Analog vs. digital segment on PBS

The results stated at the end of the testing, 20 brief samples/group, if I remember correctly, were: Engineer group correct 55% of the time; Musician group correct 53% of the time -- just slightly above chance, 50%. These percentages seem difficult to interpret or parse. They appeared to be summed for each of the two groups. The difficulty is determining what constituted a correct response in computing the percentages. If a sample were digital and one member of a pair responded digital and the other analog, how would this be counted? For instance: Is this a group miss because there was one correct and one incorrect, or is it two responses, one correct, the other incorrect? Was there a differential between members of each pair in percentages identified correctly (one engineer right 60% and the other 50% = 55% for the engineer group)? If one group member were wrong more than 50% of the time would this be an inverse correlation exceeding chance? (Wrong 65% of the time could be interpreted as being able to differentiate digital and analog even though misidentified; and would negatively affect the reported outcome "correct" statistics.)Was there a difference in identifying digital or analog material correctly?

My experience in reading about these issues is that technical matters about how the testing is done, such as some of the possible problems about the setup and administration of the testing on PBS identified in some of the posts, and how statistics are generated, organized and analyzed are often ignored in favor of a debate among the believers and doubters in each camp. If there are problems in any step of the procedures, the results cannot be meaningfully understood.

Given all of the issues identified in the procedure and the number of Rumsfeldian unknown unknowns can anything be concluded from this segment?

the final absurdity is the amount of money it would take to produce the "best regardless of price" playback equipment for each medium at the PRESENT LEVEL of technology; and then choose at least 100 listeners based on the best random selection process statistically possible. it just might not be worth the time, effort, and cost of such an experiment. some might STILL question the methodology and the meaningfulness of the results. so, like good scientists, the experiment would have to be repeated several times, perhaps even in differing cultures, latitudes, genetic factors, etc.
or you can take my word for it. records on my vpi aries sound good. the same recording on cd on my levinson redbook gear sounds very good also, just slightly different.
i spent more money on the digital equipment, but it is 10X more convenient to use, and is actually superior to the record in certain respects- a little less distortion, tighter, more controlled (but less expansive) bass. records stage better in some instances but not always. my vinyl copy of surrealistic pillow (jeff.airplane) is absolutely AWFUL.
NYPhilharmonic on Columbia-360 is wonderful, but the re-masters are thin and tasteless like diet-cottage cheese.
archiv cd's (trevor pinnock/vivaldi/handel/bach)-no sacd,hdcd, 4D, 20 bit, or 24 bit, sound almost as good as anything out there to my ears. check out the brandenburg concertos on archiv- the ONLY problem with this recording is there is (perhaps) too much information on the disc- Bach went crazy writing a separate part for almost everybody. you'll have no trouble hearing every note on a decent cd player, which might also give you an intense headache. i would LOVE the vinyl copy of this masterpiece as well, but it's torture sorting out all those woodwinds going their separate ways inside of various string parts. i really don't need to challenge my limited intelligence any more than i already have with the digital copy.
well, since i'm not an expert on this subject, my diatribe here amounts to little more than someone at a party who's had too much to drink and won't shut up. until i pass out on the sofa, which is right about now...

Albertporter...About the peak level recorded on a CD...I have a unit in my system (Behringer DEQ2496) that indicates the momentary recorded level, and logs the peak observed during the whole CD. I have adjusted gains in my system so as to maximize the signal as it goes through the DEQ2496, and to my surprise every CD I play hits within a few dB of clipping, but no clipping occurs. The recorded level of the CD is obviouly being carefully set (probably by trial and error) to make best use of the available dynamic range. This is similar to what one does when making a tape recording.

Eldartford.

That sound like a reasonable way to maximize the dynamic range CD is capable of. Too bad the recording people don't think about that when they produce them.

As quiet as CD's are, I don't see the point of pushing the limits and compressing them. Guess it's a way to put the music in your face, so even in a car or listening on a computer system, it jumps out at you.

What a waste when you have a nice system though.

Eldatford,

Actually the mastering engineer will compress (squash) the hell out of music first and then boost the average signal to usually within as little as 3 db of the maximum that a CD can digitally represent with 16 bits. This means the CD will sound loud as the dynamic range is now squashed to be contained within the top 10 db or less of the entire CD dynamic range format....i.e. the 96 db overall dynamic range is completely wasted at least 10 bits or more are all the same 1's practically throughout the entire CD!

This is great for a noisy car environment but in a quiet environment with a good system the music just sounds like what it is...squashed crap like you stepped in something...only good thing is it doesn't smell!!!