Themis;373072 Wrote: > > Then, we take several people, and two different pictures (A and B) > along with a third one (X) which is a copy of one of them. > Then, we cut a small piece of each picture (say 1 billionth of it) and > we ask each time to try to determine whether the piece of the X picture > is the same as the part of the A or the part of the B one. > If they can't determine whether this small part of X is for sure part > of the A or B, and if the panel of the observers is large enough, then > we can conclude that the A and B pictures are the same and can't be > distinguished.
In the best ABX methodologies, listeners can -choose- which sections to listen to (zoom in on that small piece, in your analogy). Or failing that, the passages that exhibit the greatest differences are selected by the test administrator. In your analogy, it's clear such a procedure would make the task of finding differences much -easier-, just as it does for audio. But again, absolutely -nothing- about ABX requires short samples. > The only problem, is that they actually ARE different, and that some > people can actually distinguish some of the differences. Prove it. -- opaqueice ------------------------------------------------------------------------ opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=56425 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
