CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
- Feb 13, 2016
- Seattle Area
There is nothing rational about that. Being pessimistic about my conclusions doesn't give you any license to opine otherwise. You just get to not believe, not say, "oh the conclusion must be this ("none sonic factors")." You lack the very proof point you ask me: controlled testing. Lack of data is not data.The only rational way to do a “thorough listening evaluation” which “reveals something significant” is... wait for it... blind tests. Since that didn’t happen here, it is rational to conclude it is far more likely that non-sonic factors are dominating the listening evaluation.
Your complaints are generic and have nothing to do with this specific review. We have a dedicated thread for such complaints where I have extensively addressed your concern regarding my sighted listening tests: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...aint-thread-about-speaker-measurements.11139/Like Amir replied to me yesterday, we have been over this turf a million times. And apparently, according to Amir, I don’t have to read his listening reports. But I don’t know if that means I am expected to bite my lip while readers of his reports, such as yourself, focus on the scientifically-invalid part of his report and declare it “educational, thorough and revealing”.
ALL your follow ups to this need to go in that thread.