In Reply to: Re: The Inquisition Continues posted by John Atkinson on March 25, 2007 at 04:31:07:
>This was the point of the parable I related at the HE2005 debate,
>reprinted at www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/705awsi.
>The differences between the amplifiers under test had not been
>detected by the formal blind test but had been under normal, >sighted, longer-term listening.Your little parable demonstrates that detectable differences are not the sole criteria for long term satisfaction of any given device, I can think of a very good example that captured the public interest in the UK. Volkswagen was gearing up to re-launch the Skoda in UK, In the consumer clinic, the car performed excellently until the test clinic subjects were made aware of the brand, needless to say it was downhill from there on. No matter how you cut it, once the identity of the object under test is known, expectation bias becomes an unavoidable skewing factor. If it were not the case, getting reliable results will simply be a matter of conducting blind tests immediately after sighted tests (where valid differences were reported) and the results of the blind test will correlate with the results of the sighted tests, however that is opposite of what is widely obtained in these tests. Expectation bias depends on a priori knowledge, a priori knowledge is always present in a sighted test.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- 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)