Re: setting up ABX tests at home

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "bear" <bearlabs@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:fp582c01a2c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>> Put it another way, IF the distortions present are of a
>> particular type or class then you can put anything you
>> like into the signal chain of lower or nil distortion and
>> most likely not be able to identify any change. Since you
>> have no way to determine the significance or type/class
>> of distortions in your system, you don't know anything
>> about the results of an ABX test other than the results
>> being SPECIFIC to the test you performed.
> 
> This problem exists for any listening test. The only reason why it is
more
> apparent in DBTs is that DBTs clearly detect listeners who can't
reliably
> detect differences for whatever reason.
> 
> We've got yet another case where someone is specifically complaining
about 
> ABX tests when in fact the problem exists for *any* listening test.  The

> reason why people don't notice this problem with sighted evalautions is
the 
> fact that sighted evaluations have no means for addressing the problem
of 
> false positives.
> 

We can agree then that there are no tests that actually take into account
this 
issue, therefore all tests thus far are suspect in terms of the
significance of 
the test results?

So we can cease claiming that ABX tests have results that are
generalizable?

Good.

I agree that ABX tests *can be* and *may be* a useful tool amongst many,
nothing 
more.

             _-_-bear