 
|
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 |
69.140.115.216
In Reply to: Re: DBTs don't have any time limits...except for the patience of the guy conducting it. All it has to be is fair. nt posted by Soundmind on June 4, 2006 at 00:49:01:
My concern is being faulted on scientific method for not stating the number of trials at the outset. But if it's informal testing, who cares.
Follow Ups:
"But if it's informal testing, who cares."I care. I want the most for my money. I want to read reviews based on facts, not subjective opinions, at least not the informal testimonial types you get from nearly every reveiwer in advertising supported consumer magazines.
Objectivists like DBTs because they can bring us knowledge to help us become better consumers buying the least expensive equipment which performs as well as much more expensive equipment. This frees up the extra money for other things...like recordings. Subjectivists hate them because they invariably have something to sell, even if it's only to themselves.
I believe specifying the number of trials at the outset is a requirement if the test is to be considered scientific. If I were doing a DBT at home, I would decide on the number of trials before starting and stick to that number. I could be faulted for deciding to change the total number of trials during the test. Would it be fair, for example, for me to quit after scoring correctly in 12 of the first 16 trials, because in a test 16, 12 correct is a positive result?A listeners doing an informal blinded test at home, however, may find it difficult to meet all requirements of a scientific test. That is why I said "who cares" when referring to specifying total number of trials in an informal test.
Would extending the test to more trials invalidate it? Actually, it would seem it's the other way around. How would the test be influenced had the number of trials been first specified as 50 and then as 100 somewhere part way through instead of specifying it as 100 in the first place? Isn't each event independent of the one before it and the one after it? All the test does is give the statistical likelihood that a particular outcome is the result of actual differences in perception rather than random chance. By extending the number of trials, the result is more certain one way or the other but no matter how many trials there are, it is never 100 percent certain.
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 ]
