Originally Posted by MrMateoHead
Anyway, I am picking on you for your apparent dissatisfaction with a good piece of equipment (the O2) - I do not believe that it can add, nor take away from your subjective experience of a great pair of headphones.
Hey, now, be fair! I've never made an explicit statement about the O2, nor did I ever imply that I disliked it. I have no opinion about that amp whatsoever: you see, I've never heard it, so how could I have an opinion about it. You posted the o2's specs, and the specs look good to me, so I'm not sure where any of this is coming from. So if that's true, I obviously never said, or implied, that my Kenwood was superior to your amp. But my kenwood is better than my little dot though and that's what I compared it to. So again where is this coming from? Be fair with me now. With regard to your general premise about a/b testing and amps, I agree with you--more than you can possibly know (I'm sort of a general science enthusiast), but you do realize that those famous a/b tests (floating around on the web) are highly highly flawed, as are most so-called blind audio tests. Let me rephrase that: those tests (again the ones I've seen) are scientifically disgraceful. Especially the ones I've seen on you tube and other online places. in fact, they are conducted so poorly I can hardly believe it sometimes. My goodness, where are the controls people! Scientific testing requires robust controls to filter out extraneous influences. Ever hear of "audio steering?" No test, I've ever seen controls for that. Peer pressure? Again no test, I've seen, controls for that either. In fact most of the test I've seen don't even have controls for room acoustics, listening location, and hearing variation with their test subjects. Come-on now, you have to control for that kind of stuff, big time! What about expectation bias--do these blind test control for that? (Many of them really don't!) I'm just saying, I love the double blind test as much as you do, but most of these so-called audio test are not even double blind!! That really kills me. What about stress induced by limited time for evaluations? (This really could be a factor!) So I agree with you: double blind testing is the only way to falsify much of the audio voodoo out there, but these tests need to be conducted properly, and then they need to be peer reviewed and that cycle needs to be repeated as many times as required. I'm not sore here. I sure hope I don't sound sore. if I do, I sincerely apologize.
Edited by Madmollusk - 11/7/12 at 2:33pm