In Reply to: RE: Blind testing, like any testing, is not foolproof. Nt posted by geoffkait on November 8, 2016 at 05:27:54:
Really the main difference double blind can reveal is whether a difference is perceived or not. Then you can do many blind tests and ask many observers simple questions related to what you are trying to get at. That involves taste to a degree. It helps then if those results can be correlated to measured tests. That's one of the positive facets of Floyd Toole's tests. They are both double blind tests and correlated to measurements and for what it's worth he believes he can be over 95% sure of a good speaker's performance from the measurements he does that were correlated to double blind tests.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Blind testing, like any testing, is not foolproof. Nt - hahax@verizon.net 12:14:43 11/08/16 (10)
- Blind testing is a hypothesis test and has the same mathematical rules - Timbo in Oz 19:02:17 11/08/16 (9)
- RE: Blind testing is a hypothesis test and has the same mathematical rules - geoffkait 05:41:44 11/09/16 (8)
- Go jump in the lake, Geoff. - Timbo in Oz 00:29:11 11/10/16 (7)
- Is that your best argument? - geoffkait 04:22:13 11/10/16 (6)
- It wasn't an argument it was a suggestion - Analog Scott 14:19:20 11/19/16 (5)
- RE: It wasn't an argument it was a suggestion - geoffkait 16:58:45 11/23/16 (3)
- RE: It wasn't an argument it was a suggestion - Analog Scott 14:03:38 11/24/16 (2)
- RE: It wasn't an argument it was a suggestion - geoffkait 03:57:57 11/25/16 (1)
- Is that your best argument? - Analog Scott 10:04:32 11/25/16 (0)
- you got it in one, and most music isn't made up of sustained notes, - Timbo in Oz 22:25:13 11/19/16 (0)