Originally Posted by amirm
It is not any of our jobs to do anything here. But we try to be helpful. In this case, it is not helpful to send OP to chase unlikely causes.
Checking for matched levels is going to be like 1% of the effort that would need to be expended to make the OP's evaluation into a proper test. It's not a chase, its a step in an organized approach to doing good subjective tests.
I know I'm dealing here with people who have no clue about actually doing Science hands-on. A lot of proper scientific experimentation is about jumping through necessary hoops. If you don't have the patience to approach your audio experiments in a logical and systematic way, I'd say stay in retailing!
All of those were already mentioned.
Right, by Walbert. So why didn't you chew him out for mentioning level matching? Why aren't you chewing me out for repeating the other three?
Isn't it true Amir that you have a weak dog in this fight - one composed of your past, repeated, unretracted statements about you repeatedly doing listening tests without level matching? Isn't level matching a sore point with you?
Since you repeated the level match, I thought it was for a good reason.
There was a good reason. On the face of it, there appears to be no obvious technical explanation for the perceived differences. When faced with a mystery, the best procedure is to start from scratch and make no presumptions.
You are giving none so that is not the case it seems.
I didn't know that I had to give a reason for any of the 4 points. So are you now saying that I need to give my 487th, (more or less) recitation of how to do proper listening tests? GMAB!
I posted what I did to back up Walbert and give a hoepfully clearer (numbered list versus paragraph of prose) recitation of the very same points.
There is no "going on and on."
Level matching is not likely to be OP's problem.
Level matching is easy for many of us to do (but apparently not you, Amir), and there may be a hidden gotcha.
If it were, you would have already explained why but you did not provide any.
I did provide enough of an explanation Amir, but you want to draw this out and go on and on about level matching, apparently because of your past denials of its necessity. Let's face it Amir, you are one of AVS's strongest advocates of badly done listening tests.
I am not lecturing OP here
No, Amir this is all about you trying to lecture me about how to do listening tests, which is really pretty funny not to mention highly ironic.
but trying to provide relevant things he can try that point to differentials in the two setups.
No, Amir this about you going on and on about a simple point. This is about you trying to find a technical explanation for what is probably the consequences of a total lack of relevant experimental controls.
Heck, the guy doesn't even have two CDs to play! He plays the disc in one player, he takes it out, flicks at least one switch, loads the other player, waits for it to become ready, indexes the part of the track he's using to do the comparison and listening. Several minutes may have passed. Then he listens. Does he even listen to the identical same musical passage?Of course he hears a difference!
I don't have the need to keep chanting slogans to belong to objecitivty camp if that is what you are asking
Amir, I don't think you even know where the objectivity camp pitch their tents, and I've never seen any evidence that you actually have a tent that you can sleep in whenever you want to.
If you were a betting man and had $100 to bet in Las Vegas, would you put odds on his levels being different or the same in this situation?
That's just it Amir. When you are doing listening tests you leave as little to chance as you can. Just another example of how you don't get it.