AudioBanter.com - View Single Post - science vs. pseudo-science

(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:zalcb.565817$Ho3.102946@sccrnsc03...
(ludovic mirabel) writes:

If you are happy with a "test" that gives as many different results
as there are people doing it, who am I to stop you? Use it. You'll get
yours.
Audio Guy:

Where is your evidence that audio DBTs "gives as many different
results as there are people doing it"? So far it is only your mistaken
interpretation of the test statistics. How about some real evidence?

Below find the results of of Greenhill's ABX cable test (The
Stereophile ,1983)
A "hit" is 12 correct answers out of 15.
Note different performers, performing differently. (Surprise,
Surprise!).
Note Nr. 6; 1.75db level difference but music is the signal. Compare
with test
1 and test 4.
I will not rediscuss the "statistics". This was thrashed out ad
nauseam here.
If it tells you something different from what it tells me, well and
good.

SUBJECTS: A B C D E F G H I J K
Test1: Monster vs. 24 g. wire,Pink noise 1.75db level difference
15 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
2. Same but levels matched
9 13 7 10 na. 8 9 6 14 12 12
3. Monster vs. 16 gauge zipcord, Pink noise
13 7 10 7 11 12 9 9 11 12 7
4.. 16 ga vs. 24 ga., Pink noise
15 15 na. 14 15 na 15 14 15 15 15
5. Monster vs. 16ga., choral music
4 6 11 8 9 5 5 7 6 10 10
6. Monster vs. 24ga, choral music 1.75db. level difference
14 7 15 10 8 10 6 10 11 12 10
______________________________________________
% of "hits" in the total of 6 tests, 90 tries.
67. 50 40 33 40 40 33 33 50 83 50

L.M.:
I will not stop you and I will not continue this pointless scholastic
argument.

How is it a "scholastic argument"? Are you using this label so you
can side-step the issue? Ironically many would consider all of your
arguments purely "scholastic arguments".

Yes you're correct: scholastic arguments, including mine, are about
something unproven. When you or someone like Mr. JJnunes comes up with
experimental evidence that ABX is the right tool for COMPARING
COMPONENTS and that for instance it does not interfere with perception
of their musical characteristics we'll be talking about realities.

And why would you include "car boom-box enthusiasts" in your
definition of an audiophile? I certainly wouldn't include them
myself. Must you again stretch the meanings of commonly understood
terms just to be able to prove your point?

Because I knew quite a few who so considered themselves. I remember
some writing to RAHE that the car is the best listening environment.
Are young people who never heard the sound of unamplified instruments
also banned? I doubt if I'd like what you listen to and vice versa,
no doubt

So the type of music one listens to defines whether or not they are
an audiophile? Again, you keep creating your own definitions just to
allow you to prove your mistaken points. The ironic thing about this
is that you've admitted you use always surround processor when using
your audio system. Quite a few who consider themselves to be
audiophiles would consider that to disqualify you from being a
serious audiophile.

What on earth are you talking about? I said that if anyone wants to
call himself "audiophile"- owner of a car audio, or of Wilson Grand
Slam or of surround processor or Mr. Audio Guy - that is fine with
me. It had better be.
Ludovic Mirabel

Something else started being called "DBT" which out of courtesy
I will call "DBT" 3.- suggested for comparing components;

Please, if nothing else, the test under discussion is most definitely
a "double blind test". You may not agree with the results, but it is
most certainly a DBT under every definition I am aware of. Talk about
your strawmen.

Double Blind it is. "Test" it is not. A test by definition has to
be replicable by the test subjects who are its constituency: ie a
motley crew of "audiophiles" from the car boom- box enthusiasts to
middle aged chamber music lovers. Individual performances differ
widely as reflected in the reports of ALL of the existing "listening
tests". Providence arranged that our results, yours and mine, are not
transferable. That is the kind of test it is when you force it onto
inappropriate topics like COMPARING COMPONENTS.
Try again.

I think it is you that needs to try again. How is it not a "test"?
And how is it not replicable? Just because you say so? So one could
not take the same people who were in a specific DBT and get the same
results a second time? Is that not the definition of "replicable"?