In Reply to: Just gotta make sure posted by E-Stat on October 17, 2023 at 14:37:47:
I think that what E-stat is saying, is along the lines of the following.
Unless you know what the sensitivity is of a given test, whether it is ABX, double-blind or whatever protocol, you really can't equate a null result to a negative outcome.
Put another way, if the blind test can't detect large differences in known metrics that SHOULD be audible, or have proven to be an audible problem, then getting null results really don't mean anything.
The test is worthless, and should not be used as any klind of evidence.
So all the brou ha-ha about some folks in the test claiming to hear
readily audible differences between A and B in an ABX test, and then not being able to identify X, is just a red herring. What really matters is what CAN the test truly discern, and if it has very high sensitivity to audible differences, that is all that matters.
Then it might be possible to draw some limited inferences from the test results, still limited by the inherent problems and limitations of this entire class of test protocols.
Jon Risch
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- The Big GOTCHA that folks seem to ignore with ABX, etc. - Jon Risch 21:00:28 10/21/23 (31)
- Late response - Jon Risch 13:23:06 11/12/23 (0)
- RE: The Big GOTCHA that folks seem to ignore with ABX, etc. - Tom Brennan 07:11:16 10/23/23 (28)
- RE: The Big GOTCHA that folks seem to ignore with ABX, etc. - Jon Risch 16:39:29 11/12/23 (0)
- Or the subjects? - Freo-1 08:00:30 10/23/23 (26)
- RE: Or the subjects? - Analog Scott 08:55:36 10/23/23 (25)
- No. The conditions are accurate. - Freo-1 09:56:51 10/23/23 (24)
- No, you are trying to add unnecessary conditions to try to sabotage ABX - Analog Scott 11:35:04 10/23/23 (23)
- Obfuscate, equivocate, hedge, muddle, dodge, stall. ~:) As I noted below... - regmac 07:08:47 10/24/23 (22)
- "As you noted before" - Analog Scott 10:28:05 10/24/23 (0)
- Sounds like BS dogma to me.. - Freo-1 08:42:26 10/24/23 (20)
- RE: Sounds like BS dogma to me.. - Inmate51 12:33:23 10/24/23 (18)
- RE: Sounds like BS dogma to me.. - Analog Scott 15:34:53 10/24/23 (6)
- RE: Sounds like BS dogma to me.. - Tre' 06:20:05 10/25/23 (5)
- RE: Sounds like BS dogma to me.. - Analog Scott 06:57:58 10/25/23 (4)
- RE: Sounds like BS dogma to me.. - Tre' 09:56:40 10/25/23 (0)
- RE: Sounds like BS dogma to me.. - Inmate51 08:55:38 10/25/23 (1)
- RE: Sounds like BS dogma to me.. - Analog Scott 09:51:26 10/25/23 (0)
- " The "triode" distortion is heavy on 2nd order but also adds other harmonics at lower levels " - Story 08:36:52 10/25/23 (0)
- Fair points. - Freo-1 14:22:36 10/24/23 (10)
- RE: Fair points. - Analog Scott 15:41:52 10/24/23 (9)
- RE: Fair points. - Freo-1 16:57:42 10/24/23 (8)
- RE: Fair points. - Analog Scott 17:25:37 10/24/23 (7)
- RE: Fair points. - Freo-1 09:05:22 10/25/23 (6)
- RE: Fair points. - Analog Scott 10:12:01 10/25/23 (4)
- The Chord DAC's are more transparent than off the shelf DACs. - Freo-1 10:23:26 10/25/23 (3)
- RE: The Chord DAC's are more transparent than off the shelf DACs. - Analog Scott 10:44:05 10/25/23 (2)
- Your missing the big flick - Freo-1 15:04:12 10/27/23 (1)
- RE: Your missing the big flick - Analog Scott 21:16:12 10/27/23 (0)
- RE: Fair points. - Inmate51 09:24:28 10/25/23 (0)
- RE: Sounds like BS dogma to me.. - Analog Scott 10:09:40 10/24/23 (0)
- RE: The Big GOTCHA that folks seem to ignore with ABX, etc. - Analog Scott 08:09:05 10/22/23 (0)