Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 96
  1. #1
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    235

    Sighted Testing IS King!! Silly me - all those years wasted...

    Well some of the past threads got me thinking about the differences between sighted vs. blind testing, and there was an interesting point made about taste buds et al. I think that the parallels of taste(stimulus of taste buds)/flavour(interpretation of the stimulus) and sound(stimulus of ear apparatus)/hearing(interpretation of the stimulus) are remarkable.

    Anyways, we had a party last Saturday with 13 guests. I thought that this might be an interesting time to try out a sighted test. Here's the methodology: The night before, I prepared, as one large batch, an excellent salsa whose recipe I obtained in Mexico. On Saturday, I divided the batch into two separate containers.

    When our guests arrived, I eventually steered them around to trying this salsa that I had made. I said that one container had a milder salsa, but that for the other container I had put TWICE the amount of chilies in - thus making it a lot hotter. I asked each guest after they tried both salsas if they liked them and if they found the one salsa too hot. For 6 guests, I let them try the "mild" salsa first; for the other 7 guests, I let them try the "hot" salsa first.

    Guess what the results were??








    All 13 guests or 100% of the sample said that the "hot" salsa was indeed hotter (they also said that they liked it, but that's beside the point). The range of replies to the "hotter" salsa was from "yeah, it's a bit hotter, but I like to eat spicy food," to "WOW, this is way hotter than the other one," - with most comments somewhere in between. Nobody said they tasted the same and nobody said that the "hot" salsa was milder. The guest who said the last comment was even warning other people that the "hot" salsa was indeed much spicier than the other container for part of the night.

    I guess this proves that basic scientific methodology is incorrect with regards to blind vs. sighted testing. I can now see how sighted testing is truly the king of testing methodologies. I lament all those years of toil in school - all wasted working under false assumptions. What was I thinking?!

    I read recently how a new medical procedure to help severe migraine sufferers had passed the ethics board. Basically what they want to do is to patch a little hole in the heart. Previously, people had said that when they had undergone this operation that as a side effect, the severity, intervals between, and duration of their migraines diminished substantially. In order to patch the hole, a small incision is made in the thigh to gain access to the femoral artery. The surgery is accomplished through this little incision. There's going to be 2 testing groups of 100 people each. The one group will actually have this surgery done; the other group will have the same incision cut into their legs but no actual surgery. The apparent reason being that the researchers want to eliminate any possibility of the results being attributed to psychosomatic effects.

    Now as we've seen above in my simple kitchen example, we don't need to do this. IN FACT, what happened to the Hippocratic oath? I mean they're cutting up 100 people for no good reason. I think that they should just simply tell everybody who's getting the surgery that they've had the surgery and be done with it. If it's as good as they say, then everything is going to work out fine. I think that after I open this thread, that I'm going to write to those researchers and their ethics board to tell them that they're going about this "research" in entirely the wrong fashion.

    So there you have it. Blind testing is for the BIRDS. Sighted testing is KING!!!!

  2. #2
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by magictooth
    Well some of the past threads got me thinking about the differences between sighted vs. blind testing, and there was an interesting point made about taste buds et al. I think that the parallels of taste(stimulus of taste buds)/flavour(interpretation of the stimulus) and sound(stimulus of ear apparatus)/hearing(interpretation of the stimulus) are remarkable.

    .......


    All 13 guests or 100% of the sample said that the "hot" salsa was indeed hotter (they also said that they liked it, but that's beside the point). The range of replies to the "hotter" salsa was from "yeah, it's a bit hotter, but I like to eat spicy food," to "WOW, this is way hotter than the other one," - with most comments somewhere in between. Nobody said they tasted the same and nobody said that the "hot" salsa was milder. The guest who said the last comment was even warning other people that the "hot" salsa was indeed much spicier than the other container for part of the night.

    I guess this proves that basic scientific methodology is incorrect with regards to blind vs. sighted testing. I can now see how sighted testing is truly the king of testing methodologies. I lament all those years of toil in school - all wasted working under false assumptions. What was I thinking?!

