Home
AudioAsylum Trader
Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

For Sale Ads

FAQ / News / Events

 

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.

You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login


Login to access features only available to registered Asylum Inmates.
    By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username:

The Name that you picked or by default, your email.
Forgot Moniker?

 
 

Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".

Password:    

Forgot Password?

 Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:  
Your Email:  
Subject:  

Message Comments

   

Original Message

RE: So, DBT audio judgement is more reliable than sighted?

Posted by Analog Scott on November 26, 2016 at 18:05:18:

"Blind testing as commonly practiced tends to produce false negatives (ie,
not finding a difference when one exists), whereas sighted testing tends
to produce false positives (identifying a difference when there isn't one).
The choice between these two imperfect scenarios is subjective."

I suppose this very much depends on what "commonly practiced" is refering to. I wouldn't have the data needed to even guess at what is "commonly practiced." If we are talking about what is commonly practiced by the fundamentalist objectivists in the form of ABX DBTs it would not surprise me at all that this is the case. I have yet to see any of these tests show that they did anything to either control same sound biases or calibrate the sensitivity of the test using known audible differences. But that just shows that these dorks are actually anti-science posers pretending to be all about science when they are really all about their ego driven agenda. OTOH if we are talking about real scientific research in human auditory perception that leads to peer reviewed published studies in actual medical and scientific journals I would suspect that the incidence of false nulls would be fairly low. And of course in the world of real science researchers know that this is a potential pitfall in any given test and treat the results and draw their conclusions with that in mind. Now if we are talking about the sort of blind auditions I personally do I don't think there would be many false nulls but they are a possibility. The thing is I don't bother testing for differences. I go straight to testing for preferences and most of the things I compare are not particularly contraversial as to whether or not they sound the same or different.