"Do all amplifiers sound the same", the infamous amp comparison? I'd love to read it, and maybe some other folks on the board. Anyone want to share?
cuibono said:
...Ever been in a library...? Arlington should be big enough to have one... 😉
One detail I seem to recall from 20 years ago is that a cheapo pioneer receiver had the same short circuit current as a Mark Levinson Amp 😉 Something like 12.5 amps.
Thanks guys - yes, I think I have been in a library once, to use the bathroom. 😀 I assumed that very few libraries would have an old obscure mag, but I will of course check. I had seen the link to the guy selling photocopies, I had just figured it was likely someone here had a copy. If not, I'll spring for the $6.
Thanks very much Andy_c! Great reading.
Now I remember the the test, because of the Magnapans.
There are a few technical questions that are not answered for me, but still a great test.
I'll reserve comment for the amp thread.
Now I remember the the test, because of the Magnapans.
There are a few technical questions that are not answered for me, but still a great test.
I'll reserve comment for the amp thread.
I read this article, and have a question for those who are less statistics-challenged than I am.
In one comparison, it appears that the percentage of correct answers was 25 or so. That means that 75% of the answers were wrong. Does that in itself not mean anything? If a chance answer would be right 50% of the time, and I have it wrong 75% of the time, isn't that some kind of pointer? Don't know, maybe this is all non-sense, and if so I shut up.
Jan Didden
In one comparison, it appears that the percentage of correct answers was 25 or so. That means that 75% of the answers were wrong. Does that in itself not mean anything? If a chance answer would be right 50% of the time, and I have it wrong 75% of the time, isn't that some kind of pointer? Don't know, maybe this is all non-sense, and if so I shut up.
Jan Didden
No, that is significant. It would be worth digging around a bit to nail down why that happened.
edit: This result happened for the smallest sample set. I'd guess that it's noise, but I would have wanted more trials for that particular comparison.
edit: This result happened for the smallest sample set. I'd guess that it's noise, but I would have wanted more trials for that particular comparison.
@ Janneman,
as SY pointed out- it could be significant.
Probability to get right answers by chance in these sort of tests is p=0.5 .
If a listener is right on every trial he reaches a probability of p=1 .
So, normally in the analysis we are looking for p>0.5, but if somebody is wrong on every sample he reaches a probability of p=0, and it maybe that he hears a difference in every trial but is unable to give the right answer.
Results like the one you´ve described should in every case get a further examination.
An interesting reading on this topic are Les Leventhals articles in the JAES. He creates the term `Statistical significant poor performance´ for these results.
But unfortunately his articles are a bit hard to read for the stastics challenged. 🙂
But i think well written so definetely worth a try.
Wishes
as SY pointed out- it could be significant.
Probability to get right answers by chance in these sort of tests is p=0.5 .
If a listener is right on every trial he reaches a probability of p=1 .
So, normally in the analysis we are looking for p>0.5, but if somebody is wrong on every sample he reaches a probability of p=0, and it maybe that he hears a difference in every trial but is unable to give the right answer.
Results like the one you´ve described should in every case get a further examination.
An interesting reading on this topic are Les Leventhals articles in the JAES. He creates the term `Statistical significant poor performance´ for these results.
But unfortunately his articles are a bit hard to read for the stastics challenged. 🙂
But i think well written so definetely worth a try.
Wishes
- Status
- Not open for further replies.