"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

I think, explain the reasoning behind your methods. Is
that so unreasonable?

Why not just ask for what you want, instead of
pontificating so much? The goal of our method was that we wanted to
develop a
test for audio gear that was as fair as possible and
that could be self-administered. The reasoning behind our method was to
identify as many
significant sources of bias as we could, and manage them
with a relatively simple piece of hardware.


Mmmm. That is the reason for the test, not the approach.
This could go on and on :-)



I have no real desire to turn you on to this, or
anything else, btw :-)
I also have a few issues with method mentioned
elsewhere in this thread. What are they?
I have no 'expert' knowledge of testing protocols in
this context. I would have thought any lay person
would point to:
Environmental variables - light, heat, seating,
audience.
Obvious.

Sample - did you test their hearing acuity?
Read the list of participants. Do you seriously think
that yo would naturally find a lot of people in a group
of musicians, audio engineers and experienced
audiophiles who lacked at last normal ability to
distinguish sonic differences?
Yes - I did read the summary relating to the
participants

But, you haven't answered the question.


I felt it was implied in my summary - professional
experience, so yes they could deduce difference to a
degree.
It strikes me, and here I lapse into stereotype, that
the people involved were possibly middle aged men?
No, the oldest of them were in their late 40s, the
youngest were in their 20s.

Who by training listen for and expect particular
things?

You must have zero respect for musicians, audio
engineers, and audiophiles.

Again, no answer.


I thought that was a rhetorical point, not a question.

Whose hearing is possibly past its best?
You are obviously clutching for straws.

... who have two characteristics (at least) in common -
professional familiarity with audio, and (related) an
element of expectation relating to the results. Add to
this peer pressure (the results matter to them in a way
that they would not matter - thankfully - to a 10 year
old child) and I think I'm right to question method. It
really isn't that difficult.

Again, you've really said nothing, just cast a few
unfounded aspersions.

Common sense I would have thought? The method resembles
snowballing (not the sexual version!) - fine in certain
circumstances, but I can't fathom the methodological
context here.
Since you won't answer any of my questions...


?! Of course for me to reject your qs would be
inexcusable!
We had a thread on the tests of a UK consumer mag
(called 'Which?') a while back - their tests 'revealed'
audible differences in CD players and amplifiers. This
was fairly unanimously rejected as unscientific drivel
on this NG, and I did go to the trouble of writing to
the magazine editiors for clarification of their test
protocols. They were far more forthcoming - and aware
of limitations - than you appear to be. Why might that
be?

What do you want to know about our test protocols that
you can't easily find out from the sources that have
been cited?

It's not really the test protocols, although I've raised
a couple of issues above relating to samples that you've
dismissed.

By saying nothing that makes any sense, you've released me from further
comments, I think.