In Reply to: Changing your ground again. posted by Pat D on October 18, 2010 at 07:22:14:
The web page lacks basic detail. If one submitted this to a high school science lab back I went to school one would get an incomplete.
One needs complete documentation of the entire equipment set up, starting at the source material used for the tests, and including some kind of diagram of room. Listeners should be identified and described by experience. Other experimental parameters need be noted, e.g. setting of all control knobs on the equipment, physical location of ABX box, wiring lengths of all cabling, SPLs at the listening position(s), power levels out of the amplifier, etc. With this material it would be possible to begin talking about "evidence". Without it, results must be considered "anecdotal". Perhaps this material is available in someone's attic. Perhaps not.
This material would be evidence relating to what the listeners heard on one occasion. Additional testing and evidence would be required before this evidence would have value in a broader context. (This would include, for example, evidence that the test setup was sensitive to the matters to be decided and testing to qualify the listener and verify that their hearing was normal and they had been appropriately trained.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Evidence? - Tony Lauck 07:50:25 10/18/10 (0)