Home Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Re: John Atkinson's Rebuttal of Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science"

"If there is no audible difference between two audio components would you consider a discussion of their "real subjective differences" to be of interest?"

Obvious if there are no audible difference there are none to describe, hence the question is meaningless.

"There is lot more than science interested in the growing phenomena of "truthiness" as exhibited by audiophiles, alternative therapy adherents, neocons, and the like."

A naked assertion that associates audiophiles with scientific quackery. I'm getting tired of wasting energy on such foolishness, hence .... Yaaaaaaaawn!

---

"This states audiophiles consider blind tests to be intrinsically flawed and not that Ben considers all blind tests to be legitimate."

You are now simply perpetuating Mr. Goldacre sloppiness and questionable selective quoting, as illustrated by JA's response to Mr. Goldacre's quoting (of his material):

"I guess Mr. Goldacre hadn't read the rest of the 1989 essay from which he had quoted. I was writing about the listening tests I had organized at that year's Stereophile Show. I had taken two highly regarded amplifiers that were widely felt to sound different in normal listening, a solid-state Adcom GFA-555 and a pair of tubed VTL 300W monoblocks, and was trying to determine if they also sounded different in a blind test. The results were inconclusive, though a subsequent series of blind listening tests performed under optimum circumstances did result in statistically significant identification of the amplifiers."



This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  VH Audio  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups


You can not post to an archived thread.