jkeny wrote: > Sorry, loose terminology - what I mean is "fail" to be able to > differentiate between the two devices/samples - getting a null result or > a result statistically close to random guessing.
As many of the heated arguments seem to stem from loose terminology, I think it is good to strive towards using precise terms. A test like this only fails if it doesn't provide any information at all - it is so badly designed or executed that the results are totally inconclusive. What you are talking about is "failing to disprove the null hypothesis". I think we also need to be clear about the purpose of the test and the possible results. Even in the best of cases, all it will do is providing a single data point. It won't "prove" anything, or establish the "reality" of anything - it will be another small piece of evidence. For a more general conclusion, approaching "proof" of anything, the test results need to be independently replicated, under controlled conditions, and enough times to provide real statistical relevance. "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=96407 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
