opaqueice wrote: > Robin Bowes;220970 Wrote: >> You are completely missing (or ignoring) the point that both >> Patrick & I have made, i.e. that it's not necessarily possible to >> hear subtle differences in short term tests. And that these subtle >> differences can be very important to the overall listening >> experience. > > Did you read what I wrote? That's exactly what my post was about.
Of course I read what you wrote. > My point is that the research shows that people are *better* at > noticing differences when the time interval is short. So for what > you're saying to be valid, that research must be at best misleading. So, you know those Spot-The-Difference competitions? The ones with two photos with certain details airbrushed out where you have to find the differences? Would you notice the differences better if I showed you the picture for 5 seconds or 5 minutes? >> That is why we are saying that short-term A/B testing doesn't offer >> much useful information, and neither does long-term A/B testing >> (audio memory is too short). > > I guess we must mean different things by long-term A/B testing. Last > time I checked it was difficult to determine if you liked A or B > better without listening to both A and B (over whatever time periods > you choose), thereby performing the dreaded A/B comparison. You obviously skipped my last couple of paragraphs - I don't rely on A/B testing. Let me summarise our positions: You maintain it is difficult/impossible to distinguish between digital sources in a scientifically-valid DBT with shortish listening periods. I am saying that it is possible to hear things during extended listening that you would not pickup in a short DBT. You conclude that all/most digital sources are the same. I conclude that DBT testing is not an appropriate test in this instance. Would you agree with this summary? R. _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
