duh
A perfect example of confusion over such concepts as confidence intervals, precision, error bars, test criteria, etc.... of course no two tests are ABSOLUTELY identical from a pedantic perspective! Air temperature, humidity, listeners weight and height, phase of the moon, political party affiliation,etc. could all be arguably confounding between two locations, but screening tests for legitimate variables exist (or are available thru common sense).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_of_variance
get real
John L.
A perfect example of confusion over such concepts as confidence intervals, precision, error bars, test criteria, etc.... of course no two tests are ABSOLUTELY identical from a pedantic perspective! Air temperature, humidity, listeners weight and height, phase of the moon, political party affiliation,etc. could all be arguably confounding between two locations, but screening tests for legitimate variables exist (or are available thru common sense).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_of_variance
get real
John L.
Last edited:
I agree with you, word for word.
Now, please tell me your opinion on scienticially designed blind group tests. Unfortunately, I fail to see what's scientific about assembling a group of people, each one of them an aindividual, with his own mindset and perception capabilities, to pass universal judgement on audio gear.
And even assuming they can do that, how do know hw it will sound to somebody outside the appointed group? I ask because several times I've been told here that educated professional musicians are of no big importance to audio. Kind of, ah, them, they don't count for much. I mean, after all, they just studied music and play in symphonic orchestras, so what do they know about music and how it should sound? And that's "scientific".
I'm more real than you'll ever be able to recognize. And I do not need a panel to advise me on how something sounds to me, thank you.
I find that all too often people who insist on hard measurable science are in with impaired hearing and need an external light to point the way, don't you?
But if the same results can be obtained in a multitude of ways, just how reliable are they?
Who ever said that you need a "panel"? All you need to answer the question, "Can I hear this?" is an open mind, intellectual curiosity and honesty, and sometimes (depending on how you structure an experiment) a helper. Panels are more useful for other questions- "one size fits all" is not applicable to experimental design. Valid experiments just need to be well-controlled, but there's lots of ways to achieve that.
We will never agree between the two parties.
I just notice that, if the peekers have nothing against "blind A,B" or other similar methods, the others cannot accept some can use a different approach.
As J.C. said -at the end, it is may-be not an accident if he his one of the most famous audio designers here-, "what the hell if it worked for me".
I just notice that, if the peekers have nothing against "blind A,B" or other similar methods, the others cannot accept some can use a different approach.
As J.C. said -at the end, it is may-be not an accident if he his one of the most famous audio designers here-, "what the hell if it worked for me".
Last edited:
Sy What is not limited numbers..??? In the end of the day you still have to sum and put a weight on those, and what you measure is only based on your subjective judgement of what is sufficient or what is not. That assessment is just as subjective as any listening test.
Non science cannot be put into numbers, like a painting cant be judged by any numerical standards. beauty and performance has no sum, But still we are humans, so we mostly like similar things, like rhythm, pace tone color and naturalness affects most of us in a similar matter. (this is maybe one of the most fascinating subjects of them all)
Science and engineering can be used to give you pointers and hints, and can discriminate between what is healthy and what is not, but for performance it nothing but exactly that numbers on a sheet of paper. those numbers tells very very little how it is to drive a super car around a track, unless you are a very experienced race driver and trough experience know how those numbers translate into handling. Numbers tells you very little, but they may leave you with a hint of what has changed from the last version.
Non science cannot be put into numbers, like a painting cant be judged by any numerical standards. beauty and performance has no sum, But still we are humans, so we mostly like similar things, like rhythm, pace tone color and naturalness affects most of us in a similar matter. (this is maybe one of the most fascinating subjects of them all)
Science and engineering can be used to give you pointers and hints, and can discriminate between what is healthy and what is not, but for performance it nothing but exactly that numbers on a sheet of paper. those numbers tells very very little how it is to drive a super car around a track, unless you are a very experienced race driver and trough experience know how those numbers translate into handling. Numbers tells you very little, but they may leave you with a hint of what has changed from the last version.
And doubt that will create the future academic theories, sending the oldest in the abyss of unknowing and superstition
Last edited:
miib, there's a lot of literature out there demonstrating what is audible and what likely isn't when it comes to electronics. I've provided dozens of references.
It's worth reading the literature. It's even more worthwhile to experimentally challenge the things you believe, but that aren't currently backed by any real evidence. That's part and parcel of actual intellectual curiosity.
It's worth reading the literature. It's even more worthwhile to experimentally challenge the things you believe, but that aren't currently backed by any real evidence. That's part and parcel of actual intellectual curiosity.
What seems odd to me is the position that blind testing is fraught with "deal killing" problems while sighted test problems are considered virtually, if not literally, inconsequential.
That, and freely admitting to the subjective nature of sighted tests, but using it to make generalized statements.
That, and freely admitting to the subjective nature of sighted tests, but using it to make generalized statements.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.