[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILikeMusic /img/forum/go_quote.gif Priceless. Just wanted to capture this in case you decide to edit it later.

No fair. I've copyrighted that statement.

 

[Real Man of Genius]

There are two "discussions" going on within this and within another thread here in the science forum.
In each case one discussion is actually a very informative and surprisingly civil discussion relevant to the topic.
The other involves several people (myself included) who are either desperately grinding an axe, trying to be cute or funny (guilty), or just throwing around insults and generally being Trolls.
I suggest that unless you have something genuinely constructive to add to this discussion and can present it in a respectful manner that we bow out and let the reasonable people discuss the topic.
Me first. Bye.

 

[milkweg]

Yes, I am bowing out of this science forum completely because I have come to realize it is a pseudo science forum and not a science forum at all.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, I am bowing out of this science forum completely because I have come to realize it is a pseudo science forum and not a science forum at all.

If that's the case, the other forums around here are also "pseudo science," or maybe you would say there's a lot of "BS" in them, as I think you put it earlier. If I were you, I think I'd feel justified in bowing out of those as well.

 

[wavoman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by olblueyez /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...One suggestion that is on topic and is acredited to Wavoman. Let people see what cables you are using, inform them of everthing going on and let them spend as much time as possible with each cable. While doing this keep all the test subjests separate (no communication, whispering, chatting) and have them write the results and when you are done you can see if the experiences have any continuity. Just a thought.

I want to give credit to Pio2001 for the idea: letting each subject listen non-blind first, as long as they want, with a full introduction to the two cables under trial and details of the entire test protocol. At minimum they hear the test passage, try a non-blind A/B test to understand what we will be doing, even get an explanation that some of the A/B trials will be swindles. And then they continue to listen non-blind as long as they like (up to some reasonable time limit).

If they cannot hear a difference non-blind, we note that and their trial terminates.

Now olblueyez's idea is great too -- keep the Ss apart from one another. This we won't be able to do at the NYC meet on Saturday, but it is an excellent concept IMO.

I am trying to make the test rig as portable as possible, but still audiophile quality beyond reproach. If it works out, and this weekend works out, maybe we can try at other meets that I can drive to (basically Boston to Washington). That's a way to get new pools of unbiased Ss.

I am trying to be all ready for Saturday, still waiting on UPS.

 

[Pio2001]

The idea is not from me. Many tests are done this way. Matrix-hifi, for example, always proceed with these two steps.
And Sean Olive have done some research that show that trained listeners perform better in blid tests than untrained listeners.