Let me try to keep it simple for you - Yes, I have participated in audio DBT - what are you talking about?
If you are trying to make some point about controls then make it, otherwise not interested in your questioning.
Without knowing what and how the test was controlled, how would I make any points about it? Lets hear your audio DBT experience.
I made a post in reply to Waly about the reasons for why controls should be used in ABX testing which you replied "You've never participated in audio DBT, right?"
So what have you got to say about this? It appears you have nothing to say about this but I might be wrong?
Mr. Even... saved me posting the same. Your post clearly shows you have zero experience with the theory and practice of ABX testing. Your other comment
only confirms you have no clue about test plans, hypothesis to test, etc... and choose to talk about ABX testing as about comparing McDonald's vs. Wimpy's burgers.
Instead of hand-waving, try to be specific with your criticism - what exactly do you object to in my reply to you about controls in blind testing?
Your request to Jakob to specify some authoritative reference regarding controls in blind testing shows that you have never read the standards body recommendations for running blind testing
Last edited:
Try to be specific about your audio DBT experience and I'll say something (good or bad) about it. So lets hear it.
Huge majority of people from all over the planet say they can hear sound between 20Hz to 20KHz. Yes, that is good enough.
I've given you the reasons for controls in DBTs & you have nothing to say about it - that's fine, move on!
waly asked Jakob for an authoritative reference for the use of controls within blind tests - I gave the reasons for such controls but I left out the references for him to answer
"what someone wrote in a book" is a standards body recommendations for how blind testing should be done - not just a someone & not just a book!!
But yea, let's ignore these standards
Hey let's ignore all of the science behind perceptual testing
Let's have fun!!
Hi-ho, hi-ho, it's off to work we go!!
Maybe it´s that you missed the point in the usage of this control as the listeners do _not_ listen for a level difference, but for a difference in _sound_ .
They _don´t_ _identify_ the small level difference but they _notice_ a difference in _sound_ events.
And to identify differences or express preferences for/in sound events is exactly what experimenters do ask for in this kind of tests.
Just as a reminder, as stated quite often earlier what makes things a bit more complicated in perceptual audio evaluation is that the same impression perceptionwise is triggered (or more precisely can be triggered) by different technical reasons. A good example for this is the impression of "roughness" ; it gests even more complex in cases of multidimensional perceptual differences.
There aren´t so many ways to learn about the pitfalls of sensory testing, keeping up with the published material and do some experiments with other/different people will truly open up a new world. 🙂
Are you sure about the "same logic" argument?
Have a standards body recommended book is a great way to promote your product and make money out of people who need to be told how to come to decisions.
As Jakob has said there are things to learn when doing perceptual testing that has validity - it's not just a simple case of remove knowledge of what's being tested as is often suggested/insisted on audio forums.
It's ironic that you should say "people who need to be told how to come to decisions." - isn't that what the whole ABX blind testing forum religion is all about??
If you are going to insist on telling people to do perceptual testing at least learn something about how it should be done correctly or remain in the land of Disney...... "hi-ho, hi-ho, it's off to work we go....>"
I think it could well be, I also don't think I'm guilty of promoting any kind of religion including ABX blind testing
- Status
- Not open for further replies.