|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
|
|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
In Reply to: Validation… posted by mkuller on December 16, 2005 at 09:44:33:
> An audible difference when switched rapidly using test tones* has already been validated in psychometrics.What is there to validate? I have described why there is nothing to validate in the post you are responding to. If you disagree with this then please provide information about why so that a debate can take place and the readers of this thread can both learn and/or contribute. Simply stating black is white gets us nowhere.
> Now change the *test tones* to *music*. Your results will change.
Yes but you are now performing a different experiment. Unfortunately, it is also a less sensitive experiment in that the levels of distortion generally need to be higher to be perceivable. The thresholds also vary with the type of music. All this makes it a less useful test for determining thresholds in a consistent and repeatable manner. Nonetheless, it is of interest and is performed.
> Why did they change?
They changed for the worse presumably because the brain is receiving a lot more information and can therefore dedicate a reduced capacity to resolution. I do not know details about how the brain functions and so if you want to know more you will have to look elsewhere.
> Until the test with *music* is validated and its sensitivity is determined with the audible variable you are testing for, you won't know the answer.
No. Can we have some reasoning please.
> That is the fundamental problem with audio DBTS using music. No one knows the senstivity of the test.
In an experiment to determine an audible difference when listening to a given piece of music using a quick switch please indicate where "sensitivity of the test" comes into it.
> Yet null results (with cables or amplifiers, for example) are used as *proof* no audible differences between them exist.
Assuming the tests were correctly performed, the experimental errors were correctly estimated and the null results were of adequate significance then precisely where is the problem?
All science is ultimately based on observation and this perhaps does not achieve the level of proof you would like but I am afraid that's all there is. Mind you it is a wonderful tool just look at what it has been used to achieve.
> That's pseudoscience.
Why and what would it take to make it science?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Validation… - andy19191 11:51:34 12/16/05 (2)
- Re: Validation… - mkuller 13:31:54 12/16/05 (1)
- Re: Validation… - andy19191 15:19:01 12/16/05 (1)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
