1. Do you think the test was compromised because Ethan had already taken a position and designed a test to prove it?
There is a possibility there. JJ has been asking you to read BS1116. Picking a revealing content and training are pre-requisites for proper blind test. I don't think Ethan or even I know what content would be most revealing in many loops of AD and DA.
It is also possible that his conclusion is right: that we took one distortion that audiophiles think is huge, multiplied by 10 or whatever and folks could still not count the steps. For the clips he picked, that is the likely conclusion.
2. Do you think think the test examples were properly prepared and capable of revealing the differences you expected to find?
See above. Question back at you is whether you would have accepted that 10 loops of AD and DA would have no effect on *any* sample music as he picked. If it can be so transparent in that song, do you think it will all of a sudden be revealing in all or most other????
3. You expressed some doubt if Ethan correctly represented the answers, Do you still feel that way?
See my previous post.
4. Do you regret taking the test?
Never. I never regret taking these tests even if it shows me to be deaf
. I have actually fully documented cases where despite my claim expertise and hearing acuity, I was caught rating identical tracks different in blind tests and with conviction no less! All because I was insisting that was the outcome (i.e. assumed they were different). The solution to the problem you seek -- an audiophile made into a fool by not being able to tell differences blind -- is to accept that our hearing is never as good as we think. If you want to dispute that, then run a private blind test. You will quickly realize that is the case.
6,Many members neglected to participate. Notably some diehard ABX advocates. Do you have an opinion on that?
I explained the reason above. Males are terrible at this. We don't want to be shown to be wrong in a public forum. I am not. Neither should you be scared. Go through a lot of them and then ponder what it means. If you still think it means nothing, then fine. But I am confident if you did this and properly so, it will change our outlook on audio evaluation. Lest you not have a logical mind
.
7. Is there anything you would have changed about the test or about how you conducted the evaluation? Would you do it again ?
Yes, I would remove the chances of mechanical analysis. It is hard to do but can be done. Second thing I would do is try damn hard to find one song where it does make a difference. That would show me that my test is correct. Maybe such a track does not exist but my experience in other domains shows that it usually exists. 10 generations should cause audible distortion somewhere.
8. Do you feel memory was a significant factor?You did have to listen to a. then comapre it to b. and then to c. etc. Did that present any problem for you?
Please make any other comments you find appropriate.
I was not close to any listening station to do any evaluation of that type. Was in our vacation house with a laptop. So I performed my mechanical analysis instead.
From time to time I need to repeat the notion that I recognize the validity so called blind test scientific evidence. Iaraphrase that great Hall of fame pitcher for the Baltimore Orioles Jim Palmer. When he criticizes a pitcher he adds to it life is easy in the design but difficult in the execution. I'm pretty sure he did not mean to throw a belt high fastball over the middle of the plate.
.
The question is what you do with that belief. If you throw it out the window when you evaluate the next audio product, then you don't really have this belief. I do a lot of sighted tests as that is faster and far more convenient. But if I am going to lay an opinion about those differences, I do my best to try to set up at least an informal blind test. If blind test results are very different, I remain cautious in claiming conclusions.
