|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
206.255.209.123
In Reply to: RE: I appreciate your comments... posted by Barabajagal on August 02, 2014 at 21:34:29
illustrate his point, Steve. :)
Follow Ups:
I'm not in any sort of denial. I said he's got a good starting point. But at this point it's still just a starting point. As jj used to say, getting positive results is easy. What he meant by this is that there are many things that can conspire to give false positives. And I'm not saying that is the case here. Only that I think we need to go a bit further down the road before any safe conclusions can be made. I have no vested interest in either outcome. I just don't want to see this turn into "Someone passed a double blind test! It's been proved!"
Who on earth could possibly care?
.
> I just don't want to see this turn into "Someone passed a double blind
> test! It's been proved!"
But it _has_ been proved. That's what the statistical analysis of these
double-blind tests states. That of the three pairs of files that were
subject to the testing, it can be stated that the possibility of there
not being an audible difference was statistically insignificant. Remember
your statistics classes: that if the identification was not statistically
significant, it doesn't mean there was no difference, only that if there
was a difference, it could not be detected under the specific conditions
of that test. Thus one positive test outweighs a million tests that
produced a null result.
The next question is to examine why a difference was detected between
these pairs of files. But the fact that there is a difference is now
incontrovertible.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Hi John:
So the subjectivist position could be summed up thus: If there is no audible difference the fault lies with the methodology, not the listening panel. However, if there is an audible difference then the methodology is sound. Is that about it?
The question arises: Can you envision a scenario in which proper methodology is employed, but yields no audible difference?
In the interest of intellectual honesty, it would be refreshing if both camps could agree the methodology to be employed is sound **prior** to beginning the test, and then let the chips fall where they may. That way, subjectivists are not given the convenient luxury of an escape clause. Perhaps sometimes there’s just no there there when it comes to demonstrable differences regardless of the methodology being utilized. In any event, it’s refreshing to see you so enamored with the efficacy of a double blind test. :)
> So the subjectivist position could be summed up thus: If there is no
> audible difference the fault lies with the methodology, not the listening
> panel. However, if there is an audible difference then the methodology is
> sound. Is that about it?
No. All I am saying is that in a test where you need to apply formal
statistical analysis, it is impossible to prove a negative. Of course,
repeated tests where the results indicate no difference from what would
be achieved by chance could be interpreted as circumstantial evidence that
there is no audible difference. But that is a subjective judgment, not a
scientific one.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Suppose the experiment shows sufficiently strong results that one doesn't need not worry about the statistics. This will only show that the two files sounded different when played back on available equipment. This does not show that the lower resolution format is audibly inferior, because it is possible that the difference was caused by a poor format conversion. In addition, and this is a little harder to take, it may be that the differences that people hear are not actually on either of the two files, but are caused by differential artifacts in the playback chains and with better equipment the actual differences would not have been audible.
I will be very surprised if the usual die-hard "everything sounds the same" people change their tune. They are on record as sticking to their guns even when their own study shows differences exist (as was the case with amplifiers).
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
> Suppose the experiment shows sufficiently strong results that one doesn't
> need not worry about the statistics.
An ABX test mandates statistical analysis of the results when it is used to
examine the audibility of a small difference.
> This will only show that the two files sounded different when played back
> on available equipment. This does not show that the lower resolution
> format is audibly inferior...
An ABX test says nothing about quality or preference, only that a
difference was detected.
> it is possible that the difference was caused by a poor format conversion.
That is possible, or even probable, according to some engineers.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Big whoop.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: