|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: No training? posted by E-Stat on November 13, 2002 at 14:57:58:
"Great. What then are you trying to prove?"What are YOU trying to prove? All you seem to want to do is make useless arguments.
Follow Ups:
Please stay on topic. His point is reasonable. If the test is invalid, then the conclusions drawn from it are equally erroneous.
I would if it weren't for the assinine Joe Sixpack comments. Go harrang someone else.
Please substitute "John Doe" for Joe Sixpack. Is that OK? The point I was trying to make is that by using the average untrained ear you will do little other than to prove that most folks cannot hear (or care to, for that matter) the kinds of audible differences we are discussing.
Thanks.
Thanks for the clarification E, let's all keep it respectful.Anyway, I thought this quote from a link that Jitter posted was applicable and clearly points out the value of training.
We measured discrimination thresholds of 13 to 32 naive listeners in a variety of conditions during a pretest and again, 2 weeks later, during a posttest. Between those two tests, we trained a subset of listeners 1 h per day for 9 days on a single ILD or ITD condition. Listeners improved on both ILD and ITD discrimination. Improvement was initially rapid for both cue types and appeared to generalize broadly across conditions, indicating conceptual or procedural learning.....
Yeah, but if you actually look at the data set provided, it doesn't really bear this out.
If the goal of such a test is to evaluate the ultimate performance of a high resolution component, then any listeners used in such a test need to have an educated ear.Likewise, if you were trying to evaluate the ultimate performance of a Ferrari, then you need trained drivers. Having a school bus driver and your Uncle Buck to do the testing will reveal little of a high performance car's envelope.
Seems to me you raise an interesting point. Auto magazines regularly print comments of professional drivers on handling capabilities of automobiles. No one ever thinks to suggest that there is no value to such comments because they weren't performed under "blind" conditions (for obvious reasons).Yet it may be no more practical for an audio reviewer to test a particular piece of equipment under review with similar units the reviewer has heard in the past. Yet, audio reviewers are often criticized for writing reviews of sighted auditions.
I'm currious as to where people see possible distinctions between the two.
an apparently unwritten rule by which the DBT proponents always fail to state the equipment (amplifiers/speakers/etc) used in the test. One such inmate comes to mind who chooses a characteristic "mysterious" style wherein he continually fails to state his point of reference and refuses direct questions as to what he has heard. He prefers instead to hide behind "I didn't say yes or no to that" sort of posts. I was rather suprised, however, when I followed a DBT link posted by him that did break the "components used" silence. What I discovered is that the tester used patently mediocre "pro" gear for testing where he stated that "it is assumed that the speakers are phase coherent". Yeah, let's (attempt to) draw conclusive tire performance determinations of the Pirelli P Zero on a Hyundai!I have yet to see any credible test where the tester:
A) Identified the components in the reproduction chain
AND
B) Used anything beyond mediore
I would be pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong.
But then again, the unwritten rule against such disclosure may well prevent that from occurring.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: