In Reply to: Re: Yes, but posted by Jitter_by_Coffee on November 11, 2002 at 18:47:15:
>>All the tests I've participated in did not require trainingI find this to be analagous to saying that drug trials do not require a control group. Training involves many things, one of them is testing the listener for the ability to discern known JNDs. If, for example, a listener can not realibly hear known, scientifically proven differences about say 10Khz, then using that individual to test for suspected differences in that area would be pointless.
>>The whole purpose of rapid switching is to create that "proper stimulus"
No, the purpose of rapid switching is to avoid short term memory issues and has nothing to do with the stimulus. The test tone or material would be the stimulus and must be designed to test where suspected differences lie. Again, if that is above 10Khz as an example, then playing tones in the 1Khz area or bass instruments would be pointless.
What you're describing is surely fine as a casual test to help you determine gross differences, but I wouldn't call it scientific or in line with accepted methodologies.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Your tests are meaningless.... - Rod M 08:03:23 11/12/02 (16)
- Where was I. - Jitter_by_Coffee 21:08:13 11/13/02 (2)
- Re: Where was I. - Rod M 07:59:14 11/14/02 (1)
- Re: Where was I. - Jitter_by_Coffee 09:04:05 11/14/02 (0)
- Re: Your tests are meaningless.... - eico1 20:11:04 11/12/02 (11)
- That's what training is for, to learn how to use the equipment. - jj 18:02:47 11/13/02 (10)
- Sorry, that's wrong. That's PART of what training is for. - jj 18:03:59 11/13/02 (9)
- Re: Sorry, that's wrong. That's PART of what training is for. - Jitter_by_Coffee 20:49:18 11/13/02 (8)
- LISTENER TRAINING is what I'm talking about. - jj 21:32:35 11/13/02 (7)
- Re: LISTENER TRAINING is what I'm talking about. - Jitter_by_Coffee 09:20:05 11/14/02 (6)
- Doggonit, I hate computers sometimes..... - Jitter_by_Coffee 09:24:17 11/14/02 (5)
- Err, to be clear... - jj 17:56:59 11/14/02 (4)
- Re: Err, to be clear... - Jitter_by_Coffee 09:26:35 11/15/02 (3)
- Err. No. If we're talking about the most sensitive tests... - jj 18:16:07 11/15/02 (2)
- Re: Err. No. If we're talking about the most sensitive tests... - Jitter_by_Coffee 07:03:03 11/18/02 (1)
- Really? What's your controls and their result? - jj 09:36:38 11/18/02 (0)
- Uhm, sorry, but yes, they are. - Jitter_by_Coffee 15:51:42 11/12/02 (0)