Harry Lavo wrote:
Bob Marcus wrote:

I donÂ't think this test, as you envision it, is really possible to
perform
in the real world. You would need to run the same Â"evaluativeÂ" test
multiple
times on the same subject (at least twice--once sighted and once
blind--even
if you used multiple subjects). The problem is that his answers on the
first
trial would influence him in any subsequent trials. (i.e., heÂ'll be
looking
for the same set of characteristics he has already Â"heardÂ" once.)
And if
his
answers arenÂ't independent, any comparison of those answers would be
meaningless. So while I understand what youÂ're trying to get at, and
what
you hope to prove, you canÂ't get there from here.

No problem if the sighted, open-end test is done first...let's say with 16
trials if we are talking one person. I'd actually prefer 100 people doing
it once. Then three months later the test is done blind, again with 16
trials or preferably 100 people. Nobody would know or remember the exact
scores they gave on the evaluative criteria, and in the second blind test
they wouldn't know which was which so it would hardly be relevant if they
did.

This from a guy who complains that ABX is too complicated to do at home. :-)

You'd have to do a panel, and you'd have to separate sighted and blind
comparisons enough to erase any memory of the original scoring. (Though I'd
do the blind test first.)

You will also have a huge problem interpreting the results. What constitutes
a correct answer, if there are 10 questions times 100 subjects? Sure, if
everybody agrees that Component A sounds warmer, brighter, etc. than
Component B in both tests, then I'd agree that they all heard a difference.
But what if there aren't any statistically significant results, or very few?
I'd predict that a test like this would usually produce a null result even
if you were comparing speakers. (Remember: one of Oohashi's criteria was
preference. People can hear a difference and disagree about
preference--and/or any other criteria you choose to ask them about.)

There are a host of interpretation questions. (Are all of the test criteria
independent, and if not, how does that affect our interpretation of the
results?) In short, this is a very, very bad test for difference. It will
produce many false negatives.

So if you really want to stop the "jaw flapping" and try to resolve the
differences of the two camps, first you have to acknowledge the
possibility
that we might have a point, and that it is worth trying to resolve
somehow.

Well, no, I donÂ't have to acknowledge any such thing. There is no
possibility that you have a point, because there is absolutely no
support
for any of your conjectures anywhere in the voluminous research on human
hearing perception. If you can find such support, I will then be
prepared
to
concede that you may have a point. Also, if you can provide any direct
evidence for any of your conjectures, I will concede that you may have a
point. But IÂ'm not holding my breath, on either score.

Somebody always has to be first! :-)

A fair amount of science was first postulated by "crazies". May be crazy,
may be. Or may however remotely possibly be right.

Yes, but the burden of proof is always on the crazies.

But you don't have to think I am right. Enough people have raised similar
issues on this forum over the years...enough that anybody really seeking
the
truth should a least design a control test to knock down the objections.

Enough people have raised arguments in favor of Creationism on all sorts of
forums that...see the problem? Just because a lot of people think something,
doesn't mean it's worthy of scientific exploration.

Science, of necessity, builds on itself, which is why I insist, before I
afford you the respect you think you deserve, that you provide *some*
evidence, or at least some empirical basis for considering your hypothesis
plausible. (IOW, do your own friggin' test.)

Why do you suppose Oohashi choose that particular form of testing,

Maybe out of desperation. The standard approach failed him, so he flailed
around until he found one that gave him the results he wanted, even if it
was just a statistical fluke.

and why
do you suppose he found statistical correlation where conventional theory
suggested it shouldn't exist?

Who knows? And given how nearly impossible he has made it to confirm his
results, who cares? His results are utterly irrelevant to high-end audio,
anyway.

Does not a better listening test technique
suggest itself as a possibility?

Not really. Oohashi admits that his subjects are not *hearing* whatever is
in that HF noise he's playing. I don't think he'd even classify what he did
as a listening test.

Oohashi himself makes reference to earlier
tests that showed no difference using conventional techniques; that is why
his group set the listening test up the way they did, because they
suspected
that might be one of the factors getting in the way. And the results don't
dispute the possibility that he was right.

Actually, we haven't seen his *results.* We've only seen his statistical
interpretation of his results. And his statistical interpretation has a few
big holes, as I noted above.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
There are now three new levels of MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! Learn more.
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&...tmail/es2&ST=1