    My dear Dr.Tooth:
    What a marvelous story! I couldn't ask for a better demonstration/verification of what I've been trying to get across to these diehards at this board for several years now. Of course, I don't expect any of them to "cave" and admit how wrong their adamant protestations really are ... I really don't. Firmly held beliefs - especially those that are related to an individual's talents and skills and knowledge and sophistication and wisdom are extremely hard to break down and change. It's just "human nature" to want others to think of us as truly marvelous critters - nearly perfect in every way!

    I thought that my example of what takes place in a "stage hypnotist's" performance would be enough to at least sow some seeds of doubt in some minds here ... but alas and alack - NO, it didn't. They still cling valiantly to the notion that their ears are without a doubt, "better" than any scientific instrumentation at detecting sonic differences. What a joke (and a rather sad one at that)! It's probably for the best that they don't realize that their stubborn clinging to a "talent" that simply doesn't exist is costing them untold amounts of money (for no good reason) - otherwise, they just might upchuck their dinner!
    woodman

    I plan to live forever ..... so far, so good!
    Steven Wright

  3. #3
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by magictooth
    So there you have it. Blind testing is for the BIRDS. Sighted testing is KING!!!!
    Please explain the relevance of a "loaded" taste test evaluated in a manner of seconds to extended listening tests of components devoid of any stated obvious differences where the "information content" is far greater.

    rw

  4. #4
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727

    Wow, what an interesting coincidence!

    Great story, Magictooth! And very timely! And about salsa, yet! How coincidental! Here's a true story for you.

    Just last night, I took my kiddies to Taco Bell, their favorite fast food joint. I grabbed what I thought was their Fire Sauce and put it on my Beef Grilled Stuft Burrito. After two bites, I thought it tasted funny - not hot enough. It was pretty obvious. I looked down and realized I had been given the mild sauce instead of the fire sauce I asked for.

    But of course (biting sarcasm) I had to KNOW that it was the wrong packet, didn't I? God forbid, my SENSES could NOT have been correct! (sarcasm off).

    And so Mr Magictooth... your point is...?

  5. #5
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Please explain the relevance of a "loaded" taste test evaluated in a manner of seconds to extended listening tests of components devoid of any stated obvious differences where the "information content" is far greater.

    rw
    I would guess that you have to be kidding, but I will spell it out for you in plain(er) English.

    The following are the rough equivalencies that I see in my flavour test and an IC test.

    I made one batch of salsa = IC that conducts well
    I divided the batches into 2 containers = one IC packaged as $10 pair; other IC packaged as $200 pair.
    I told people that one was regular = I tell a listener that this IC costs $10
    I told people that the other container has 2x chilies = I tell a listener that this IC costs $200
    I told people that the other container was hotter = I tell a listener that this IC sounds better

    The results:

    People say that the "hot" salsa is indeed hotter after I've told them it should be hotter = a listener says that the IC sounds better after they've been told it should sound better.
    Nobody chose the "mild" salsa as hotter or the same = nobody chooses the $10 IC as sounding the same or better than the expensive one.
    People say that one salsa is a bit hotter = some people saying that the expensive IC made the sound more open, airy, etc by a bit
    People say that one salsa was WAY hotter = some people saying that the expensive IC made a night and day difference to their system's sound

    One other thing that I forgot to say in my original post was that some people said that one salsa tasted better than the other. I forgot that part, and maybe you think that is important. I suppose it is possible for us to infer another result:

    People say one salsa tastes better than the other = listener says that one IC is better than the other.

    As an aside you are WAY, WAY, WAY off base if you are saying that sound has more interpretive variables than taste. Hearing uses one cranial nerve (VIII); taste uses at least three (I, VII, and IX). At the very least hearing and flavour evaluation are equal, and in all likelihood, taste requires more interpretation than hearing.

    As well, E-Stat, you don't address why REAL researchers use blind testing. In the case that I presented from the real world, the parallels are unmistakable. For migraine sufferers, unknown trigger (stimulus) -->nociceptors fire (neural reaction) --> pain is felt (interpretation of stimulus). For listening, sound waves hit the ears (stimulus) --> vestibulocochlear nerve fires (neural reaction) --> hearing (interpretation of stimulus). If sighted testing is the cat's meow, why bother to cut 100 people for no reason?

