New vs Vintage
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
Conventional ABX'ng has never been shown to be valid in
evaluating MUSIC differences that other approaches (the
aforementioned Oohashi test) and even the ABC/hr test
have proven better at.
You see to be very confused, Harry.
Of course the ABX test has been shown to be valid in evaluating differences
in sound quality related to the reproduction of music and voice.
The OOhashi test has never been confirmed and was only published in a
journal that makes the AESJ look like a major bastion of Science.
There's no controversy between ABC/hr and ABX. They are two different tests
with two different purposes. Many people use both, depending on the question
at hand.
Yet ABX is the test that Arny developed a computerized version of, and has
relied on.
What you can't say truthfully Harry is all that matters, which is whether I
rely on ABX to the exclusion of all others, which everybody knows is false.
It's all about the right tool for the job. I also use and recognize other
double blind testing methodologies, as they fit the work at hand.
If the construct of the test itself intereferes with the
normal evaluative process, you can almost be guaranteed
that it will not produce valid results.
Sighted evaluations would be the world's best example of that. There is
only speculation and no peer-reviewed scientific opinion that ABX interferes
with the normal evaluatative process, any more so than any of the
alternatives. Of course doing an evaluations is not identically the same as
just listening to music for pleasure. But, nobody has figured out how to
reduce that difference to zero.
One of the principles of testing in any field of human endeavor is
to try to emulate as much as possible the conventional
context of the variable under test.
Exactly. And that is exactly the path we followed while developing ABX. That
you would mention that concept and the OOhashi test and all of the technical
gyrations that it imposes on the normal listening experience in the same
post, is a true wonder!
|