In Reply to: RE: "Accuracy": not simple, alas posted by Phelonious Ponk on June 28, 2010 at 20:14:04:
If you found my explanation difficult, then I think I made my point. The question of transparency is not simple. :-)
This concerns preference theory. I see there is quite a bit of literature among the marketing theorists on this subject, but most of the interesting looking articles are not worth the $30 that seem to be the cost to read them. A simple example of how objects that have multiple attributes are difficult to rank in a consistent order is the game of "rock, scissors, paper". Which one of these is better? It depends on how you compare them, the basis of the game. The important point to understand is that preferences (as manifest in specific choices, be they answers to questionnaires or purchase decisions) are not just a property of the objects being compared. They are also affected by how the decisions are approached, the order of presentation, etc.
If a collection of audio components differed solely along a single technical dimension, e.g. had the same frequency response and distortion properties but differed only in the level of white noise, then it would be easy for subjects to rank these components according to transparency, and the results would likely be consistent (for most subjects) with the measured results. With multiple dimensions as actually exist with imperfect audio components, the situation is much more complex, even potentially paradoxical.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: "Accuracy": not simple, alas - Tony Lauck 06:29:17 06/29/10 (21)
- RE: "Accuracy": not simple, alas - Phelonious Ponk 08:02:03 06/29/10 (20)
- RE: "Accuracy": not simple, alas - Tony Lauck 08:40:30 06/29/10 (19)
- RE: "Accuracy": not simple, alas - Phelonious Ponk 11:02:56 06/29/10 (18)
- Sarcasm aside: you're pretty much on target here - Sordidman 11:21:07 06/29/10 (17)
- RE: Sarcasm aside: you're pretty much on target here - Phelonious Ponk 12:11:42 06/29/10 (16)
- Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - Sordidman 12:33:39 06/29/10 (15)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - Phelonious Ponk 14:57:40 06/29/10 (14)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - kerr 05:29:09 06/30/10 (13)
- Yes, you are right on with that......... -t - Sordidman 10:38:09 06/30/10 (0)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - Phelonious Ponk 06:44:58 06/30/10 (3)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - kerr 10:02:20 06/30/10 (2)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - Phelonious Ponk 11:59:12 06/30/10 (1)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - kerr 16:33:08 06/30/10 (0)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - Tony Lauck 06:20:44 06/30/10 (7)
- You said this much better than I did - Sordidman 10:36:59 06/30/10 (0)
- Agreed (nt) - kerr 10:03:13 06/30/10 (0)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - Phelonious Ponk 06:39:45 06/30/10 (4)
- ""I don't need proof to understand that is nonsense."" - Sordidman 10:47:37 06/30/10 (3)
- RE: ""I don't need proof to understand that is nonsense."" - Phelonious Ponk 12:10:24 06/30/10 (2)
- You have made a number of interesting posts - Sordidman 08:03:33 07/02/10 (1)
- RE: You have made a number of interesting posts - Phelonious Ponk 17:19:04 07/02/10 (0)