    In any case, just to make my point a bit clearer:

    I made a single batch of salsa and then divided the contents in two. By simply telling people that one batch should taste different than the other, 13 out of 13 people said that they could tell that there was a difference in the salsa WHEN IF FACT THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL. The parallel of this exercise with audio listening tests is that I can very likely take a useable IC, re-badge it, and in a sighted listening test get you to think that it sounds better than an identical other IC.
    Last edited by magictooth; 01-20-2005 at 10:07 PM. Reason: You'd think somebody like me would know the difference between facial and trigeminal

  6. #6
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by musicoverall
    Great story, Magictooth! And very timely! And about salsa, yet! How coincidental! Here's a true story for you.

    Just last night, I took my kiddies to Taco Bell, their favorite fast food joint. I grabbed what I thought was their Fire Sauce and put it on my Beef Grilled Stuft Burrito. After two bites, I thought it tasted funny - not hot enough. It was pretty obvious. I looked down and realized I had been given the mild sauce instead of the fire sauce I asked for.

    But of course (biting sarcasm) I had to KNOW that it was the wrong packet, didn't I? God forbid, my SENSES could NOT have been correct! (sarcasm off).

    And so Mr Magictooth... your point is...?
    You seem to be someone who is given to hyperbole. Are you sure that you're not TLADINY under a new moniker? You are the one missing the point. You said they gave you mild sauce when you wanted hot sauce. I gave my guests IDENTICAL salsa and said they were different. We'd have a closer parallel if the sauce in the different packages were the same.

  7. #7
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by magictooth
    You seem to be someone who is given to hyperbole. Are you sure that you're not TLADINY under a new moniker? You are the one missing the point. You said they gave you mild sauce when you wanted hot sauce. I gave my guests IDENTICAL salsa and said they were different. We'd have a closer parallel if the sauce in the different packages were the same.
    Ok, my bad. I missed that. But I think it's an interesting, if meaningless in the context of cables, exercise you performed. Did it occur to you that your guests might have been trying to please you and were pulling your chain? After all, that's an excuse the naysayers use when an audiophile claims that his wife heard his system's difference when a cable or something was swapped. You're jumping to conclusions here.

    Nope, not TLADINY. Odd name.

  8. #8
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by magictooth
    The parallel of this exercise with audio listening tests is that I can very likely take a useable IC, re-badge it, and in a sighted listening test get you to think that it sounds better than an identical other IC.
    Let's try again. Tell me the relevance of a seconds long determination vs. one ascertained over weeks if not months worth of listening.

    rw

  9. #9
    Cylon Centurian Rycher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    68
    I like salsa, and I like it hot. My wife likes it hotter, my daughter likes it mild, and my best freind can eat chipotle chiles by the whole - one after the other. Each of our ranges of "hot" are irrelevent as we have varying degrees of taste. My freind also has a bit of bad eyes, but he swears to me that my TV is always out of focus, and that I have dead pixels in my plasma! Poor guy, I'd hate to put him thru any kind of blind A/B/X testing.
    Visit my site for more stereos:
    www.jimmyneutron.org

  10. #10
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by Rycher
    my TV is always out of focus, and that I have dead pixels in my plasma! Poor guy, I'd hate to put him thru any kind of blind A/B/X testing.
    That would be a DDT - a double deaf test - since it's dealing with the eyes, wouldn't it?

  11. #11
    Cylon Centurian Rycher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by musicoverall
    That would be a DDT - a double deaf test - since it's dealing with the eyes, wouldn't it?

    LOL, thanks for making my morning!
    Visit my site for more stereos:
    www.jimmyneutron.org

  12. #12
    Big science. Hallelujah. noddin0ff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    X
    Posts
    2,286
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Let's try again. Tell me the relevance of a seconds long determination vs. one ascertained over weeks if not months worth of listening.

    rw
    Rather than the obvious short answer rebuttal that short sessions and long sessions are equally subjective...

