|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
108.35.109.78
In Reply to: RE: Blind testing, like any testing, is not foolproof. Nt posted by geoffkait on November 08, 2016 at 03:24:11
Does that make it useless?
Follow Ups:
It doesn't make it useless. You just can't draw conclusions from a blind test that gave negative results.
Really the main difference double blind can reveal is whether a difference is perceived or not. Then you can do many blind tests and ask many observers simple questions related to what you are trying to get at. That involves taste to a degree. It helps then if those results can be correlated to measured tests. That's one of the positive facets of Floyd Toole's tests. They are both double blind tests and correlated to measurements and for what it's worth he believes he can be over 95% sure of a good speaker's performance from the measurements he does that were correlated to double blind tests.
If you set the confidence limit too low / don't have enough trials /subjects aka 'n', your probability of type 2 error (beta) can exceed 50%. Which is into bull-shit territory.The double blindness in ABX DB testing is NOT comparable to the DB nature of medical hypothesis testing. It is ignorant to suggest that it is. And ignorant to suggest that blindness is the scientific aspect of testing. Proper and open use of statistics is where 'proofs' lie.
Far too many ABX DB tests that get published don't publish their alpha OR beta figures. It ought to be essential.
I wouldn't bother publishing or promoting any ABX DBT results where beta was significantly larger than alpha. None of us should tolerate it from the hard line objectivists.
For me, any blind home-audio testing should involve a single seated listener in the sweet spot, in a treated room. Not a room-full of people.
Thus, getting enough n is a problem, and yet it is the only way to get alpha and beta down while having a reasonable confidence limit. 10% / 90% is a LOT more appropriate most of the time that 5%/95 was used.
Bear in mind that unwillingness to post the two salient numbers - of alpha and beta - is rife in published hypothesis test science, of all kinds.
Where the science is an estimate of the value of a variable, the question of what sort of estimator they chose to use is very rarely discussed. This is not surprising because everyone seems to think that an unbiassed estimator is the best in all cases.
But, it rarely is appropriate. It is only appropriate if errors above and below the mean are of equal concern to the people likely to be affected by the use of the estimated value.
Science? Schmience!
Having an abiding respect for real, solid science it worries me that the prevailing 'scient-ism' about so much of 'science' might not be justifiable, because of these, to me, manifest flaws. You know, those "fuck I LOVE Science" threads on social media. ? yes?
Value judgements just do have to be made, when we are using statistical techniques, and using the usual settings isn't 'objective' it is simply ignorant, perhaps even arrogant.
Warmest
Tim Bailey
Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger
Edits: 11/08/16
w2hen you say a single listening sitting in the sweet spot id like to just say that many listeners who are comfy and content sitting in the sweet spot of their system are actually sitting right smack in the middle of a standing wave. And as we all know standing waves are not good for the sound.
Please.
:-)
Warmest
Tim Bailey
Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger
Nt
That's how it looked to me. Besides it should be pretty obvious that if the "sweet spot" is suffering from standing wave issues it isn't really the "sweet spot."
Of course my point was most folks who happened to be sitting in the middle of a standing wave wave would be blissfully unaware if it. Duh!A suggestion to go jump in the lake is what we call argumentum ad hominem. Which is a logical fallacy. I.e., a poor argument. It's always best to stick to the topic at hand. 😛
Edits: 11/23/16
"Of course my point was most folks who happened to be sitting in the middle of a standing wave wave would be blissfully unaware if it. Duh!"
Your point was neither supported nor even on topic if that was your point.
"A suggestion to go jump in the lake is what we call argumentum ad hominem. Which is a logical fallacy. I.e., a poor argument."
No, it's an insult for the sake of insulting someone. In this case you. The ad hominem fallacy is an insult for the sake of countering the argument by discrediting the person one is arguing with. Anyone with even a modest level of intelegence should be able to understand that telling one to go jump in a lake or take a long walk off a short peer etc. etc. is not an ad hominem argument but merely a garden variety insult strictly for the purpose of insulting someone.
"It's always best to stick to the topic at hand."
No doubt. You might consider taking your own advice in this case. 😛
Go jump in the lake.
Given your inability to tell the difference between an ad hominem argument and a garden variety insult. Or....did you actually learn something?
even in the bass, and even on organ music.
Warmest
Tim Bailey
Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: