Of course some tests could produce positive results. But not all things tested necessarily produce any positive results. Positive results can be considered as evidence. But negative results are different - because of all the things that can go wrong with the test. At the end of the day there should be a number of tests performed, not just one test by one person. Then analyze the data. If most of the test results are positive you can usually disregard the negative results. They’re outliers. Or you might conclude tests are inconclusive.
The reasons why they were negative might had to do with how the test was performed, was system related or it was something to do with the person who did the test. Of course some things like a placebo should test negative.
Furthermore, there is the issue of HOW GOOD positive results are. This varies from test to test and person to person, system to system. For some people the results may be jaw dropping, for others it might be a big yawn. One should refrain from making blanket statements or drawing too many conclusions from a single test, especially if it’s results are negative. |
The point is if the test results are negative they don’t mean anything. Just like any test. I’m not sure I can say it any plainer. I don’t care who performs the test or how perfect or ideal the protocols are. If the results are negative I say throw them out!
|
terry9
@geoffkait
1. Fourier Analysis
2. From the days of Pharaohnic Egypt, it has been accepted that mathematical analysis informs the real world.
3. As I mentioned before, an engineering solution has a basis in fact or theory. Something with neither is a contraption.
4. This is rather far from the OP, so I am signing off with this.
>>>>Look how far mathematical analysis got the Egyptians. |
cleeds
geoffkait
Well, actually you can fool blind tests. Blind tests can give misleading or just plain wrong results just like any other type of test. Operator error, mistake in the system, maybe the listener has a cold ...
Absolutely true. And establishing a proper double-blind test is more difficult than it might appear. If the test isn't properly conducted, then obviously the results aren't valid.
Blind testing has great value to designers and manufacturers. To end-user audiophiles, not so much.
>>>>is there really such a thing as a proper double blind test? The one The Amazing Randi administered involved many protocols including having to pick the correct thing under test 10 consecutive times. There were other constraints as well, sometimes negotiable, such as when and where the test would take place and how many people would participate and WHAT SYSTEM would be used for the test.
|
jssmith
You can’t fool blind results. Take your biases and other senses out of the equation and you’re left with just the sound. Blind tests have saved me a lot of money over the years.
Well, actually you can fool blind tests. Blind tests can give misleading or just plain wrong results just like any other type of test. Operator error, mistake in the system, maybe the listener has a cold, who knows? This is especially true when there are relatively small differences between devices under test.
|
terry9
@geoffkait
You seem to have misunderstood me. My opinions are as follows.
1. Shannon’s Sampling Theorem (there is only one of these), is good mathematics. It cleans up the wooly thinking surrounding ideas first propounded by Nyqvist.
2. Shannon’s Sampling Theorem does not apply to digital media. It’s ’application’ to digital media is pseudo-mathematics. The theorem does not apply, however much digital proponents claim otherwise. One has only to read the theorem - but then again, that presupposes quite a lot of advanced calculus. (Hint: examine the premises carefully.)
>>>>Well, that begs the question, what mathematical theory or theorem do you think does apply to digital media? And why do you think it’s necessary to backfit ANY mathematical theorem to try to explain or substantiate mathematically digital media? Doesn’t digital processing speak for itself?
|
Terry, why on Earth would you think Shannon’s theorem is pseudo science or pseudo mathematics? Besides the Shannon sampling theorem does actually apply to digital signals. There is more than one Shannon theorem. Aren’t you totally on board the perfect sound forever train?
|
Terry
....pseudo-science, the OP refers to another pet peeve, digital audio, which is often justified with pseudo-mathematics. For example, to see that the Shannon Information Theorem does not actually apply to digital media, one has only to read that theorem. (Hint: inspect the premises.)
Whoa! Back up! Beep, beep! Shannon's Theorem? When was that ever used to justify digital audio? Why would you think it needs to be justified? |
Almost everything recorded by Heifetz was played with a Guarneri. Anyone can hear what a Guarneri sounds like, but IMHO you’ll be much more likely to hear how that violin really sounds on vinyl or tape.
|
Schubert, don't be such an old fuddy duddy. Liquor is quicker. Pot is not. Look within. 😛 |
Shakespeare, kick in the rear. I'm a poet and don't know it.
My feet show it, they're Longfellows. |
Abnerjack, you really need to work on your reading comprehension. The whole point of the discussion is the older instruments are NOT preferred, at least in tests with trained musicians. Hel-loo! Note to self: Why hasn’t anyone mentioned expectation bias?
|
Good to know. Too bad classical music cannot attain high sound pressure levels.
|
Just curious, wouldn't being subjected to the full power of the orchestra over time be kind of bad for ones hearing? Maybe musicians wear earplugs, who knows. The other possibility is there's something wrong with the test itself. Who knows?
|
