Originally Posted by 3db
Answer me this one question ..Do you know who Dr Floyd Toole is? BTW, I havent seen you lay down any ground rules considering DBT . Lets have them
I’m not sure where you’re going with this, but I’m happy to answer this one questions, as you have plead, me to.
I know who he is, and have shared the same air as him.
Now for your false assertions that I haven’t laid down any ground rules, relating to DBT’s, and your further request to have them.
I have clearly stated and evidenced that there is no such things as a universal ABX DBT, and that one members detailing / outlines pertaining to what one is, are rarely the same as another, but always fraught with short-comings. I have further provided AES reference papers, which have become the must read on the subject matter. In reading them, it becomes abundantly clear that most members, have been falsely representing the results of these papers.
These papers, do not hold ABX BDT’s up, as an end all, be all, means to ending the ’Great Debate’, nor do they strike down the existence of sonic differences.
Rather, they point out many foibles, ranging from intrinsic retention of human bias, statically errors, statically dogma, test hardware short comings, etc, and point to the fact while many can be greatly mitigated that there’s a need for the development of JUST ONE metric, and many strive to outline what they believe would be helpful in this regard (Yes, there is more than one, and each with their own or shared short-comings, when compared to that of another. This makes it imperative for one to cite which metric that they’re referring to)
When gents such as yourself flippantly, strive to support your assertions, by loosely suggesting or outright claim that ABX DBT’s have sorted all of this out, or can, and go on referring to such without outlining what variant of the metric they are referring to etc, they are producing nothing but conjecture.
When some members take it a step further, and attempt to belittle other members, for claiming that they can and have heard differences, during such tests and outside of them, doing so by referencing ABX DBT’s without citation, and using such a reference (tag line) to infer or outright state that another member is: stupid, a fool, off their rocker, etc., it then becomes a purely derogatory personal attack, and not merely, conjecture.
It isn’t my place or yours or that of any AVS member to outline what a proper ABX DBT should be (but it is our responsibility properly ascertain (learn) what one is, and is not, for the purpose of more accurate, and filtered debate, within these forums), as such efforts are for those with appropriate credentials, career experience, and who’s works will be vetted by peers of equal and or greater qualifications.
As I have already stated: ABX testing is highly complex. Making up one’s own test metrics for home testing
is just fine; however, if one desires their results to be accepted as meaningful to others, there are documented metrics that have much favor in this setting.
Here's are links to some. If you are merely interested in forum opinion on the subject matter, you need not click the links below.
Pure direct vs 2.1
The above link brings you to a paper, which covers off statistical challenges, and offers up an easy to apply to ABX test version of signal detection theory.
This is a link to a much read classic. Type 1 & Type 2 Errors. This is rudimentary reading.
Are we measuring the right things, another classic.
The Great Debate: Subjective Evaluation
A user friendly methodology for subjective listing tests... a practical low level read...
So, if you or others wish to keep appealing to this particular stone, citation is required, or a full detailing of your personal, made up metric. Without it, your claims cannot be seriously considered.
Returning to your detailing's, I have pointed out many shortcomings, pausing with the intention of continuing on, should you desire a further review. But it would simply be best for you and others to download and read the references that I provided. Then you will see and understand the 'rub' as I do.
Outside of revealing the errors in your made-up metric, I have pointed to references which outline what ABX DBT’s should and should not be, and can and cannot do. Therefore, I have constructively laid things out, in the regard that you have claimed, I have not.
Thank you for your questions.