opaqueice;353663 Wrote: > 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.It's the same thing. > If you can't hear a difference you can't identify X precicely. And if you can't identify X precicely, you can't hear the difference. Same thing.
opaqueice;353663 Wrote: > > 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.In the article, they made EEG measures. The questions > were auxiliary : they were not used for the main part of the study, and the study doesn't rely on them. They say that "it is difficult to exclude the possibility that those studies might have introduced a subjective evaluation that might not precisely correspond to each sound condition". To me, it means that the subjective evaluation is void. opaqueice;353663 Wrote: > 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).That's for sure : Statistics are statistics. I use them three or > four times a week. This is the only part I can really discuss, but I didn't notice any incorrect use. Perhaps I didn't read it carefully... I'll give it another read. -- Themis SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Denon 3808 - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=54077 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
