Themis;353655 Wrote: > Not necessarily. Studies are made so that you can get only the answers > that you are looking for. > If he question was : "can you hear an audible difference ?" everybody > will answer "no".
That's not how the SACD study was done. You're not asked -if- you can hear a difference - you're asked to identify X as A or B. > And you can't ask for the question "did you get more pleasure" : it > could make no sense because you can't quantify it (although you could > have measured it with an EEG). Why in the world not? Have you even read the article this thread is about? That's -exactly- what they did - they asked the listeners how they felt about various aspects of the sound, and they got what they claim to be statistically significant results. > Very well then. I speak for myself : I'm just a IT engineer, although I > have a degree of chemistry. But I don't consider myself as related > enough with the study discussed. I'm not a medical scientist, and I'm > not the only one. ;) Statistics are statistics - it makes no difference at all where the data came from. The test they used (an ANOVA F-test) is absolutely standard - only they used it incorrectly (as far as I can tell from the detail they give). -- opaqueice ------------------------------------------------------------------------ opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=54077 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
