest reservations about the value of your opinion.

Life may not be fair to every individual.

Me, neither.

I like listening to recordings, sometimes. Not always the same ones, not always on the same system. No harm, no foul.

You seem to think your perception of inequities in audio retailing is a moral basis for an Inquisition. I think Inquisitions are the _real_ problem. Perhaps we disagree ... Aren't these forums grand?

>1. Level matched - it is possible that system A sounds better than system B at a different level. It may not be fair, but, it is possible. Higher or lower isn't the secret, just different. Trying to remove all variables doesn't make the comparison fair, just simple minded. At one level system A wins, at another level, system B wins. Which level is fair? Some third level that makes both systems sound like garbage?

One of the desireable properties of an audio system is that it sounds good at a variety of levels. If presented with an audio system that sounded brilliantly at one level, but total crap at a similar but different level, I would not want to spend much time listening to it.

Obviously if you compare two systems, you play them at comparable loudnesses that are reasonable with both systems.

It's been so long since I was insulted by an audio system that didn't sound good at the reasonable levels I wanted to listen to, that I am prone to dismiss this as a straw man argument.

>2. Time synched - If the beat gets lost between samples, we will all choose the dark side? Or, at the very least, may be hoodwinked into buying useless junk?

I'm going to dismiss this comment on the grounds that it does not seem to be a serious reponse.

3. Bias controlled - we are picking out record players (OK, CD players, whatever) - there is no requirement for Absolution from the technical elite.

See above.

Quote:
>But when posters start demanding in non-blind-test threads that others substantiate their opinions with such tests, then I think a line has been crossed.

Actually John, I suggested that people consider doing some tests that were
(1) Level-matched
(2) Time-synched
(3) Bias-controlled

Regardless of any sematic hairsplitting on your part, Mr. Krueger, I have discussed this issue with the moderator and the following rule takes place with immediate effect: any posting that demands proof for their opinions on sound quality, whether that proof be in the form of questions about blind testing or ABX testing, etc, is inappropriate and will be deleted. If you or anyone else wishes to discuss blind tests or what you refer to as "bias-controlled testing," then you are welcome to do so in specific threads about that subject.

This rule was adopted with success by Usenet forum rec.audio.high-end, and while I regret that some will see this as a restriction on free speech, I do not want _this_ forum to allow posters to be bullied by other posters in this manner.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
>2. Time synched - If the beat gets lost between samples, we will all choose the dark side? Or, at the very least, may be hoodwinked into buying useless junk?

I'm going to dismiss this comment on the grounds that it does not seem to be a serious reponse.

With all due respect, Mr. Krueger, it is not up to _you_ to "dismiss" the comments and opinions expressed by other posters to this forum. Please keep such flames out of your posts, please.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile