Home Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Propeller Head Plaza ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

No…

You've made a claim. You said, and I'm quoting exactly from your post, "The evidence has been handed out, and has been around for decades."

I agree that anyone who wants to claim that a sighted test is accurate has to be able to demonstrate his case, and anyone who wants to claim that DBTs are invalid has to be able to do so too.

But those who what to claim that DBTs ARE valid also have to support their claims. You said the evidence has been around for decades so tell us where to find it. Cite some papers—that's all you have to do.

I've read a fair bit from people claiming that DBTs are the only way to do audio tests and, frankly, I haven't been convinced. I think they do reduce the scale of some problems with sighted tests but I'm not sure whether or not they introduce other problems and I'm not sure that the results of DBTs are necessarily any more accurate than other tests. Now maybe I haven't read something you have or maybe we've read the same things and we're interpreting parts of if differently, so I do have an interest in seeing what evidence has convinced you so strongly. And, by the way, I'm not against DBTs in principle. They are useful in a number of areas but that doesn't guarantee that they are going to be useful in every area.

Now if you can't cite some evidence, then perhaps you're relying on hearsay that there has been evidence around for decades - and we are talking here about evidence relating to audio tests - and hearsay isn't a reliable thing to base an opinion on. It may be right but it also may be wrong. Alternatively you may have evidence from areas other than audio where they are used, and used quite justifiably. Such evidence definitely encourages experimentation with them in audio testing but it doesn't guarantee that they will be satisfactory in audio tests. What is at issue here is evidence that the results DBTs deliver in audio testing are actually accurate and reliable.

And while I'm specifying what I think would constitute evidence, references to DBTs which showed a different result to sighted tests or general claims is not evidence that DBTS are valid and reliable in audio—it's evidence showing that DBTs have given different results to sighted tests and general claims. Evidence that DBTs are accurate and more reliable that sighted tests wouldn't simply show that they produce different results, it would also include some kind of proof showing that the results produced by DBTs are more accurate which is the validation issue that has been discussed in these threads recently.

So, putting it quite bluntly, you claim there is evidence which has convinced you. What is that evidence so I can read it for myself?

David Aiken


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Atma-Sphere Music Systems, Inc.  

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
You can not post to an archived thread.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]