    It seems like the best way to address E-stat's objection would be to allow a lengthy trial period until the listerner is convinced the differences are established in his/her mind. Then proceed to the blind test. Could even have lengthy blind sessions, but they shouldn't be necessary since the differences by then should be obvious to the listener. Listener could even pick most revealing passages.

    It would be a lot more informative for both sides of the argument

    2cents,

    noddin0ff

  13. #13
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Let's try again. Tell me the relevance of a seconds long determination vs. one ascertained over weeks if not months worth of listening.

    rw
    markw gave you a simple yet effective blind testing methodology. I hate to reprint for the umpteenth time, but maybe you didn't read the last X times it's been written out for you.

    So E-Stat, why don't you try the following exercise:

    1. Select 2 sets of ICs.
    2. Teach your wife how to plug the IC from your CDP to your amp.
    3. Get her to swap or not swap cords at whatever interval you like. It can be every day, every week, every couple months - whatever you like.
    4. Get her to write down which IC she used.
    5. You listen to your heart's content and when you've finally determined which pair of ICs you've been listening to for whatever interval YOU choose, then write down your findings.
    6. Compare notes at the end of the experiment.

    You can do whatever number of trials that you like, but keep in mind that if you do say 25 trials, I think in order to be statistically significant, you'd need to get at least 18-19 correct.

    As for the direct answer to your question, the direct relevance is that the mind can do mysterious things. Whether it's over a short 5 second thing or an extended period of time, if you have no reference base, then any findings that you may have are meaningless.

    You haven't answered my question either: why do real researchers use blind testing only? There's never a study that uses sighted testing. NOT EVEN A SINGLE ONE. That should tell you something in and of itself.

  14. #14
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by Rycher
    I like salsa, and I like it hot. My wife likes it hotter, my daughter likes it mild, and my best freind can eat chipotle chiles by the whole - one after the other. Each of our ranges of "hot" are irrelevent as we have varying degrees of taste. My freind also has a bit of bad eyes, but he swears to me that my TV is always out of focus, and that I have dead pixels in my plasma! Poor guy, I'd hate to put him thru any kind of blind A/B/X testing.
    Sorry, let me point out to you that the salsa was IDENTICAL.

  15. #15
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by musicoverall
    Ok, my bad. I missed that. But I think it's an interesting, if meaningless in the context of cables, exercise you performed. Did it occur to you that your guests might have been trying to please you and were pulling your chain? After all, that's an excuse the naysayers use when an audiophile claims that his wife heard his system's difference when a cable or something was swapped. You're jumping to conclusions here.

    Nope, not TLADINY. Odd name.
    Not ignoring you, but I will check with them. Will get back ASAP on this issue. I hadn't thought of it actually, but to have 100% of subjects respond in one way is truly remarkable.

  16. #16
    Cylon Centurian Rycher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by magictooth
    Sorry, let me point out to you that the salsa was IDENTICAL.

    Not in my reference. If my daughter was to eat the salsa that I consider mild, it would burn her mouth to high heaven, same as if I was to eat the chipotle chiles - I would destroy my abdomen, but my buddy thinks it's as mild as butter. My point is that we all taste different salsa's differently, just as we all hear things differently and see things differently. That's why we also have certain preferences to manufactures of equipment. If they all sounded the same (something that just as in cables all manufactures "could" build the "same" reference amp, etc.), then there would'nt be so many brands. Some engineer could make one reference design for, let's say an amplifier, and one maker would build it. All other designs would be snake-oil as they would deviate from the reference. I think manufacturers diliberatly make their equipment, and cables, to sound different (whether it be pleasing to one and terrible to another, it would still be "their signature sound"). Am I too far off here?
    Visit my site for more stereos:
    www.jimmyneutron.org

