bhaagensen wrote: > thanks garym. My next question is then wether you've further considered > the strengths/weaknesses of the methodology. Any thoughts - theoretical, > statistical, probabilistic, domain specifics, or just intuitive thoughts > on the matter?
Hmmm, that's a question that requires much more than a short (or even long) forum post. Yes, every experiment must be carefully evaluated for confounding effects and consideration of method issues. In my day job I publish my work in peer review journals based on the result of carefully testing theoretically based hypotheses following the scientific method. What I do has nothing to do with audio, but most of the questions at hand here regarding audio are not unique to the engineering and science of audio or human perception of audio. Given my own training, experience, and knowledge about such testing, I'm more than very convinced of the evidence I've seen from well done tests regarding audio component differences and the existence of biases in the subjects in sighted tests. p.s. Most (all?) of the arguments against double blind testing I've seen in audiophile magazines/forums are completely wrong in my opinion. Opponents set up straw men such as "listener stress" based on the setting itself or "short snippets" of music, etc. None of these things *have* to be issues in a double blind experiment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=96407 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
