In Reply to: DBT's work for audio. Period. There is no doubt posted by jj on July 24, 1999 at 20:40:27:
<< The claim "DBT's don't work for audio" is so wrong, especially in the face of the evidence gone over so many times already, that I must simply regard the false, demonstrably wrong statement as a willfull, offensive
provocation. >>JJ, I agree that DBTs, in theory, ought to work for audio. But the statement that they DON'T is actually quite true. DBT is a procedural methodology designed solely to control for POSSIBLE bias in perceptual discrimination studies. That's ALL it is. Its effectiveness in doing so ASSUMES that the other aspects of the study are properly designed and implemented. It is this later assumption that is simply NOT a valid one when one evaluates the studies producing the "evidence" that you so boldly proclaim demonstrates that the statement is wrong.
<< ...there is simply no evidence that ANYTHING works better, or even as well, to determine the existance of small audible differences. >>
Again, DBT is really just a red-herring. Common sense with a modicum of knowledge of scientific methodology is all that one needs to determine that the studies you cite are woefully inadequate to provide "evidence" of anything. DBT is a necessary but not a sufficient methodological procedure for investigating "differences." If the other aspects of the study are not properly designed and implemented, the DBT procedure will never make up for such deficiencies--such a study is by definition invalid and would provide no useful or meaningful data to support or refute any hypothesis.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: DBT's work for audio. Period. There is no doubt - jfp 22:41:57 07/24/99 (25)
- Re: DBT's work for audio? - Dan Bonhomme 15:35:11 07/26/99 (3)
- Re: DBT's work for audio? - Pat D 17:14:24 07/28/99 (0)
- I agree on one point..... - Rod M 08:50:45 07/25/99 (5)
- Re: I agree on one point..... - jfp 14:23:08 07/25/99 (4)
- Re: I agree on one point..... - Rod M 08:59:56 07/26/99 (0)
- experimental methods - Rob Bertrando 16:09:40 07/25/99 (2)
- well said, jfp - Nick K 08:07:59 07/25/99 (11)
- Re: well said, jfp - jfp 16:54:27 07/26/99 (9)
- Re: well said, jfp - john curl 23:37:40 07/27/99 (0)
- Valid Studies - jj 22:23:47 07/27/99 (7)
- ACK. Dyslexia strikes - jj 08:10:06 07/29/99 (0)
- Re: What Valid Studies? - jfp 20:55:23 07/28/99 (5)
- Um, you can't judge preference - jj 08:04:17 07/29/99 (4)
- Re: Um, you can't judge preference - jfp 10:13:39 07/29/99 (3)
- JFP RESORTS TO MISSTATING POSITIONS AGAIN - jj 12:42:26 07/29/99 (2)
- Re: JJ CRIES FOUL--AGAIN! - jfp 14:07:41 07/29/99 (1)
- If you don't like it, stop mis-stating my positions - jj 19:01:40 07/29/99 (0)