Quote:

To me, there are at least three different questions that are often detrimentally rolled into one.

1. Can *I* perceive a difference?
2. If I can perceive a difference, do I have a preference?
3. If I have a preference, is the increased cost/trouble a good *value* to me?

Even in the context of the double-blind studies, I'm just not comfortable (nor do I find particular value in) asserting that another listener can't possibly tell a difference. I have enough trouble inside my own head; I certainly don't aspire to comprehend how somebody else's brain works.


That's the beauty of science Tom.
People like myself DO aspire to know if TomT can technically hear like/as good as/the same as Johnk or AlanL but NOT if those three have the same preferences in speaker sounds. This is a very distinguished difference.
People who hear technically the same (as we understand the human ear) means we can debunk myths like "golden eared audiophiles" or "two flat response amps sound different".

However, when it comes to preferences in sound type, we have a different twig on that same branch of science.
Companies like Axiom HAVE to study the concept of sound preferences to try and sell a product they feel is what people prefer in regards to sound reproduction whether they know it or not. They do this by using the knowledge from the first section to try and keep that analysis objective (HOW do people technically hear compared to each other? and if it is similar and measurable then let's start polling on things more subjective and look for patterns).
Scientists aspire to know if the general population tends towards a linear sounding speaker or not.
They want to know if people like a hump in bass at 120Hz or whether they really never notice it at all.
Ultimately asking these latter questions though ARE subjective and then, to each his own applies.

Certainly one can say scientists define generalizations and from as large a population sampling as possible, with inevitable outliers, but often outliers are not reproducable and typically occur because of chance.
It is the pattern in the long term study by which science derives fact and theory from hypotheses.

I never doubt people completely believe what they hear is what they heard. It is just often that they don't like to be told what they heard may not be what they believe.
An open minded person would logically want to study both sides of that potential situation and ask why and how. A closed minded person reacts with the "don't call me a liar, i know what i heard" reflex.
There is no reason to be offended, but humans will be humans. We all react that way now and again. Some of us just don't do it when judging audio or at least strive to keep the 'sound testing' as neutral as possible to avoid the myths of audio.
Research begets reality didn't you know.

"Those who preach the myths of audio are ignorant of truth."