In Reply to: Um... posted by jj on April 22, 2003 at 00:35:17:
"If you can't switch quickly and cleanly under listener control, there is presently no clear way to keep the best in test sensitivity."I have to kindly disagree here. I think listening is no different from wine-tasting. (Tasting one wine right after another gives the taster no clue in regard to the later sample.) If component "A" happens to be utterly fatiguing to listen to, the "fatigue symptoms" do not just go away shortly after switching to component "B". So the "ill effects" of component "A" will seem to be present in component "B", even if component "B" would otherwise not fatigue the listener at all. (And there is a good chance the listener could think component "B" is the one causing the fatigue. I think this is why people often "fail" DBTs. Jon did allude to this indirectly.)
DBTs *can* be done with longer-term listening and with breaks between listening to each component under evaluation. I personally think the results under such methodology would be far more relevant and valuable, because listener satisfaction will be figured into the evaluation. And in my opinion, listener satisfaction is the single most-important parameter in evaluation, be it "sighted" or "blind."
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Um... - Todd Krieger 04/22/0317:01:35 04/22/03 (31)
- Listening is very different from wine-tasting, guys... - jj 19:00:48 04/22/03 (26)
- Help illuminate us - E-Stat 21:11:00 04/22/03 (6)
- Read the literature. - jj 22:52:52 04/22/03 (5)
- Do you believe that - E-Stat 19:57:07 04/26/03 (4)
- Do you think that your comment is even possibly germane? - jj 14:28:02 04/28/03 (3)
- Thanks for the informative reply - E-Stat 16:12:45 04/28/03 (2)
- Did you read the part about "level roving"??? - jj 18:59:27 04/29/03 (1)
- I listed all the references Google sourced - E-Stat 16:47:39 05/2/03 (0)
- Re: Listening is very different from wine-tasting, guys... - Todd Krieger 20:00:48 04/22/03 (18)
- Your skepticism is uncalled for.... - jj 20:21:25 04/22/03 (17)
- Nothing Wrong with Skepticism... - Todd Krieger 20:36:05 04/22/03 (16)
- Then I suggest you do some studying.... - jj 22:51:49 04/22/03 (15)
- Re: Then I suggest you do some studying.... - Jitter_by_Coffee 09:55:44 04/25/03 (14)
- Re: Then I suggest you do some studying.... - cheap-Jack 11:41:35 04/28/03 (1)
- I certainly do not need to substantiate MY statement -It' snot "mine" to start with - jj 14:31:55 04/28/03 (0)
- Is there a reason you ignore the truth? - jj 18:39:51 04/25/03 (11)
- Studies vs. First Hand Observation - Todd Krieger 22:49:30 04/26/03 (10)
- Then you reject all knowledge that you didn't develop yourse.f - jj 14:26:09 04/28/03 (8)
- I Hope You Take This as Constructive Criticism... - Todd Krieger 19:51:26 04/28/03 (7)
- Retract that, and get your head out of the sand. - jj 19:22:28 04/29/03 (3)
- Man, What a Predikamunt... - Todd Krieger 22:28:58 04/29/03 (2)
- Oh, go ahead. You're playing to the crowd anyhow.... - jj 22:36:20 04/29/03 (1)
- OK, I'm Playing to the Crowd... - Todd Krieger 23:00:56 04/29/03 (0)
- Re: I Hope You Take This as Constructive Criticism... - cheap-Jack 09:55:11 04/29/03 (2)
- You are a malicious, stalking sock-puppet. - jj 19:08:47 04/29/03 (1)
- Re: You are a malicious, stalking sock-puppet. - cheap-Jack 13:49:16 04/30/03 (0)
- Re: Studies vs. First Hand Observation - john curl 11:55:08 04/27/03 (0)
- I'll kindly disagree as well... - Monstrous Mike 18:25:15 04/22/03 (3)
- Too Idealistic? - Todd Krieger 19:40:07 04/22/03 (2)
- Not quite - BassNut 10:08:03 04/23/03 (1)
- I Agree, But Did You Get the Thread's Context? - Todd Krieger 21:01:39 04/23/03 (0)