Certainly best upgrade to my systemmost expensive as well, but worth every penny.
Did you run a DBT on that...?
Never mind....
You were talking about "bear oder JC oder Jakob2" would complain in case of a null result and therefore i cited the ITU-R BS.1116-3 to emphasize that _every_ experimenter should be extremely careful before accepting a "null" as valid. Strongly biased experimenters often forget about that .....
You said:
"You are correct about the supposed GE crowd skewing the initial result, however I did not assume such a crowd was necessary part of the test. Just regular people randomly selected,..."
Therefore i mentioned that you should first clearly state a research hypothesis that will be tested. "regular people randomly selected..." would more be appropriate if you are looking for an estimate of the underlying general population parameter (hopefully quite precise and therefore calling for real "randomeness" and a quite large sample). Otoh if you are testing for the information if at least one listener will be able to perceive a difference that calls for a different group of listeners.
That´s an astonishing comment given the fact that science knows that different test protocols rely on different mental processes and that the ABX format is more involving than, for example, an AB protocol.
But some people just love the procrustes like approach, provided the results fit their beliefs....
Not if he was right. And he was.
JC can't even write a single sentence without trying to mislead us with his excuses. What does a blind or otherwise test have to do with 'very marginal sources and speakers'?
Sad.
Jan
(It's hard to understand why anyone can and would refuse a test that verifies one's aural discerning capabilities. Single valid answer should be obvious to the rational of mind)
Careful on that one. There are four transitions and the sound of each can easily be memorized.
Jan, as stated before, science knows that the ABX protocol is more involving than an AB-test even for single parameter tests. That a test for multidimensional differences is even more involving should be self-explanatory.
So i don´t understand why a description of difficulties one has had during a specific test protocol should be ridiculed as search for excuses.
There are good reasons why some people accomodate better to specific test procedures than others.
As there is no magic in the ABX-protocol there is no need to use it, as there exists other protocols that might fit better.
Of course otoh that is no reason to condemn the ABX, but an experimenter should be aware of the fact that participants might need longer training under test conditions to get useful (means correct) results.
And any experimenter should ask himself if the ABX is really needed as it tests for a result that is in reality not so much interesting. (people quite often are looking for something better not just for something different)
http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/in-the-media/files/Briefing_The Fat Lie.pdf
https://www.homemadebyyou.co.uk/art...population-in-under-calorie-reporting-shocker
John Hick usually looks at science as a laughing matter : the more the words, the less common sense.
I don't see the connection between useful and correct here unless the hypothesis is that everything sounds the same. Using a speaker with larger than normal impedance variation and 10 meter cables I would expect some to sound very different in direct ABX that information alone is not useful to me.
I case I have not been clear, I'm primarily interested in debunking inaccurate or fraudulent claims. I'm sure that with careful listening (especially when pushing power limits) Pass Labs amps and say Bryston amps would probably sound different. They both have a loyal fan base, a good business, and don't engage in questionable claims or advertising.
Last edited:
I have tried very hard to discern between switching direction and equipment, but so far I cannot hear a difference to give me a clue. Not to say that someone else could not. I have a few guys over next Saturday, let's see if they can do better.
Jan
So you obviously didn't get what JC wrote, what SY commented to and my post.
Let me ask you, if someone says:
'I would like to clarify what happens to me in an ABX double-blind test. First, I do really lousy with very marginal sources and speakers. I just hear compromised sound, and small differences between amps just don't seem significant.'
How is that not searching for excuses - even worse, deliberately misleading readers? Would you take such a person serious? Would you even bother to read the rest of the drivel?
Jan
Last edited:
I should have said in some cases, the box I listened to at an AES meeting was easy (ruined their fun).
I´m a bit on loss. Is there more to it than "science is prone to errors" and "be carefull when concluding from scientific results" ?
I´m glad that you expanded a bit; this sort of statements alone usually just provokes equally unfruitful comments.
Hm, let see....
I read it as if JC firstly says that he can´t......with marginal sources and speakers.
And secondly he says, even if the quality of sources and speakers (and most probably room acoustics mains etc.) is on par, he had difficulties .....
Is that interpretation really unreasonable ?
Wrt to the first point, although it depends on the hypothesis under test- is/was a check for appropriate reproduction quality really always included?
The second point is related to the differences of the various test regimes, as already pointed out.
P.S. SY uses constantly the phrase "ears only" and that seems surprisingly not to bother you, although it is a purposely choosen misnomer and misleading as it can get, because something like "ears only" does not exist and SY knows that.
"double blind test" in contrast is a technical term with well defined meaning.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.