cuibono said:"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?
...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.
cuibono said:"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?
Is this what you're looking for?
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.
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
@ 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
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
- Home
- General Interest
- Everything Else
- Anyone have Jan 1987 Stereo Review "Do All Amplifiers.."