|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
|
|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
In Reply to: RE: Well, no posted by RGA on July 11, 2012 at 02:53:29:
Your criticisms of ABX tests are well taken. I could add some more. However, I do believe that ABX tests have valid uses in the study of basic auditory perception. And even when applied to complex audio signals, they can demonstrate that a difference *is* audible to a desired degree of statistical certainty. In that context, it's interesting to note that most of the ABX results I've seen validate, rather than contradict, the notion that there are audible differences between components.
It's also probably true that if something can't be ABX'd, it's fairly subtle, or occurs rarely. I can point to clearly audible phenomena that would confound any practical ABX test, using standard methodology, such as very high Q resonances that are clearly audible but occur only after many hours with random program material. But ABX'ing can be useful nonetheless, as are simpler level-matched blind tests, which are I believe more useful with complex audio phenomena since they avoid the perceptual confusion to which you refer. If we're honest, we'll recognize that confirmation bias plays an unfortunate role in our perceptions, and that there is no way to eliminate it in a sighted comparison.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Well, no - josh358 17:32:09 07/12/12 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
