By the way, Mr. Smarty Pants. I have a little bit of experience with testing. I was the government witness for testing a 2B $ national FAA critical communications program.
- ...
- 486 posts total
heaudio123, "Even the most basic single blind test is far more rigourous than any sited test all other variables the same. Anyone who advocates for sited tests, or advocates against blind tests, can be simply ignored. Their ignorance w.r.t. testing of anything involving human perception is too limited to make their opinion of use or they have an agenda that again makes their communication of no value." These three sentences cannot be any clearer. No matter which way you wish to go, no matter how little you may yet know of audio playback, or of human psychology and perception, I can guarantee you from personal first hand hard earned experience that you will eventually arrive at exactly the same conclusions. |
heaudio123 Anyone who advocates for sited tests, or advocates against blind tests, can be simply ignored. Their ignorance w.r.t. testing of anything involving human perception is too limited to make their opinion of use or they have an agenda that again makes their communication of no value.That’s a remarkable statement from someone here who has cultivated the air of a scientist. Real scientists don’t allow prejudice or bias to dismiss data; they look at the data, then research and test it. Very few people in this forum post results of blind tests, so you must find this forum pretty useless. It makes me wonder why you’re here, although I think I have a pretty good idea. |
- 486 posts total