darrenyeats wrote: > It's all relative. A number of samples too large for me to stomach on my > own! >
It is all about how serious you are about obtaining reliable knowledge. > > The aforementioned fatigue seems to spiral as the size of the (audible) > difference shrinks. > Not really. > > And sadly, we tend not to test the grossest differences in blind tests! > > False again. The best way to train listeners to listen reliably is to have them progress from tests involving large differences, to smaller and smaller differences in a gentle progression. There are several techniques to enhance the size of actual audible differences so that they are easy to hear, even unmistakable. Learn the test paradigm and the nature of the difference to detect using enhanced audio samples, and then decrease the size of the difference in stages to their natural size, or even smaller. > > If you get many rounds wrong you can still achieve a good p-value but > you need many rounds. > Taking this strategy too far can lead to unrealistic expectations. It is possible to reliably detect differences in ABX test that are undetectable in typical audiophile listening sessions. > > I think the amateur blind test is great for telling if the "huge > difference" you hear sighted is actually -small-to-nothing- - not so > great for telling you if it is precisely small or nothing. Not true. The mind-blowing differences that audiophiles report from sighted evaluations are very often an illusory product of placebo effects. There is no reasonable way to compare imaginary experiences with real ones. ABX tests relating to differences that are known to be audible are often more sensitive than the usual textbook results. Listening for actual audible differences is often a very different experience than sighted evaluations. Many audiophile reactions to ABX tests are often due to the fact that audiophiles are actually unfamiliar with the experience of hearing real differences, not imaginary ones. Real differences generally are harder to hear than imaginary ones, but the reasons why are not the fault of the test methodologies, but rather the fault of relying on false perceptions based on hyperactive imaginations. Many people underappreciate the fact that in the absence of actual evidence, the brain is built to fabricate something that it thinks is equivalent. But, it is a random fabrication and only the real thing is reliable. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106914 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
