In Reply to: RE: Finally, a breath of fresh air. posted by green heron on March 13, 2015 at 13:28:35:
The medical community was forced down this road to eliminate quackery...
There are, however, significant differences between medical trials and audio trials:
1. In medicine the training, experience and test-taking abilities of the subjects do NOT affect the results of the test.
In audio they all DO. So it is as much of a test of the listeners than differences between the components alone. Harman, for example, trains their speaker evaluators who use the "shuffler". Follow Sean Olive's blog for details.
2. In medicine, the participants don't compare anything. There are administered either the the control or a placebo.
In audio, one must make a forced choice between two different DUT.
3. In medicine the tests have been scientifically validated for this use.
In blind audio component comparisons, there has been NO validation. The sensitivity of the tests for different sonic parameters has not been determined. That's because the sensitivity changes with each subject (see #1).
For some reason, in high-end audio, there are arguments against the scientific method.
Only to the application of pseudo-science. Lack of controls and myriad assumptions are regularly made with them. Such as the farcical Meyer-Moron test on audibility of high resolution recordings.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Finally, a breath of fresh air. - E-Stat 08:39:01 03/14/15 (6)
- BRAVO E-STAT! - thetubeguy1954 17:30:36 03/18/15 (2)
- Truth be told - E-Stat 17:42:46 03/18/15 (1)
- RE: Truth be told - thetubeguy1954 17:55:25 03/18/15 (0)
- RE: Finally, a breath of fresh air. - green heron 18:08:02 03/15/15 (1)
- RE: Finally, a breath of fresh air. - E-Stat 18:35:46 03/15/15 (0)
- RE: Finally, a breath of fresh air. - morricab 13:00:08 03/15/15 (0)