I see what the problem is..... you seem to have misunderstood a few of the details.
This was a test to determine whether the test subjects could tell the difference whether the audio signal was passed through "a CD quality A/D/A loop" or not.
When you are testing whether participants can tell the difference between equal quantities of two different things the expected result due to random chance is 50%.
Therefore, a "statistically significant result" is a result significantly above 50% (how far it has to be from 50% to be significant depends on various things like the number of trials).
And, as it turns out, with the particular number of trials and paricipants involved, 70% correct is far enough above the 50% predicted by random chance to be "statistically significant".
(As you said, those results would be expected due to chance - sooner or later - but three times out of that small number of trials is somewhat outside our usual expectations.)
Now, since the overall number of trials wasn't very large, this variation itself isn't "
VERY significant".
It is neither "expected" nor "unexpected"... but the odds of its occurring with that small number of test runs is quite low.
A statistician could tell you how far 80% deviates from the expected random result of 50%, and what the odds are of that deviation occurring in a certain number of tests.
As I said, it's not impossible that this could happen by random chance, but the odds are low enough to make it "interesting" or "suggestive".
And it's certainly easy enough to confirm whether it's significant or not by doing a few more test runs with those subjects.
That result is exactly equivalent to the situation if, instead of listening for differences, those subjects were flipping coins.
If you were throwing coins, and two subjects threw seven heads out of ten, and one threw eight out of ten, out of only 100 total trials, you wouldn't consider it to
PROVE anything...
However, since it is a low-probability result, it would suggest that another level of trials would be worthwhile - to confirm the results one way or the other.
You are applying circular logic.
Most current studio recordings don't contain much musical information above 20 kHz.
The reason for that is that most studio microphones have little response above 20 kHz.
(And most recording engineers don't expend any effort trying to record them or preserve them during the mix.)
And the reason for that is that information above 20 Khz isn't considered to be useful because it is assumed that nobody can hear above 20 kHz.
Therefore, since the information is largely absent, and no attempt is made to preserve it when it is present, nobody is going to hear it.
HOWEVER, this doesn't prove either way whether people would or would not hear content above 20 kHz
IF IT WAS THERE.
(Again, I'm not
SPECIFICALLY claiming that it's audible or not... just that we haven't actually tested the possibility... we simply "go with the assumption".)
Generally microphones are chosen to "sound good" - which includes being able to pick up whatever frequencies contribute to that result.
I have little doubt that, if tests were to find that "cymbals sound better when recorded with microphones whose response extends to 30 kHz"....
We would soon see studio microphones, designed specifically for cymbals, whose response extends to 30 kHz... and sold specifically for recording cymbals.
(And considering that cymbals are often recorded by an overhead microphone located within a few feet.... it shouldn't be especially difficult to record them.)
I've personally made very few recordings...
And I've certainly never recorded a drum kit using a microphone whose response extends to 30 kHz "just to see if anyone thinks it sounds better"...
Have you actually tried it?
(Or are you just
assuming that it won't sound any different.)
1. What do you mean nobody said anything about far above 100%, YOU DID! You stated "two or three of the participants were in fact able to tell which was whcih with far above statistically significant results." - Statistical probability distribution predicts and expects one or more 100% results from pure chance alone. So if you're stating that participants could tell which was which FAR ABOVE statistical probability then you are stating FAR ABOVE 100%!
2. No, that is untrue, it IS expected!
2a. An 8/10 score out of so many trials IS NOT an anomalous result, it is entirely predicted and expected! It's ironical in the extreme then that you state "if you understand statistics", as clearly you don't, or maybe you do and it's just another of the countless "inadvertent" mistakes?
2b. No, they were not "lucky that day" those results are ENTIRELY EXPECTED sooner or later.
3. The study does not provide absolute proof that hearing a difference is impossible, but it does provide compelling evidence. However, it provides no evidence whatsoever that hearing those differences is possible! BUT, even if we accept your misrepresentation of luck and what's possibile, STILL YOU ARE ADMITTING that your statement "two or three participants were in fact able to tell which is which" WAS FALSE, as now you're saying it's only a possibility they could tell which was which and NOT A FACT!! Again, when is enough, enough??
