lrossouw wrote: > Your arguments for describing the failures of double blind tests (if > they DO consistently fail) are also arguments for being even more weary > of listening tests that involve no blind testing (because you're > describing how the listeners heard differences that weren't there!).
Absolutely. My point is that any listening tests unavoidably place the listening subject in a stressful situation. And human nature dictates that whenever we find ourselves in a stressful situation, we rush to end that situation by any means available. So it would seem that many listening test subjects are merely skimming through the process, giving half-assed answers, just so that they could reach the end of job. Human nature is such that we, while being under the stress of the expectation to provide an answer, either rush to proclaim that there is a clear improvement, or a clear degradation, or clearly there are no differences to be heard whatsoever. I don't think that, on average, we are calm and relaxed enough under the testing conditions to truly delve in and fully experience the event and give a fulsome answer. That's why I think that the results of all listening tests, blind, double-blind, or sighted, must be taken with a grain of salt. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94418 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
