[bob]

On Apr 1, 7:40=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

Conventional ABX'ng has never been shown to be valid in evaluating MUSIC
differences that other approaches (the aforementioned Oohashi test) and e=
ven
the ABC/hr test have proven better at. =A0Yet ABX is the test that Arny
developed a computerized version of, and has relied on.

This is a good example of subjectivists' penchant for inventing
science. (There have been plenty of others in this thread.) Harry
takes it upon himself to declare something to be true--that our
hearing perception is somehow different for music than for other
sounds--without a shred of evidence.

In fact, DBTs have been accepted as valid by the field of
psychoacoustics (of which Harry is not a part and in which he has no
training), to the point where no peer reviewed journal will accept
reports of listening tests that are NOT double-blind.

The claim that human hearing perception is more acute when listening
to music is not only unproven but false. Music, because of its dynamic
changes and the phenomenon of masking, makes for a very poor medium
for objective listening tests of any kind.

If the construct of the test itself intereferes with the normal evaluativ=
e
process, you can almost be guaranteed that it will not produce valid
results. =A0One of the principles of testing in any field of human endeav=
or is
to try to emulate as much as possible the conventional context of the
variable under test.

Again, Harry takes it upon himself to invent science. There is no
evidence that ABX tests are less sensitive to anything than other
double-blind tests. Quite the contrary--it's pretty easy to design a
test that's less sensitive than an ABX test.

bob