View Single Post
  #5   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gene Poon wrote:
wrote:

Let's imagine this hypothetical situation:

You have a room full of audiophiles taking a blind test of amplifiers, a
respected solid state amp selling for $700, and a high end tube amp selling
for $4900. There are 30 people taking this test, and there is a 50% chance
of being right by guesswork alone. There are 7 chances, and when the test
is over the average of the entire group is 3.5--exactly what you would
expect from flipping coins.

But wait! Here is some guy by the name of Iverson who got it right 6 out of
7 tries, only a 6% chance of doing that well by guesswork. We must have a
golden ear here--right?

While we're thinking about this, we notice that there's a guy that was WRONG
6 out of 7 times. What will we say about him?...


I'm sure that any of you, faced with those results would say that the guy
that was right only once out of seven tries was just plain unlucky (unless
you want to insinuate that he was purposely trying to do poorly.)



No, I would say he CONSISTENTLY HEARD a difference and that he just
guessed wrong as to which amp was which.


And you would be wrong. This was a same-different test, and didn't
require subjects to guess which amp was which. They merely had to guess
whether B was the same as A. Norm's statistical analysis is correct, as
usual.

With others, I'm mystified by S-phile's continued fixation on this
issue. None their readers give a hoot about it (at least not the ones
the advertisers care about). Okay, so Atkinson had his fun with Arny.
But Iverson's column appears to have been unprompted, and demonstrates
ignorance on a heroic scale. What's the point?

bob