4. Just to be clear then, you are NOT talking about the reproduction of commercial music recordings or the hearing/listening to those recordings.
4a. Personally, I don't deal with testing bats' communication abilities and neither does this thread!
5. Yep, they are in general all made using microphones. Are you going to propose another recording scenario which doesn't exist?
5b. Nope, it has nothing to do with that, which you would know if you'd ever taken even an introductory course in microphone use. But you haven't and you clearly have no idea what influences music mic choice, instead you just make statements of fact and "suggestions" about something you have "no idea" of and argue with those who are actually professional mic users. That's ridiculous and even more ridiculous that you don't seem to realise it's ridiculous and just keep doing it! So yet again, when is enough, enough???
G
1. I'm not sure how it works in universities in your country but in England you're not allowed to teach the science of sound/music engineering unless you actually know the science of sound/music engineering! There was almost constant monitoring of lectures and assessment of lecturers' knowledge, both internally within the university and by independent external experts. Even a lecturer is expected to have greater than degree level knowledge when teaching degree level and a senior lecturer is expected to have greater knowledge still.
2. So no education at all in the subject and no more than a hobbyist's knowledge or experience. More or less what I presumed.
3. Me too, IMO that's where music/sound really gets interesting! Unfortunately though, instead of discussing the real interesting stuff, I'm bogged down refuting misrepresentations of basic technical stuff that has no impact on perception beyond the phycology of marketing snake oil.
4. I obviously can't dispute what you think you know but your posts demonstrate that you are missing a number of absolutely fundamental basics of the science behind audio. For example, in the Rob Watts thread our discourse between about post #350 and #376 demonstrated that you didn't know what the 0's and 1's in digital audio actually represent or even how measurements are represented in binary. Without that basic knowledge we're stuck, we can't rationally discuss digital audio and the proofs which underpin it because it's all based on binary. So, you're not going to be able to understand those proofs or have any reason to believe them and therefore we're reduced to non-rational discussions of digital audio. Arguments about opinions, beliefs and perspectives which are in fact irrelevant but to you they're the only things that are relevant because you do not know and cannot appreciate the actual facts/science. And then, you quote dunning-kruger and other cognitive errors to others, apparently completely unaware of the irony.
1. What do you mean nobody said anything about far above 100%, YOU DID! You stated "two or three of the participants were in fact able to tell which was whcih with far above statistically significant results." - Statistical probability distribution predicts and expects one or more 100% results from pure chance alone. So if you're stating that participants could tell which was which FAR ABOVE statistical probability then you are stating FAR ABOVE 100%!
2. No, that is untrue, it IS expected!
2a. An 8/10 score out of so many trials IS NOT an anomalous result, it is entirely predicted and expected! It's ironical in the extreme then that you state "if you understand statistics", as clearly you don't, or maybe you do and it's just another of the countless "inadvertent" mistakes?
2b. No, they were not "lucky that day" those results are ENTIRELY EXPECTED sooner or later.
3. The study does not provide absolute proof that hearing a difference is impossible, but it does provide compelling evidence. However, it provides no evidence whatsoever that hearing those differences is possible! BUT, even if we accept your misrepresentation of luck and what's possibile, STILL YOU ARE ADMITTING that your statement "two or three participants were in fact able to tell which is which" WAS FALSE, as now you're saying it's only a possibility they could tell which was which and NOT A FACT!! Again, when is enough, enough??
4. Just to be clear then, you are NOT talking about the reproduction of commercial music recordings or the hearing/listening to those recordings.
4a. Personally, I don't deal with testing bats' communication abilities and neither does this thread!
5. Yep, they are in general all made using microphones. Are you going to propose another recording scenario which doesn't exist?
5b. Nope, it has nothing to do with that, which you would know if you'd ever taken even an introductory course in microphone use. But you haven't and you clearly have no idea what influences music mic choice, instead you just make statements of fact and "suggestions" about something you have "no idea" of and argue with those who are actually professional mic users. That's ridiculous and even more ridiculous that you don't seem to realise it's ridiculous and just keep doing it! So yet again, when is enough, enough???
G
