|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
|
|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
In Reply to: It took you over 100 blind tests to come to the conclusion that blind tests are a waste of time? posted by Richard BassNut Greene on April 28, 2006 at 08:02:47:
> I guess your conclusion is blind tests can't be trusted...
No, all I have said is that a blind test being blind is not in itself
a sufficient reason for the test being either rigorous or scientific.
And if it is neither rigorous nor scientific, then the test results
are meaningless.
> unless you are there to see they are done correctly ... and you have
> positive results.
I have not said this. Please note that a significant proportion of
the blind tests to which I was referring were organized by others.
I took part as a listener and was was neither involved in the test
design nor the statistical analysis of the test results.
> The staff of Stereophile claims to have excellent hearing ability.
No-one on the magazine's staff has claimed this. If you think we have,
please give a reference. But you should note that the long series of
blind tests Stereophile published on speakers throughout the 1990s
allowed me to analyze my reviewers' test results individually. That
analysis certainly persuaded me that the Stereophile reviewers who
took part in those tests are careful, skilled, internally consistent
listeners.
I pay you the respect, Mr. Greene, of answering your questions, though
you don't appear to like or comprehend those answers, given your
referring to what I say as "tap dancing." Now please answer the
question I have repeatedly put to _you_: how many _formal_ blind
listening tests have you taken part in, either as listener or as the
organizer, that you are so sure of the tests' efficacy?
Almost all the tests to which I have been referring have been
published. You can read how the tests were performed and how the
results were analyzed. By contrast, you are very quick to call people
names but curiously quiet when it comes to describing your own
experience. And if you have _no_ experience of formal blind tests,
then you are actually expressing your _beliefs_, not facts, which is
curious indeed for someone who appears to be claiming the scientific
high ground. :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Please answer the question, Mr. Greene - John Atkinson 04/29/0607:19:57 04/29/06 (13)
- I answered your question in my May 1 post & answered every other question you asked in this post - Richard BassNut Greene 09:16:49 05/2/06 (4)
- Patience, please, Mr Greene - John Atkinson 16:51:32 05/2/06 (3)
- Waiting for YOUR answers to MY questions does require patience --- Infinite Patience is required (you don't respond) - Richard BassNut Greene 07:54:30 05/3/06 (2)
- Why infinite? - John Atkinson 09:14:11 05/3/06 (1)
- I swear I did not ghostwrite the JA post as a perfect example of what "non-answer" means! - Richard BassNut Greene 08:54:02 05/5/06 (0)
- reference - Ozzie 09:46:03 04/29/06 (7)
- Even evidence disappears in the face of disbelieve. - bjh 14:54:18 04/29/06 (1)
- Obviously you care. - Ozzie 15:47:00 05/1/06 (0)
- More uncritical thinking - John Atkinson 11:17:11 04/29/06 (4)
- I am not a magazine writer... - Ozzie 16:19:00 05/1/06 (3)
- We're all plowing the same furrow, Ozzie - John Atkinson 16:41:39 05/2/06 (2)
- JA now says Stereophile reviewers do not have superior hearing ("Neither do we claim we have superior hearing, Ozzie") - Richard BassNut Greene 08:59:14 05/3/06 (1)
- BassNut - Ozzie 13:37:45 05/3/06 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
