I don't believe it was directed at you.
I started this thread because I don't think I've heard all the arguments against DBTs. It's kinda hard to be absolutely certain of something if you haven't had the opportunity to reflect on possible flaws in your reasoning.
I haven't heard any compelling argument against DBTs so far. I feel the discussion has been productive, however: it has helped me determine with more clarity what DBTs prove and what they don't prove.
What I've observed however, is that subjectivists tend to refuse submitting to such tests while providing what I consider to be poor excuses. The conclusion I make is that they're anticipating failure, and don't want to give objectivists more empirical evidence of inaudibility. What we have overall is simply lack of proof
either way; unfortunately for the subjectivists, the burden of proof lies on them (can't prove a negative), and they're not delivering.
My take: I think I said earlier that the subjectivists shouldn't be afraid of DBTs, and they should start by submitting to tests that they have a chance of passing. ABXing lossy codecs with foobar at bitrates that approach transparency is something anyone can do, and it would reveal just what kind of subtle differences can be heard. I believe it would demystify the whole thing.
Of course, the results could be embarrassing: some people have reported that they can't even ABX a 128kbps MP3. The difference is, the people who admit to it usually never made any claims beforehand. And that's where I think lies the bigger problem with people on both sides of the fence: ego gets in the way. It takes a big man to admit to being wrong.
I think a good way of eliminating ego is to only believe in, and claim, what is proven. I'd say that's the objectivist way, though we're not immune to exageration either.
That said, I doubt anyone will blame me for consciously enjoying my placebo Edited by skamp - 3/22/12 at 7:34am