|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
131.107.0.106
'); } // End --> |
In Reply to: It's too bad... posted by mkuller on January 21, 2006 at 11:08:08:
We can learn a lot from blind listening tests. We have. The entire science of psychoacoustics, which is has been shown to work over and over, is based on blind listening methods.They do not make everything sound the same. In fact, it is rare that any test I've run came out with close to a null, codec or not.
In the future, please do not incorrectly misstate the science involved. It is a disservice to the reader, and encourages quackery and flim-flam to take the place of science.
Follow Ups:
> We can learn a lot from blind listening tests. We have. The entire science of psychoacoustics, which is has been shown to work over and over, is based on blind listening methods.>I agree. In the right setting, usually a clinical lab, properly designed and controlled blind tests have advanced science in many areas. Medicine is one. Psychometrics is another.
> They do not make everything sound the same. In fact, it is rare that any test I've run came out with close to a null, codec or not.>
Regardless of your perspective, this is an audio hobbyist newsgroup. Presonally, I have not found the audio DBTs I have participated in to be usefull. They seem to make most audio equipment sound the same. Perhaps that's because the tests were poorly designed and controlled.
They do not work for me nor for any other audiophile I have spoken to. Most of the audiophiles in this newsgroup would agree.
Even the small handfull of die hard DBTers admit they don't use that method when deciding what equipment to purchase for themselves.
As audiophiles in a hobbyist newsgroup, audio DBTs have a very limited usefullness. Please read my comments in that perspective.
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: