magiccarpetride wrote: > Double blind listening tests are tricky at best because they tend to > deliver a lot, and I mean a lot of false positives. There are well > documented cases where sufficiently large population of double blind > testers were reporting significant differences in the sound quality > while in reality the experimenters were merely playing an identical > configuration over and over and over. Funny how human psyche functions. > Highly unreliable.
The interesting thing IME is when you have a blind test and sighted test where everything else is the same...same tracks, system, loudness, A/B switching, snippet length etc and yet the impressions feel so different when listening blind. I think this is something that has to be experienced (I found it humbling) to be understood. "X blows away Y, it takes five seconds to hear it". When you listen blind you can't tell them apart...so the argument shifts to "long-term impressions are important and not amenable to blind testing". An argument which sounds plausible on its own but obviously it looks desperate considered next to the initial position. Darren ------------------------------------------------------------------------ darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94418 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
