Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

bad comparison

Posted by Bruce from DC on April 24, 2006 at 07:48:47:
Drug trials do not involve perception. A drug is not considered effective if it "makes the patient feel better." A drug is considered effective if reduces or eliminates measureable symptoms of a disease; kills the disease, prevents the disease from recurring etc.
When you're speaking of audio equipment, you're simply comparing perceptions, i.e., do people perceive an aural difference between component A and B? It is widely reported that in many cases, these tests show that people don't perceive a difference. What people forget is that this kind of a DBT is merely a test of perception, and the nature of the "thing" suppossedly under test is inferred from the perception. But the logical assumption that people want to make from this datum -- that there is no difference between the two things -- does not, fact, follow.
Consider some well-known art forgeries. If they're good, many, many people do not see a difference between the original and the forgery -- even though they may have a much longer time to study the forgery and the original than the typical tester has to compare two devices in an aural DBT. Nevertheless, the fact that many -- even most -- people cannot distinguish the fake from the real painting does not mean that the "fake" is "real."
On the more mundane level, consider Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola. If you read the fine print in the "preference survey ads" ("people who tried them both, preferred the taste of Pepsi"), you'll see that the "fine print" in the ad contains the disclaimer "among those who expressed a preference." That is there because the majority of the participants in these surveys do not express a preference between the two cola drinks -- probably because they can't tell them apart -- and the FTC said it was deceptive to run an ad without the disclaimer, because it implied than a majority of the tasters preferred (Pepsi) when, in fact, they didn't.
Does that mean that Coca-Cola is the same as Pepsi-Cola? I don't think so.