@ janneman,
we should avoid to use (d)blind as a synonym for a ´good´ test.
´Blind´ or ´double blind´ is only a certain part of the test protocol, but is in no way sufficient.
Maybe we could introduce something like ´real´ test or ´o.r.v.´ test .
True. How about 'controlled test' versus 'uncontrolled test'?
jd
Seems to be the same problem with ´controlled´ .
Maybe orv (for o bjective, r eliable, v alid ) ?
@ SY,
you should consult Athena in all of her virtues from time to time.
Last edited:
Folks, our car is "off the road on the shoulder..." Let's all recall that the discussion ought to relate somehow back to the topic...
I do not think that we are going to wring out the final drop of insight regarding the good or bad of a "DBT" (ABX or not)... not any time soon.
Suggest we move on...
_-_-bear
I do not think that we are going to wring out the final drop of insight regarding the good or bad of a "DBT" (ABX or not)... not any time soon.
Suggest we move on...
_-_-bear
OTOH, 'controlled' clearly shows the intention of the test. ORV does also, but I doubt that that will catch on widely.
jd
@ janneman,
´controlled´ is necessary but not sufficient while ´orv´ is comprehensive.
Of course, you´re right ´orv´ will most likely not suceed.
Maybe something like ´competent´ or ´qualified´ could serve.
An objective, reliable and valid test would most probably bring a positive result (rejection of the null hypothesis) if a difference is audible (at least to one listener on earth)
´controlled´ is necessary but not sufficient while ´orv´ is comprehensive.
Of course, you´re right ´orv´ will most likely not suceed.
Maybe something like ´competent´ or ´qualified´ could serve.
An objective, reliable and valid test would most probably bring a positive result (rejection of the null hypothesis) if a difference is audible (at least to one listener on earth)
I agree with Bear and Joachim. We all know that IF we have to prove what we hear everyday with 'approved' double-blind tests, that we might as well find something else to do. They just do not show enough difference to make anything, except perhaps loudspeakers, a design challenge.
Yet, I trudge on, making design after design.
Most serious users of the Blowtorch had both a digital and a vinyl source, and sometimes, like me, an FM tuner, preferably tube.
Several used a modified digital source that was originally designed by Damian Martin. I lost out in getting one of these, but we did use it for CES shows, and it was pretty darn good.
Many use a good turntable for vinyl like the Rockport, but I am happy with a Linn Sondek. Everybody used a Vendetta Research SCP-2 in my group, either internal or external for phono amplification.
Yet, I trudge on, making design after design.
Most serious users of the Blowtorch had both a digital and a vinyl source, and sometimes, like me, an FM tuner, preferably tube.
Several used a modified digital source that was originally designed by Damian Martin. I lost out in getting one of these, but we did use it for CES shows, and it was pretty darn good.
Many use a good turntable for vinyl like the Rockport, but I am happy with a Linn Sondek. Everybody used a Vendetta Research SCP-2 in my group, either internal or external for phono amplification.
So all of sensory research (visual, auditory, organoleptic, haptic) needs to be thrown out since all tests are conducted double-blind?
How is it that in the same controlled tests of audibility, subjects are able to demonstrate great sensitivity to level, frequency response, polarity, noise, compression, overload, recovery...?
The Dragon In My Garage
Better question would be what the nature of the source components is.
(plus the nature of what comes behind the line stage)
i'm not saying that at all
try as a test:
build two identical boxes
label one A, the other B
in one, build the test circuit.
in the other, wire it straight through.
don't tell the testee anything about this.
let the testee take the setup home, and merely evaluate which is preferred.
afterwards, randomly switch or not the circuit guts and repeat the test again.
add a third person to switch the guts or arrange for the test if you wish double blind.
have fun
myr: How does that relieve the "test anxiety" you postulated? It's still a blind test (paired preference), still a human test subject, still a "test." It's no different that the preamp switching test I asked John to do at his home- and it doesn't overcome his special pleading.
If you're testing components, the boxes must remain under the supervision of the test administrator or some other third party- too easy to measure differences, and test gear is FAR more sensitive than the human senses.
If you're testing components, the boxes must remain under the supervision of the test administrator or some other third party- too easy to measure differences, and test gear is FAR more sensitive than the human senses.
SY I have told you for years that I can't pass double blind test. I would appreciate that you refrain from pestering me to do something that I will only fail. I believe that there is an inherent problem with the test for audio, and I have stated the same thing for more than 30 years. You can believe what you want, SY, but please leave me alone with my convictions.
The purpose of controls is so that you don't HAVE to.
Well, call my offer to John a "casual preference evaluation." Maybe then he can try to show that there actually is a dragon in his garage.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.