planet10 said:
sure. When enough and sufficiently confusing terminology is used, anything will be stataistically invalid to anyone, including those who use them.
a true test of one's understanding of a subject matter is to see if that person can explain what they alledge in plain simple English.
More often than not, they are challenged by their own understanding of that subject matter.
To reject H_0: theta = .5 at alpha = .05 with 140 trials, you would need roughly 80 correct guesses.macgyver10 said:
There were seven listeners. Therefore, it would take just one listener out of the seven who could consistently guess correctly to reject the null hypothesis of no audible difference.
Dumbass said:
I'd be content with one listener getting it right 80 of out 80....
However, if we're using the listeners essentially as the test equipment, then I'd like to see a large group in order to end up with an "average" human ear response. Anomalies like the listener above could be extracted from the data for further analysis.
Possibly to identify faults with the test procedure itself, even.
planet10 said:
Which is why I suggest a much larger sample of listeners. This beta error is controlled by increasing the number of listeners.
For a description of Beta:
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=ABX
fokker said:
Actually you'd be best to use the language most suited to the subject matter. That's not always going to be english. For most of electronics and physics it's going to be the language of mathematics that proves your understanding.
However, tests and results are going to actually prove your hypothesis, until then it's essentially an opinion.
Statisticians generally refer to what they call "beta error" as a lack of power.macgyver10 said:
My previous post was an informal analysis of the power of the test. It would only have taken a single person out of the seven (who were presumably "audiophiles") who could tell the difference, to reject the null.
fokker said:
...ideally. Unfortunately perceptual phemomenon is notoriously hard to describe in independent terms. Try describing how 'red' looks without pointing to a red object. Sound is no different. The late Richard Heyser had a great series of editorials in the long-defunct Audio magazine about the need for a coherent language of sound. In the early days the tweak magazines made an honest (or honestly misguided depending on your perspective) effort at it but have since given it up for 'it rocks'.
Well, a million dollars is available to anyone who wants to try and prove that you can hear a difference between a $40 pair of cables and the most expensive ones available.
In fact, James Randi just emailed me directly to tell me so!
Anyone who's up for the challenge need only apply here:
http://randi.org/research/index.html
What have you got to lose? Read the instructions carefully, make an application, work out a protocol (that you are involved in designing), pass the test, and collect the cash.
Should be easy.
In fact, James Randi just emailed me directly to tell me so!
Anyone who's up for the challenge need only apply here:
http://randi.org/research/index.html
What have you got to lose? Read the instructions carefully, make an application, work out a protocol (that you are involved in designing), pass the test, and collect the cash.
Should be easy.
macgyver10 said:
great. I look forward to see multiple million dollar winners out of posters in this discussion!
Of course, audiophiles expert hearing capabilities usually vanish faster than "puff". and it wouldn't surprise me if in the next 24 hours we have >10 posts arguing why it is unfair to put audiophile hearing to such an objective listening test.
fokker said:
Lets hope we're spared the noise, and just get to see some results. The JREF's challenge is very fair, considering that the applicant can work with the JREF to design the test protocol until both the JREF and applicant are satisfied.
Unfortunately the challenges seldom get past this stage.
But most of those are for paranormal claims...so far nobody has claimed that dead relatives make their cables sound better, so this should all be science, right?
quote:
Originally posted by Panicos K
macgyver10 :Yet,the earth IS moving.
Lost me...
Hell isn't frozen, pigs can't fly?
Hi,
I think he's referring to the remark reputedly muttered by Galileo after he was forced to recant his position that the Earth was moving around the Sun. History has vindicated his theory, while ignoring the context of the situation, which unbiased commentators such as Arthur Koestler ("The Sleepwalkers") have found that the Church was correct in it's censure.
Of all the abusive use of their authority, it's interesting that most people would mistakenly remember an instance in which the Church was actually correct.
Modern scientists have lost their position, funding and status within the scientific community when they're discovered to have pulled the same sort of thing.
Best Regards,
TerryO
Originally posted by Panicos K
macgyver10 :Yet,the earth IS moving.
Lost me...
Hell isn't frozen, pigs can't fly?
Hi,
I think he's referring to the remark reputedly muttered by Galileo after he was forced to recant his position that the Earth was moving around the Sun. History has vindicated his theory, while ignoring the context of the situation, which unbiased commentators such as Arthur Koestler ("The Sleepwalkers") have found that the Church was correct in it's censure.
Of all the abusive use of their authority, it's interesting that most people would mistakenly remember an instance in which the Church was actually correct.
Modern scientists have lost their position, funding and status within the scientific community when they're discovered to have pulled the same sort of thing.
Best Regards,
TerryO
- Status
- Not open for further replies.