Home Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Propeller Head Plaza ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

Let me refresh you memory

Here are four such examples quoted from your posts.

DUMB DOWN # 1 - Make the tests easier to conduct, not more accurate.

When asked about running multiple subjects simultaneouly, you said:

You'll never get satisfactoy statistical result without enough participants. You'll never be able to run enough participants in your lifetime without some other methodology.

So let's not bother with considering the problems with this approach, shall we? We'll go with quantity instead of quality.

DUMB DOWN # 2 - Utilize simplistic static tones as test criteria

You also have to understand that the simpler a test the better... It is quite possible to make a test signal so complex that a room full of Cray computers can't properly analyse it.

Fine. Those tests are entirely relevant for those souls who spend their leisure time listening to test tones. Does that fully characterize the performance differences when reproducing musical content on high resolution gear. I think not.

DUMB DOWN # 3 - Use testers unable to discern fine differences

This one is simply amazing:

All the tests I've participated in did not require training.

I guess it all depends upon what you are trying to prove. If you are trying to determine the audible characteristics of a family radio with the general populace, then this probably works fine. If, on the other hand, you are trying to establish ultimate audible effects of the highest resolution audio equipment, then you must have trained listeners.

Do you know how the suspension designs of exotic performance cars are finalized? While the initial modeling is done by computer they then create prototypes and perform exhaustive experiments using professional test drivers. I can imagine the laughter by Ferrari or Porsche, etc. if you were to suggest that these changes be dialed in by some guy off the street.

DUMB DOWN # 3 - Use completely unfamiliar musical material as the comparative reference

This one came as a surprise:

I suppose you also think that it is okay for the participant to be familiar with the test material,

Absolutely! Here again, what is your motive? It takes me a couple of weeks to fully grasp the musical content of a new album and explore all the nuances of a fine recording. Flash uncontrolled sections of new material at someone and indeed they are not going to hear a lot of diferences.

DUMB DOWN # 4 - Use mediocre equipment that is not "the most accurate audio equipment available"

As long as the test was conducted with the exact same set of speakers in the exact same environment, then the "flaws" are consistent throught the testing and therefore have a minimal impact.

Those flaws present are capable of completely masking the results. If you try to measure the ultimate cornering capability of a Dodge Viper on a set of $100 Pep Boys tires, you are not going to get an accurate picture of that vehicle's performance envelope.

It is easy to understand why you or your testers believe that there are few audible differences based upon how you've crippled the tests!

rw

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  K&K Audio / Lundahl Transformers   [ K&K Audio / Lundahl Transformers Forum ]

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
You can not post to an archived thread.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]