jkeny wrote: > > I really don't get your position - I thought that an ABX test should > ONLY be entered into if a difference is identified? >
This is a place I've been many times, so I've had the opportunity to think it through. The usual purpose of a listening test is to determine whether there is an audible difference. Not being particularly naive, we know that various forms of imperections and reproduction errors may exist at various levels in real world audio gear, and that their audibility under various conditions are not necessarily known. They may be audible, they may not. Therefore any presumed rule that an ABX test should ONLY be entered into if a difference is identified would be illogical and very inhibiting to the pursuit of Science. > > Now, part of your ABX testing is the ability for the user to "train" > himself by using "sighted" listening prior to the test. In other words, > using Foobar ABX we can repeatedly play file A or file B (both of which > we know the identities of) & jump between tracks at any point. Is this > not intended to allow the user to isolate & identify differences that > they can reliably identify "sighted" before continuing to the blind part > of the test? Many options are provided for the listener in ABX, but which ones he uses are ultimately up to him and/or the one who organizes the experiment. A and B do provide the potential of a sighted evaluation, but you have already been privy to a number of discussions where it was said that the listener "ran the X's" and did not refer to A or B, right? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=96407 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
