[Luxey]

On Mar 6, 8:27*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

news:16419066.174.1331058130743.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbfy7...

On Tuesday, March 6, 2012 12:03:57 PM UTC-5, Doug McDonald wrote:
But ... if half were high resolution ones, and no one could tell
on those that the loop was employed, does this not still
validate their results ... just with worse statistics?

I made this point repeatedly in a forum, just before they banned me from
posting further. :-)

For me it is a clear case of we don't know for sure.

If half the comparisons in a test sequence are bound to force random
guessing, you've seriously raised the bar for the remaining ones aren't a
priori impossible.

I would think that scoring better than random guessing would be plenty hard
even if all of the comparisons were truly hi rez versus CD.

That the "pro" side has half of their possibly correct responses taken away
before they even listened the first time, *makes this seem like a very
unfair test.

Yes, there are a good number of other reasons why this test is very likely
come out random guessing on the best day of its life. But, at least lets
give those who affirm hi rez formats an even break! ;-)

And what's the problem to remove faulty part of test and recalculate
results based on lesser number of tested samples? Not that I'm really
interested.