In Reply to: Re: The Inquisition Continues posted by imispgh@yahoo.com on March 22, 2007 at 11:06:26:
>Wasn't the panel test skewed by only one person being able to sit in
>the right spot?
Yes. The first test used 4-5 listenrs at a time, which meant that the
tests ran over 2 days. Because it became apparent that the position
of the listener in the room was also a variable, in the subsequent
tests, we had just 2 listeners at a time take part, one sitting behind
the other, so that both were close to being in the sweet spot. This
stretched the testing to 6 days. It would have even better if we had
tested just one listener at a time, but this would have required too
much time just for the blind tests, let alone every other aspect of
the review, to be practical for a monthly publication schedule.
>Were the levels matched precisely system to system?
As closely as is possible with speakers, which have an unflat response
compared with amplifiers or digital front-ends. We matched the levels
based on the speakers' B-weighted sensitivities, which downplays the
effect of differences at the frequency extremes. We did publish the
experimental procedures in full detail, BTW.
One point that is continually glossed over by proponents of blind
testing is that when the audible differences are small in absolute
terms, which is very often the case, designing a blind test that has
sufficient sensitivity to detect such differences is not trivial.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: The Inquisition Continues - John Atkinson 04:15:49 03/23/07 (30)
- Re: The Inquisition Continues - theaudiohobby 18:31:54 03/24/07 (29)
- Re: The Inquisition Continues - John Atkinson 04:31:07 03/25/07 (28)
- Re: The Inquisition Continues - theaudiohobby 10:43:35 03/25/07 (27)
- Re: The Inquisition Continues - John Atkinson 15:56:20 03/25/07 (26)
- Re: The Inquisition Continues - theaudiohobby 01:34:45 03/26/07 (25)
- So, what conclusion can you draw - E-Stat 05:07:26 03/26/07 (24)
- Re: That question has been answered. - theaudiohobby 05:28:15 03/26/07 (23)
- What makes you think that Mr. Atkinson's - E-Stat 05:41:22 03/26/07 (22)
- Re: What makes you think that Mr. Atkinson's - theaudiohobby 07:35:55 03/26/07 (21)
- Re: What makes you think that Mr. Atkinson's - John Atkinson 11:14:34 03/26/07 (13)
- Re: It does not work that way... - theaudiohobby 03:35:12 03/27/07 (12)
- Re: It does not work that way... - John Atkinson 03:55:56 03/27/07 (11)
- C'mon, John - E-Stat 07:16:27 03/27/07 (7)
- Re: C'mon, John - theaudiohobby 11:39:05 03/27/07 (5)
- I didn't have any questions for Mr. Atkinson - E-Stat 17:35:12 03/27/07 (4)
- Re: I didn't have any questions for Mr. Atkinson - theaudiohobby 18:59:11 03/27/07 (3)
- I would say facetious, not malicious. - robert young 15:51:36 03/29/07 (2)
- Thank you - E-Stat 16:21:49 03/29/07 (1)
- You're welcome. - robert young 18:54:40 03/29/07 (0)
- Re: C'mon, John - kerr 07:36:55 03/27/07 (0)
- Re: It does not work that way... - theaudiohobby 04:42:55 03/27/07 (2)
- Re: It does not work that way... - John Atkinson 13:14:34 03/27/07 (1)
- Re: It does not work that way... - Avocat 15:18:43 04/01/07 (0)
- The answer being - E-Stat 07:40:54 03/26/07 (6)
- Re: The answer being - theaudiohobby 09:07:46 03/26/07 (5)
- So which is it - answer the question... - mkuller 14:14:02 03/26/07 (4)
- On a related topic... - E-Stat 16:12:37 03/26/07 (3)
- Re: On a related topic... - kerr 04:52:15 03/27/07 (2)
- Yes, Ms. Loken is a fine example - E-Stat 06:04:57 03/27/07 (1)
- A. Slim and None - kerr 06:35:17 03/27/07 (0)