Testing and the Scientific Method

[pctower]

You are taking the subject OUT of the normal listening environment PERIOD. You are testing people outside of the normal environment which automatically decreases the validity of said test.

That is absurd.
You don't need to know which component you are listening to in normal listeing. It just so happens you do. And it is absurd to suggest that that would decrease the validity. Since sighted listeing has no real scientific tool in testing for differences, you have nothing then.

You need to consult the NRC in Canada and see if DBT decreases the validity. LOL.


Look at the very juxtoposition of the timing of A/B listening. You need it short to meet the demand imposed of the test of memory retention - but last i checked people do not listen to 12 seconds of a song and switch.

And? It just so happens that short, rapid switching is the most sensitive listeing to differentiate small differences. Again, consult with some who know this stuff, not your psych instructors who are in a different field that psychoacoustic testing. Consult with NRC.

None of this is an apology of sighted listening which of course is full of bias - but that a dbt in testing human subjects has an invalid element that has yet to be corrected.

Hogwash.
You are assuming things not in evidence.

Hi-Fi Choice

They do a very poor comparison as it is not about differences but maybe preferences, if that.

Then you have several people over several hours fill out cards of what they liked or disliked etc.

And? What does that demonstrate? Just their perceived preferences, nothing more. Certainly not that there was any difference at all. So, it has no real meaning for differences.

[/b] This isn't perfect but it does do what it is supposed to do [/b]

Really?

Bottom line is the manufacturer can deliberately change the sound of any componant - whether it's better, worse the same cannot be assessed in different rooms, with different gear and different listeners attached.

Yes, they can build that sound different. Even you could probably Is that the goal? Or musical accuracy?

If it measures differently within the audible spectrum then it's different. Whether you can't hear it in these tests says nothing about whether you can hear it in a non testing environment over a longer period of time or just not in the testing environment.

Of course it can. In a non testing environment, sighted, whether long time or short, has no meaning for differences, so, whu would that have more meaning than in a bias controlled environment. One can imagine regardless of the conditions used. But, one method has more meaning that the other determining facts and reality.

But Mr. PC Tower you will not convince any of these people to look into these external arguments about the brain and the way it works(possibly Skeptic) and why it is not wholly compatible to these tests - instead you will get an gross analogies to ESP, UFOs, and Aliens.

And why didn't those scientists do DBT comparisons? Perhaps they are unscientific in that regard.

You don't need to know which component you are listening to in normal listeing. And it is absurd to suggest that that would decrease the validity. Since sighted listeing has no real scientific tool in testing for differences, you have nothing then.

He didn't say you do. He's talking about the "environment" in which the testing is conducted. You're missing his very clear point about the importance of the test "environment" and conditions being as close as possible to the actual human experience one is attempting to test - in this case the experience people have in their own relaxed living environments. That doesn't mean the test wouldn't be double blind to remove bias. It does mean that the test should be conducted in a manner that closely duplicates the environment and conditions where the phenomena being tested usually occurs.

The fact that you totally miss this point suggests to me how little you really know about this type of testing or how biased you really are, or both.

Don't get me wrong. I claim no expertise in this subject. But the fact that you are so unwilling to consider the importance of test environment (and have been ever since I first brought it up two years ago when I first started posting here), when those who are professionals at conducting tests in the broad set of tests that encompasses audio DBTs as one small sub-set consider environment to be crucial suggests to me that you are not the expert you would like all of us to think you are and that you are far, far from the objectivive searcher for truth that you would have all of us believe.

It just so happens that short, rapid switching is the most sensitive listeing to differentiate small differences. Again, consult with some who know this stuff, not your psych instructors who are in a different field that psychoacoustic testing. Consult with NRC.

You like to throw names around much like the way John Curl does. How about some specifics to back up your claim that short, rapid switching is the most sensitive to differentiate small differences. I think that this entire subject of proper test protocol for audio cables and equipment is far more complex than your closed mind can acknowledge.

I submit the kind of unquesting, non-critical support people like you lend to the sloppy research that has been done in the area of cable DBTs does as much disservice to the cause of good science as do people like Jon Risch.

n a non testing environment, sighted, whether long time or short, has no meaning for differences, so, whu would that have more meaning than in a bias controlled environment. One can imagine regardless of the conditions used. But, one method has more meaning that the other determining facts and reality.

You must quickly run out of relevant things to say, because he's not trying to defend the validity of sighted testing. But you seem to be making a fundamental mistake in concluding that just because sighted tests are flawed, any blind test no matter how flawed or lacking in proper scientific protocol is better.