michaelab
desafinado
merlin, "under test conditions" are the only conditions that matter. Under any other conditions all the same psycho-acoustic reasons that require blind tests in the first place become a factor.
Suggesting this test is as "equally flawed" as the HF+ is just laughable. The HF+ test was deeply flawed and produced no statistically significant results either way. It has only marginally more value than a fully sighted test done by a few of us at a bake-off (ie, no value at all). This test OTOH had an excellent methodology (it, it was a proper level matched ABX test) and it had enough volunteers and listening trials to produce statistically meaningful results had differences been discernable. The fact is the results showed an almost perfect 50/50 "chance" distribution - it wasn't even a close result.
If the findings of a test conducted as this one was suggested a difference was audible then I would have to accept that. The fact is there hasn't ever been a single valid test showing such differences to be audible.
Michael.
Suggesting this test is as "equally flawed" as the HF+ is just laughable. The HF+ test was deeply flawed and produced no statistically significant results either way. It has only marginally more value than a fully sighted test done by a few of us at a bake-off (ie, no value at all). This test OTOH had an excellent methodology (it, it was a proper level matched ABX test) and it had enough volunteers and listening trials to produce statistically meaningful results had differences been discernable. The fact is the results showed an almost perfect 50/50 "chance" distribution - it wasn't even a close result.
If the findings of a test conducted as this one was suggested a difference was audible then I would have to accept that. The fact is there hasn't ever been a single valid test showing such differences to be audible.
Michael.