So how is audio DBT any different than being involved in real clinical trials and how is someone having a job in a research facility that performs said trails make him an armchair quarter-back? You make it sound like there is some magic in audio tests that is above an beyond that which serious research requires?
Yup, I'm dying to see his body of work, too, Bill. Surely the details of doing a audio test are different to the work I'm associated with, but the question was about stats and how hypocritical some folk are about not being thorough themselves when calling other folks out. There was a second, separate thought on the difficulty of definitely saying what humanity can and cannot hear, which was discussed as nigh impossible from the breadth of of the trial and lack of interest.
But the stats and general knowledge of experimental design isn't super foreign. I don't know how I have even criticized DBT, just that the term certainly doesn't encompass the scope of what was originally proposed.
But the stats and general knowledge of experimental design isn't super foreign. I don't know how I have even criticized DBT, just that the term certainly doesn't encompass the scope of what was originally proposed.
Last edited:
Most of lab / scientific researches are already done for audio. We already know the limits of human hearing, i.e. audible frequency range, Fletcher-Munson Curves, audible distortion levels.
If you want to market a new drug to the public, you'd better make sure it won't harm or kill people. There's a huge liability attached to it. It's very different from audio DBT to see if some expensive boutique amp sounds different from a cheap receiver. It's apple and orange.
BTW, have you ever done an audio DBT?
Then you can try it yourself, talk to others who have done it or read about those who have done and documented it online.
Or, shock horror you could answer the honest question I asked? You know, like a civilised human being?
So we've found someone who hasn't done any himself, hasn't read any of the literature to understand the landscape and the limitations of many tests, and gives complete non answers to anything addressed to him.
So evenharmonics, where can we find your handiwork?
So evenharmonics, where can we find your handiwork?
🙄 Another odd response. So, after responding to me with such pompous @$$ posts like these,
you are now asking me to help you understand something about audio DBT as I would do for someone I care? If I tell you the word I want right now, it would violate the forum rule so it's omitted.
One thing I'll tell you though, I did participate in level matched amp and DAC DBTs.
No, I'm asking you to explain this thing that is so completely "obvious" to you that you seem so incredibly reticent to explain. It makes it appear that you have no idea what you're actually talking about by remaining so utterly nebulous about your objections to people's posts. You can only get away with that for so long before you actually have to prove some legitimacy.
So let me give you a hint: DBT means double blind testing. That's it. Can we agree on at least this definition? Blinded experiment - Wikipedia
So that says nothing about your experimental design endpoints (what do you actually *want* to find out), how you execute that double blinded testing (forced pairing, ABX, triangle). So how many study subjects, how many trials per subject, preselection of your constituents, training protocol, et cetera, et cetera.
So rather than accuse me of being a pompous ___, how about you actually provide content?
So let me give you a hint: DBT means double blind testing. That's it. Can we agree on at least this definition? Blinded experiment - Wikipedia
So that says nothing about your experimental design endpoints (what do you actually *want* to find out), how you execute that double blinded testing (forced pairing, ABX, triangle). So how many study subjects, how many trials per subject, preselection of your constituents, training protocol, et cetera, et cetera.
So rather than accuse me of being a pompous ___, how about you actually provide content?
In post #12069, Evenharmonics said, "We already know the limits of human hearing, i.e. ... audible distortion levels."
His understanding appears in some ways to be contrary to what Dr. Earl Geddes said about the top 95% of the population.
Since Evenharmonics claims to know more about hearing tests than many other people he has rudely criticized over a long period of time, it doesn't seem inappropriate to finally call him out on it.
His understanding appears in some ways to be contrary to what Dr. Earl Geddes said about the top 95% of the population.
Since Evenharmonics claims to know more about hearing tests than many other people he has rudely criticized over a long period of time, it doesn't seem inappropriate to finally call him out on it.
We know the limits of audible distortion only under the specific conditions used, including the specific equipment of which internal distortion is probably not considered in the reports. So under different test conditions and equipment, differences can occur. We know that people designing amps are striving for vanishing low distortion, such as the Mod86 in this forum. People just have different understanding based on their own experience.
Giving specific conditions is beneath the "maybe, maybe not" or "your equipment isn't resolving enough" of the fairy dust worshippers?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.