  17. #17
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by Rycher
    Not in my reference. If my daughter was to eat the salsa that I consider mild, it would burn her mouth to high heaven, same as if I was to eat the chipotle chiles - I would destroy my abdomen, but my buddy thinks it's as mild as butter. My point is that we all taste different salsa's differently, just as we all hear things differently and see things differently. That's why we also have certain preferences to manufactures of equipment. If they all sounded the same (something that just as in cables all manufactures "could" build the "same" reference amp, etc.), then there would'nt be so many brands. Some engineer could make one reference design for, let's say an amplifier, and one maker would build it. All other designs would be snake-oil as they would deviate from the reference. I think manufacturers diliberatly make their equipment, and cables, to sound different (whether it be pleasing to one and terrible to another, it would still be "their signature sound"). Am I too far off here?
    Yeah, sorry you're pretty far off. If you could reread the entire post, you'll find that I used one batch of salsa and divided it into 2 containers. I merely told them that one was hotter when in fact the salsa was IDENTICAL in each container. When asked, 100% of respondents said that the salsa that I had indicated was hotter, was in fact hotter. The salsa shouldn't have tasted hotter because it was THE SAME salsa. I was introducing bias by telling them that one salsa was hotter when in fact they should taste the same.

  18. #18
    Cylon Centurian Rycher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by magictooth
    Yeah, sorry you're pretty far off. If you could reread the entire post, you'll find that I used one batch of salsa and divided it into 2 containers. I merely told them that one was hotter when in fact the salsa was IDENTICAL in each container. When asked, 100% of respondents said that the salsa that I had indicated was hotter, was in fact hotter. The salsa shouldn't have tasted hotter because it was THE SAME salsa. I was introducing bias by telling them that one salsa was hotter when in fact they should taste the same.

    I was talking about my reference to the salsa eaters in my family. Different salsa's, very different opions.
    Visit my site for more stereos:
    www.jimmyneutron.org

  19. #19
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by magictooth
    but to have 100% of subjects respond in one way is truly remarkable.
    I would think so, too. I would also hazard a guess which you might be able to refute or verify that very few things that are tested blind and ARE truly different are caught 100% of the time by all participants. 100% in anything at all is remarkable.

    Have their ever been any tests that you are aware of where the items under test are blatantly different? I'd be interested to see the scores of such a test. It might help in determining just how worthwhile blind testing is. As a silly example, has anyone with normal tastebuds incorrectly guessed "apple" while tasting an orange? Ever?

  20. #20
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by musicoverall
    I would think so, too. I would also hazard a guess which you might be able to refute or verify that very few things that are tested blind and ARE truly different are caught 100% of the time by all participants. 100% in anything at all is remarkable.

    Have their ever been any tests that you are aware of where the items under test are blatantly different? I'd be interested to see the scores of such a test. It might help in determining just how worthwhile blind testing is. As a silly example, has anyone with normal tastebuds incorrectly guessed "apple" while tasting an orange? Ever?
    Early email/IM returns on my question, "Did you think that the salsas that you were taste testing were different or were you just pulling my leg?" I've got 8 replies so far, although 2 people were like "Huh?" (I had to refresh their memories). All 8 out of 8 said that they had thought the salsa were different and that they weren't playing along for my benefit. One of the more common refrains was, "you're an *******," or equivalent.

    My test was to point out the power of suggestion. This is the power of a sighted test.

    You ask if there have been any tests that are blatantly different? Come on, there are thousands and thousands of blind studies out there that have proved that the effect is psychosomatic. All of those Phase III trials that suddenly disappear from a pharm or biotech company's press releases? Those are all failed blind tests. I'm pretty sure that you're serious here, but it's almost all that I can do to stop myself from ROTFLMAO.

    Your example of an apple vs. orange is not applicable. A more applicable simile to taste would be detemining the sensitivity of taste buds. My numbers are definitely off, but here's the example. The threshold of sweet taste is say 200 PPM of sugar dissolved in water. If I gave 2 solutions, one containing 200 PPM and the other 220 PPM, but told the test subjects that the 200 PPM was the sweeter one in advance of the test, would you be surprised if most people chose the 200 PPM solution as sweeter? Maybe you would, but I wouldn't be that surprised. The power of suggestion is very strong. That's why all well drafted studies use blind testing.

