cliveb;236353 Wrote: > My initial impression upon reading that sentence was that you did not > consider the tests as having showed anything. I am sure that is not > what you intended people to think. I would go so far as to say that the > results are *very* significant, in that they demonstrate that the (small > but measurable) effects were not audible. >
Sorry - that wasn't very clear! I meant statistically significant, as in: "None of the results in the paper demonstrated a statistically significant correlation between different versions of the same CD and subjective rankings of sound quality." I agree the results are significant in the more ordinary sense of the term. EDIT - actually looking back, where do you see these small but measurable effects? The only plots comparing two versions of the same disc are 11 and 12, and to my eye they're identical. Is there something I'm not seeing? -- opaqueice ------------------------------------------------------------------------ opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=39093 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
