[Scott[_6_]]

On Dec 19, 9:41*am, wrote:
On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 6:39:10 AM UTC-5, Scott wrote:
Well, I am so glad you asked.

Not sure why. Let's take a look at the two key elements of the "data" you present.

You quote Howard Ferstler saying, "Even though a 68% correct score looks like there may have been significant audible differences with the 17 out of 25 mindnumbing trials I did, that score does achieve a 95% confidence level, indicating that the the choices were still attributable to chance."

You quote John Atkinson saying, "In other words, your own tests suggested you heard a difference..."

Howard is correctly interpreting the statistics here. John is not. A confidence interval is a hard target, not a rough idea you only have to get close to.

Um no, Howard interpreted the data backwards. he took 95% confidence
level to mean that it was a 95% likelihood that his results were due
to chance. The opposite is true. Atkinson was right. Ferstler was
wrong.


snip

Howard Ferstler:

*" The data you are referring to was but a small part of the series.
It was a *fluke, because during the last part of that series of trials
I was literally guessing. I just kept pushing the button and making
wild stabs at what I thought I heard. After a while, I did not bother
to listen at all. I just kept *pressing the same choice over and
over."

IOW he was deliberately falsifying data in order to get a null result.
I’d say that is proof positive of a same sound bias on the part of Mr..
Ferstler wouldn’t you?

No, that's just what happens when you're doing a DBT and you really can't tell the difference.

Nonsense. that si what happens when one tries to spike the data.
Sorry, there is no excuse on earth for someone to do what he did. he
says "I did not bother to listen at all I just kept pressing the same
choice over and over."." That is deliberate corruption of the data.
Done deal. If you can't see that for what it is we got nothin more to
talk about. really. It could not be more blatant.

You have to guess.

He wasn't even guessing. He stopped listening. That is not doing an
ABX DBT properly. That is deliberately spiking data to get the desired
null.

Howard's just being honest here.

Whoa hold here. he is being honest because he couldn't accept his own
result. Truth is his original article was plainly dishonest. If he
were being honest there he would have disclosed the fact that what he
was experiencing was exactly what he expected to experience
(expectation bias incarnate) and that he stopped listening and just
hit the same button. But he knew very well that this would make his
test worthless. But he'd rather admit his test was worthless than live
with the positive result. He just didn't understand the mistake in his
analysis or what the data was really saying so he went forward and
presented tests with deliberately spiked data as legitimate evidence
of amps sounding the same. Do you really think this is good science
much less honest journalism? if so let me fill you in. Any scientist
caught spiking data to gain a desired result is disgraced within the
scientific community.


The only alternative is to abandon the test, but the outcome would be the same in both cases: No showing of audible difference.

How convenient. Circular logic incarnate.

And this ABX DBT was published in The Sensible
Sound despite the fact that the analysis was corrupted by a clear same
sound bias but so was the data, deliberately!
Ironically, due to an apparent malfunction in Tom Nousaine’s ABX box
the attempt at spiking the results to get a null serendipitously
wrought a false positive. So on top of that we have a mal functioning
ABX box that Tom Nousiane has been using for all these ABX DBTs.

As explained above, there was no malfunction here. The only flaw is in Atkinson's interpretation of the results.

Seriously? You think an ABX machine that is giving a positive result
when you hit the same selection over and over again is not
malfunctioning? And again, Atkinson, a former science teacher gets the
analysis dead on. If you don't think so you are dead wrong end of
story.



snip

My goodness gracious talk about getting it all wrong. First ABX DBTs
involves playback equipment. Pharaceutical trials do not so there is
nothing to "calibrate" in pharmeceutical trials. BUT they do use
control groups! That is in effect their calibration. without the
control group the results mean nothing because there is no
"calibrated" base to compare them to. So in effect they most
defintiely are calibrated or they are tossed out as very very bad
science and just plain junk. That is bias controlled testing 101.

That's not at all what calibration means, but just to humor you, let's pretend it is. In a DB drug trial, the intervention group needs to get a statistically better result than the control group. In an ABX test, the subjects need to get a statistically better result than chance. If the former is 'calibrated," then the latter is, too.


Boy you are just getting this so wrong. Let me put this in the most
basic terms. Any such test needs negative and positive controls. what
are the negative controls in the ABX tests in either the Stereo review
tests or Howard Ferstler's ridiculous test? here is another question.
If two components sound different but the the testee *chooses* to
"not bother to listen at all. I just kept pressing the same choice
over and over." Are the results valid? Now let's see you navigate
these questions without using circular reasoning.