arnyk wrote: > 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. > > 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. > This the lie that is at the core of your position - you know that "trained listeners" are an essential element for any blind test to be successful - it's specified in the ITU BS.116 guidelines for blind testing. The training element is a sighted process. I gave jh901 "advice" not to overlook this training aspect & the examples I gave examples of real ABX tests which further emphasise how essential such isolation & identification of specific audible factors are crucial for a useful & valid ABX test.
> 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?Completely > immaterial to how to properly conduct an ABX test when testing for anything other than grossly audible differences ------------------------------------------------------------------------ jkeny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35192 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
