wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message
...
vlad wrote:
So before pouring any money or efforts in this kind of testing I would
ask first why you think that this test will give results at all.

Because he doesn't like the results we've already got. No other reason.

Thanks for the gratuitous insult, Bob.


The problem with using monadic tests for the purpose of determining
whether any difference is discernible between two components is that
the you will get a large (and incalcuable) number of false negatives.
You will get negative results:
1) when subjects really can't distinguish between the two,
2) when they could but didn't in this particular test (the standard
false negative that all such tests face), and
3) when subjects could distinguish between the two, but their
impressions based on whatever criteria you asked them about did not
lean consistently in a single direction. For example, if they could all
hear a difference between LP and CD, but half of them preferred one and
found it more lifelike/musical/etc., and the other half had exactly the
opposite reaction, the results would be inconclusive. And what good is
a test for difference that can't even distinguish between things that
sound as different as LP and CD?

Basically, Bob, this exposition shows that you have no idea of how
scaling
works to measure differences. Please read my current posts before you
*decide* (based on erroneous beliefs) why it doesn't work. If I am to
believe you, I just wasted twenty five years of work and my company(s)
didn't make the hundreds of millions of dollars based on it that they
thought they did.

And those were audio tests. Correct?

Bob's critique were of test design and use, not audio per se. Test design
and use are practices in an of themselves, applicable to testing in any
field. Makes no difference in this case whether food, drugs, or
audio...scalar ratings work and are evaluated the same way in a mondadic
test.