 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.195.219.94
In Reply to: Re: John Atkinson's Rebuttal of Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" posted by bjh on April 27, 2006 at 15:36:46:
For heaven's sake, just look at the measured differences in frequency response between the two amplifiers when measured into the speaker load in the Stereophile test! Compare them to the level matching curves on the ABX site.http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_crit.htm
With such measureme differences, a blind test would not have been necessary to establish an audible difference as data taken from previous blind tests would indicate that the differences were large enough to be audible. It was a useful exercise, perhaps, but established nothing much new.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Follow Ups:
JA wrote:"I was writing about the listening tests I had organized at that year's Stereophile Show. I had taken two highly regarded amplifiers that were widely felt to sound different in normal listening, a solid-state Adcom GFA-555 and a pair of tubed VTL 300W monoblocks, and was trying to determine if they also sounded different in a blind test. The results were inconclusive, though a subsequent series of blind listening tests performed under optimum circumstances did result in statistically significant identification of the amplifiers."
Now Pat, why, if the measurements were obviously different as you state ("For heaven's sake, just look at the measured differences in frequency response between the two amplifiers when measured into the speaker load in the Stereophile test!"), again why then were the results of the tests JA arranged for the show "inconclusive"?
Isn't that strange Pat?, that for two amplifiers with such overt differences in measurements that you clearly admit should result in observerable sonic differences, why was it that the blind test results during the show were inconclusive?
Yet, "though a subsequent series of blind listening tests performed under optimum circumstances did result in statistically significant identification of the amplifiers".
But why the need for such careful testing, why the need for "optimum circumstances" to demonstrate differences that even the mesaured performance alone suggest should be fairly obvious?
What does that tell you about the tests Pat? Doesn't it suggest that with such tests it is non-trivial to demonstrate even the obvious? How about using such tests for less obvious cases? Would such tests seem like a good tool to investigate such things?
What do think I-Child?
You are acting strange. I pointed out that the difference in the FR into the speaker load was sufficient to be audible and the results prove it. What is your problem? So they a blind test under poor conditions and another one under good conditions, and achieved a positive result in the latter. So what?There is no question of using measured results "alone." I distinctly pointed out that comparing them to audibility data already established indicated the differences were audible. That is not "alone," that is using measured results with audibility data.
You seem to be manufacturing difficulties--is this an obsession with you?
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
