aubuti wrote:
> I'd be interested to see the science behind it, because there is a
> subtle difference in the methodology. But either way you're picking the
> odd one out. The only difference with ABX is that the randomness is
> limited to third sample (X). You're always getting either ABA or ABB
JerryS wrote:
> Lots of references to ABX testing in this forum. Is there any
> theoretical reason why this should be more robust than triangle testing?
I'd be interested to see the science behind it, because there is a
subtle difference in the methodology. But either way you're picking the
odd
Julf wrote:
>
>
> Lots of references to ABX testing in this forum. Is there any
> theoretical reason why this should be more robust than triangle testing?
> i.e. picking the odd one out from 3 unknowns played in random order,
> two are A and one is B or one is A and two are B. Somehow, this m
netchord wrote:
> your title is very odd. how does one apply definitively objective
> criteria to an inherently subjective phenomenon?
It is subjective, and it isn't. You can use objective criteria to show
that the resulting sound waves in your listening room are exactly the
same, but how you h
Hi net chord,
You may think you can hear a difference but can you prove it? this
thread tries to proves you can't. You can try and prove you can by doing
a double blind test and publishing the results. Are you up for it?
CW
--
your title is very odd. how does one apply definitively objective
criteria to an inherently subjective phenomenon?
netchord's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21002
View this thread: http://forums.s
Curious...
Has anyone tried any measurements on gear with ModWright's tube analogue
output stage? Would love to see what happened to the noise level and
frequency response...
Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.
