![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.200.116.196
In Reply to: It's CONSISTENT, not superior! posted by KlausR. on April 13, 2006 at 02:49:21:
>When untrained listeners do not consistently (or not at all) detect an audible difference during DBT, this merely means that these people need (more) training, nothing more and nothing less...Does this lack of training mean that the test is flawed?>So does your DBT actually test for audible differences between components - or the amount of training your subjects have?
How can you call a test *consistent* if the results change with additional subject training?
Follow Ups:
As a matter of fact, trained listeners hear better than untrained ones:AES preprint 5728: Olive, Differences in performance and preference of trained vs untrained listeners in loudspeaker tests: a case study
You cannot take half deaf test subjects (or subjects with high thresholds) and then say that there's no difference.
The test is consistent by its nature, it's the test subject that aren't. If training helps to increase consistency, that merely increases the quality of the results.
I'm no expert in DBT related issues, so you'd better start a new thread in order to have the experts answer those questions.
Klaus
btw. my test is DBT with hidden reference, exactly the way audio codecs are tested.
> The test is consistent by its nature, it's the test subject that aren't. If training helps to increase consistency, that merely increases the quality of the results.>If the test results are dependent on the experience, training and innate ability of the test subjects, and results change as they do, how can you claim the test is consistent?
You can't separate one from the other - unless you can have a test with NO subjects.
But I will agree with you about one thing - amateur audio DBT results with music are surprisingly consisent - producing mostly null results regardless of the actual audible differences between the audio components (except speakers).
Consistent? In this case very. Just not accurate.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: