In Reply to: Re: Can't be any good, Tom, it used blind testing! posted by thetubeguy1954 on June 13, 2006 at 06:51:23:
Not that there's anything particularly wrong with that, but DBTs would have been better. Anyway, you could have picked that up from reading it. Many of us have read it before.You are the one who is too serious, BTW, Tom! My title line was an obvious tease . . .
The level matching was only done to within .25 dB. I would rather see it within .1 dB.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- They were SBTs, Tom! - Pat D 07:12:00 06/13/06 (11)
- Re: They were SBTs, Tom! - thetubeguy1954 08:21:33 06/13/06 (10)
- Oh! So you mean only subjectivists can criticize blind tests??????????? - Pat D 17:27:47 06/13/06 (9)
- Re: Oh! So you mean only subjectivists can criticize blind tests??????????? - thetubeguy1954 06:41:37 06/14/06 (8)
- I've made some perfectly objective comments about his thesis, which you ignore. - Pat D 07:42:26 06/14/06 (7)
- Re: I've made some perfectly objective comments about his thesis, which you ignore. - thetubeguy1954 08:07:36 06/14/06 (6)
- Re: I've made some perfectly objective comments about his thesis, which you ignore. - Pat D 08:35:27 06/14/06 (5)
- Re: I've made some perfectly objective comments about his thesis, which you ignore. - thetubeguy1954 09:51:53 06/14/06 (4)
- What names have I called, Tom? - Pat D 20:04:42 06/14/06 (3)
- Re: What names have I called, Tom? - thetubeguy1954 06:24:30 06/15/06 (2)
- So you take it back? - Pat D 07:52:27 06/15/06 (1)
- Re: So you take it back? - thetubeguy1954 09:49:47 06/16/06 (0)