    Let me make a point clear about my stance: I don't believe every cable or piece of equipment sounds the same. I'm not your classic naysayer. My point is that in order to accurately determine whether there's a difference between 2 pieces of audio gear, a blind test needs to be conducted. If it makes you happy to listen to your piece over a 1 week, 1 month or whatever period YOU deem adequate, then you should do so, but take the time and do yourself a favour and perform a blind test.

    Doing only sighted testing is cheating yourself, and it is cheating others when you propagate your biased view as fact.

  21. #21
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by magictooth

    You ask if there have been any tests that are blatantly different? Come on, there are thousands and thousands of blind studies out there that have proved that the effect is psychosomatic. All of those Phase III trials that suddenly disappear from a pharm or biotech company's press releases? Those are all failed blind tests. I'm pretty sure that you're serious here, but it's almost all that I can do to stop myself from ROTFLMAO.
    .
    Perhaps I wasn't clear. Are there two products that are totally different tasting/sounding/whatever that were subjected to blind testing where the participants voted that they were no differences? Let's say we tested two receivers and we had the treble turned all the way off on one, as a different example from the apple vs orange example. Have participants failed in a blind test where there were in fact differences and differences that should have been obvious?

    No need to try and stop yourself from laughing at me. Since you can't hurt my feelings, all you'd succeed in is hurting your own sides!

  22. #22
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by musicoverall
    Perhaps I wasn't clear. Are there two products that are totally different tasting/sounding/whatever that were subjected to blind testing where the participants voted that they were no differences? Let's say we tested two receivers and we had the treble turned all the way off on one, as a different example from the apple vs orange example. Have participants failed in a blind test where there were in fact differences and differences that should have been obvious?

    No need to try and stop yourself from laughing at me. Since you can't hurt my feelings, all you'd succeed in is hurting your own sides!
    Can't say that I have heard of that. I've done blind testing with an old CEC TT and my newer Rega P-25 with Benz Micro Low Output Cart. There's a huge difference. I've only tried it with 3 other people and they've been able to pick out the glaring differences right away. The lack of any tests in the literature such as you've delineated above, while not absolutely conclusive, certainly leads you to believe that blind testing has its merits.

    In any case, cable sonics proponents are trying to massage little details from the music. When you ask about gross differences such as the situation you listed, or when you ask why can I tell the difference between a trumpet and a violin, these comparisons aren't of the same type as when you say that you can hear more air, musicality, better midrange, or whatever by changing cables.

  23. #23
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Let's try again. Tell me the relevance of a seconds long determination vs. one ascertained over weeks if not months worth of listening.

    rw

    It never ceases to amaze me how you can spin things. Nowhere in the original presentation was there any mention of long term testing, nowhere, so why then could you possibly think it relevant to ask such a question that is entirely without merit......or are you telling us that it takes you that long to convince yourself?

    -Bruce

  24. #24
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by FLZapped
    Nowhere in the original presentation was there any mention of long term testing, nowhere, so why then could you possibly think it relevant to ask such a question that is entirely without merit......or are you telling us that it takes you that long to convince yourself?
    Long term evaluations are how most audio reviewers approach (sighted) testing for any component. Likewise, I reserve judgement on any component until I have listened to it for an extended period of time using varied musical material.

    If quick audio cowboy comparisons work for you, then so be it.

    rw

  25. #25
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    235

    E-Stat, Where Are You??

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Long term evaluations are how most audio reviewers approach (sighted) testing for any component. Likewise, I reserve judgement on any component until I have listened to it for an extended period of time using varied musical material.

    If quick audio cowboy comparisons work for you, then so be it.

    rw
    E-Stat, I posted my reply above, and I see that you've replied to Bruce's comment much later. Do you have anything to say about my comments? Is there any part of that blind test that you can accomplish in your home and at your own pace disagreeable? What about my question with regards to real researchers? Why should they drug and cut up 100 people in the name of science when there really is no need?

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Denon, Yamaha or Marantz Receiver
    By spricajder in forum Home Theater/Video
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 01-22-2009, 03:45 PM
  2. Testing and the Scientific Method
    By pctower in forum Cables
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 06-01-2004, 12:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •