In Reply to: RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... posted by Pat D on July 24, 2010 at 16:14:46:
I think that blind testing is excellent in that circumstance, since it removes a well-documented source of confirmation bias. Whereas what would be the purpose of ABX testing? It seems to me that in most cases it would be impractical, obscure audible differences of the sort that become apparent with extended listening or occur only with certain combinations of program material, and serve no useful purpose. Only if there was real controversy as to whether one could hear something would I bother with ABX testing, and even then, I wouldn't make the mistake of supposing that the results are completely reliable, anymore than I would make that mistake about a subjective evaluation.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - josh358 17:14:07 07/24/10 (8)
- RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - Pat D 18:40:25 07/24/10 (7)
- RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - josh358 20:10:08 07/24/10 (0)
- RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - Tony Lauck 19:11:48 07/24/10 (5)
- RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - Donald North 11:54:27 07/25/10 (0)
- RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - Pat D 05:30:32 07/25/10 (3)
- RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - Tony Lauck 07:53:44 07/25/10 (2)
- RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - morricab 13:37:01 07/25/10 (1)
- RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - Tony Lauck 17:51:10 07/25/10 (0)