[Andrew Barss]

Audio Empire wrote:
: On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 06:41:37 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
: (in article ):

: I said that I know of no good experiments with positive results for
: comparisons of that nature, and that I try to keep track of such things.
:
: I don't have any problems with the above paraphrase of my statements on this
: matter.
:
: I have outlined a number
: of experiements that will show the difference WITHOUT
: needing an elaborate DBT set up.

You need to seprate the words "elaborate" and "DBT" (double-blind test, or experiment).
Elabortion ones are used only when simpler ones can't be (I know, I am associate director of
a behavioral research laboratory).

But experiments or "tests" that are not double-blind are really, really, really, not ones you
want to be asssociated with, in any area of study. Period. DBTs are the ONLY way you have any certainty
that the results you get, e.g., "X sounds better than Y", consistently) are due to the factors you think
they are, like inherent differences in the audio signals from X and Y.

This is just basic science. Single-blind and non-blind tests are deficient.
The subject has to not know whether it's X or Y; the experimenter flipping between
X and Y has to not know this as well (hence the appeal of the sort of testing paradigm Arny helpd design,
in which a computer does this); and the person or machine coding the responses has to not know it as well.

So, EVEN IF you run the right number of trials, or the right number of subjects,
and you roperly randomize the assignment of stimuli to subjects, you STILL
*cannot know in principle* that there isn't influence on the outcome by the
bias of the experimenter. This is basic, undergraduate research methods.


: The image specificity will be much less
: thre-dimensional and less palpable.
:
: Why do the experiment when we have someone to tell us the results with such
: assuredness? ;-)

: The experiment is repeatable and the results are consistent. If you want to
: take my word for it, be my guest, but I really think that folks ought to find
: out these things for themselves.

No, actually, they should do that, and THEN do or read experiments which
show trustable results. The experiment will show one of two things:

(a) there is a consistent difference. And then you can publish the results!
(b) There is no evidence for a consistent difference. THEN you need to reinterpret
the "see it for yourself"/"I know it's true" data in an entirely different light.

-- Andy Barss