Jkeny makes valid points about blind tests. Unlike some, I've spent more time doing blind tests than arguing about them. Whenever I can listen blind practically, I do so, but I do it to put my sighted impressions into context and perspective.
For example, someone may claim that emailing a FLAC file across the Atlantic makes it sound echoey. Let's say I do a blind test at home to test this, comparing emailed files versus non-emailed files. I score 50%, null result. There are ways to know the files sound the same (like knowledge of IT) ... but this home blind test result is not the way to know ... understand this. There are a whole set of reasons why null results at home (blind OR sighted) not generally reliable! To those, for blind tests we can add extra listener stress that moves it further from "normal listening". Plus fatigue loads the dice against one listener achieving the p-level. Since a positive result in a sighted test is not evidence and as stated above, neither is a null, why do sighted? At least listener stress is minimised and the format is closer to "normal listening". It's more sensitive. At home our best bet is a mixture of sighted and blind. Usually I do sighted first and let those impressions direct my blind listening, this has been more effective than just going blind. Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ SB Touch ------------------------------------------------------------------------ darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103842 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
