Dave, The "facts" in this case are the results of rounds picking A or B as the identity of X.
A statistical analysis is needed on these results to generate a p-value - the outcome of the experiment is a probability. The problem with this statistical angle is that a large number of samples is needed, and so listening tests involving one or a few people run into trouble with listening fatigue. Note this is not physical fatigue. For example: we never "hear" the same thing twice, because hearing changes the hearer, and hearing is a combination of stimulus and experience; this has a long-term and short-term aspect (e.g. you just get "fed up" of hearing the same thing many times and A and B start to mush). There may be other mechanisms at play, but I've done enough blind tests to come to believe fatigue is a factor beyond 3-4 rounds of listening to the same sample for the same particular difference, at least without a significant break. Sometimes this sort of problem is not mentioned. Another problem with listening tests in general is the number of confounding factors. For example, driving hours to a bake-off affects your hearing. You are more familiar with your own system at home, this process of familiarisation can take a long time - I can pick out an unusual squeak in my car, but a passenger can't, yet we're hearing the same sounds. These confounding factors mean NOT hearing a difference EVEN SIGHTED is not necessarily real evidence of non-audibility. 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=106914 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
