[Scott[_6_]]

On Thursday, September 26, 2013 11:39:58 AM UTC-7, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 10:22:42 AM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
=20
On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 9:50:39 AM UTC-7, Andrew Haley wrote:
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
With any test of audibility one has to implement controls for false po=
sitives and false negatives. Bias controls against a false positive are th=
e easy part. Bias controls against false negatives can be a bit trickier. =
Also one has to test the test for sensitivity. that is not so easy either.
=20
=20
=20
I never understood this point. If one doesn't think they hear a differen=
ce...what is point of proving that they do?
=20
I would suggest that a person who doesn't think they can hear a differenc=
e is simply not a good subject for such a test.
=20
Even if you don't believe that they can't hear a difference, what is the =
point in trying to prove they do? All you could prove with great effort is=
they're being deceptive which would only disqualify them from the test....=
something you should have concluded when they said they can't hear a differ=
ence.
=20
=20
=20
Also, consider the example of AEs claim of audible artifacts on all MP3s,=
regardless of bit rate. I don't hear them on high quality VBR files. I m=
ight with training be able to discern what he's talking about....but I'd ra=
ther not.
=20
=20
=20
ScottW

It is most often the people who feel that no differences exist that are the=
most vocal about the need for DBTs. So if these folks want to conduct test=
s that is their prerogative. But if they want to do a good job of it they n=
eed to control for same sound biases and test the test for sensitivity. Oth=
erwise it's just a show.