Validity of audio tests
 

wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...


Yes, it does sound like you have bought into Harry's anti-scientific
worldview. I suggest you endeavor to talk to a real scientist for a
change.

Nothing I have said in this or any other group is "unscientific". It
does
not support ABX without questioning some of the basic premises. That
simple.

If you are truly a scientist, you think about these things objectively,
at
least. If you have become dogmatic and accept it as an article of faith,
then questioning it becomes tauntamont to heresy.

I leave readers to decide which is operational here.

I'm forever interested in how those of Harry's persuasion would go about
determining if there is an audible difference between 2 devices. The
question is always the same. Can you hear a difference between 2
presentations? You can listen as long as you wish; you can ask other
opinions; you can switch between them slowly or quickly; you can take
notes;
you can change the source material, etc., etc. The only things you cannot
do is peek or make measurements. IOW, you have to make your choices on
the
basis of what you hear.

To my way of thinking, ABX seems to be one of the more sensitive methods
of
making such a determination. But if you don't, suggest something else.
I'm
certainly open to suggestions.

One last point: DBT seems to be the gold standard for evaluating most
everything else. Why should high fidelity audio be an exception?


Norman, I've explained in detail here and on other forums exactly how a
blind, monadic test would be used to detect and define (statistically) a
difference, if it existed. Then ABX could be tested to see if it revealed
those differences.