But Jakob2 has just told us that even in blind tests people can hear something which doesn't exist, such as a difference between two identical stimuli. You have not corrected him. Why is it "twisted logic" for me to allegedly think the same? You seem to have adopted the pose of an opposition politician: you have a duty to oppose, whatever the other side says.mmerrill99 said:
You have made your point: Pavel's tests would not meet the requirements for publication in an international peer-reviewed journal. Neither would the creative prose, deliberate obfuscation and 'white papers' of those trying to sell us things. However, I know which I would attach more weight to.
They're at the top of the page. Or do you mean what do they say to me? I don't think you really want to know....do you?
😀
And they are not intended to be used this way 😀
It is just an attempt to bring a kind of logic to something illogical.
Peer-reviewed are another ones, like
Hrabovský, Milan - Kopecký, Vladimír - Macura, Pavel
Development and structure of Rayleigh type instability in thermal plasma jet.
XXV International Conference on Phenomena in Ionized Gases. Nagoya: Nagoya University, 2001 - (Goto, T.), s. 147-148. ISBN 4-9900915-2-3.
[International Conference on Phenomena in Ionized Gases/25./. Nagoya (JP), 17.07.2001-22.07.2001]
Statistics aren't logical? Whatever do you mean? What could me more logical than to use a scientific method to prove that your preconceived beliefs are true? Or did you mean something else and I'm twisting your words to my own end?
You Pavel, I'm asking what is illogical, whilst simultaneously making my feelings know about how statistics are used. 🙂
This is a misunderstanding. My point was that I try to bring something logical (ABX tests and ABX reports) to something illogical (uncontrolled sighted tests). However, my aspiration with these forum tests is not a publication in a peer-reviewed scientific magazine 🙂
Gotcha. Ok, I hope you are prepared for the rebuttal from the dynamic duo.
ABX test wasn't mandatory though, that's why I thought I could join in.
ABX test wasn't mandatory though, that's why I thought I could join in.
Yes you are right. I did not request the ABX report as a condition and I have been happy with votes and comments even without ABX.. However, to me, more relevant are comments from the members who would be able to provide a positive ABX report.
He doesn't need correction a she knows what he's talking about but you don't seem to. Firstly that's a problem with forced choice tests - you have to choose one even though you may think there is no difference - there's no third option, "don't know". But I believe what he's saying is that when presented with two samples known to be exactly the same that blind testers can often think they hear a difference when there is none - so his point to you was that how could your statement that "blind testing is reality be correct"? You seem to miss these points constantly & I would suggest read what you want in the post 😉
Because it's nothing like the same & you should be able to work that out for yourself
I point out where I see incorrect understanding based on my understanding
Sure & that is your belief system which I am very aware of but you try to impose that belief system on others by trying to elevate such ABX blind tests as more than anecdotes - no different from those who try to impose their sighted listening impressions as more than they are - is thi snot the often quoted objection so called objectivists have against subjectivists? Now that the show is on the other foot............
I have said this before - if people just admitted to this simple then there would not be this constant friction on most audio forums
You made the statement as if it was plain for everyone to see - I wondered what you thought was so obvious?
People have to come to their own conclusions, the results are plain for everyone to see, yes, I thought that was obvious
Ok, if you prefer not to say what conclusions you came to, that's fine but, in the future, please don't level at me the accusation that I don't give a straight answer to questions
Last edited:
If you really want to know, my conclusion is: The distortion caused by the circuit is of negligible consequence.
What was being tested was audibility - it wasn't a test that showed distortion - so what you mean is the audibility of the distortion caused by the circuit is of negligible consequence to you"
But we have no way of knowing if you "imagined" that you heard a difference or if you actually can prove to anyone that you heard a difference, right?
The majority of results are from people who failed to show they could differentiate a known difference thought to be normally audible so I wonder how you can draw any conclusions from those results?
Or are you simply stating your belief which has nothing to do with the results?
Nope.
Nice fallback to the playbook of eristics isn´t it? 😎
Come on man, defend your argument(s) with logic/facts, act in good faith and spare me this eristic nonsense.
@PMA,
Now it seems that you like to use a fact that suits your belief while neglecting the others that don´t. Is this an exercise in "cargo cult" test logic?
Btw, the high proportion in false answers when testing identical stimuli means just:
-) be carefull when using "same/different" tests
-) use a smart way for analysis purposes to use the information generated by the results of the "identical test condition"
P.S: as emphasized in other threads already, first step should be to express a hypothesis/test question that will be examined. One of the succeeding steps will be to choose the test protocol most suitable for the task.
Last edited:
Yes, and others I conclude.
True, I thought I made it clear I couldn't prove anything
Quite easily, I don't see the problem with my conclusion, isn't it obvious given the results?
No, my conclusion is based on the available results, I didn't have any notion beforehand how audible it would be
@scottjoplin - as you say others can draw their own conclusions based on logic, not their beliefs.
So far you have defied any logic (simply restating a statement which is logically incorrect does not make it valid - if people can't hear known differences then they can't test for unknown differences - next you'll try to convince us that people with diminished sight can be used to judge TV display quality) so I can only conclude your bias is so strong that even logic will not displace it (that is really nothing new or startling - most closely held beliefs are impervious to logic)
So far you have defied any logic (simply restating a statement which is logically incorrect does not make it valid - if people can't hear known differences then they can't test for unknown differences - next you'll try to convince us that people with diminished sight can be used to judge TV display quality) so I can only conclude your bias is so strong that even logic will not displace it (that is really nothing new or startling - most closely held beliefs are impervious to logic)
Iow, training is a crucial factor in this kind of tests, unfortunately in most cases nobody tells the people that they have to train and they have no sample for training purposes. Checking of reproduction systems properties is usually (and as seen in this thread) an important point.
Could be, could be not. Training might/can lead to tremendous sensitiviy in such tests (under such conditions) , therefore it is important to keep an eye on external validity. Which means, that we are often interested in things that are of importance for the "normal/daily/casual" listening.
Under special test conditions people might be able to constantly spot differences that are nevertheless completely irrelevant for this mentioned "normal" listening condition.
So, there is a lot of evidence that people (with high probability) will underperform when starting doing "blind tests" .
The acronym "ABX" denotes a specific variant of a "blind test" . There are a lot of other variants/protocols and comparisons between these different protocols (testing the same sensory difference) that results under the "ABX protocol" tend to be worse.
So "ABX conditions" means under the specific conditions of an ABX - test.