On Wed, 2013-04-03 at 08:18 +0200, Raffaele Morelli wrote:
> 2013/4/3 Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net>:
> > I guess I _never_ failed a blind test, but that's not important. Most
> > people are comfortable with MP3s, but if I talk to them and point them
> > to the lossy parts, they're able to notice the loss too, they are
> > usually not annoyed by the loss.
> >
> > Tests with uneducated people are useless, those tests just should ensure
> > how far the industry could go.
>
> This is just your personal and *uneducated* (ie. wrong) opinion.
>
> ABX tests are double blind statistics tests, double blind tests are
> widely, massively used in medical statistics to test drug treatments
> against a disease (eg. tumor).
>
> The goal is to ensure that treatment A is better than B, and "blind"
> stand for "the patient is not aware of the treatment he receives so
> variability is not conditioned from psychology" and morover the doctor
> is not aware of what the patient was given (the drug or a placebo).
>
> What you call "uneducated" is the assupmtion which the test relies on.
>
> Don't spread misconception.
I know what double blind tests are. The pharmaceutical industry are a
good example to prove that I'm not mistaken. My claim isn't that tests
are completely useless, it's just that especially for the pharmaceutical
industry and food mafia those tests are done in a way that it's clear,
what the result will be. But ok, we can claim that the earth is a disc
and centre of the universe and everything was made by a god and the
audio ABX tests are absolutely correct, MP3s not only sound lossless,
they improve the sound a lot. So lets spread this news and burn
everybody who doesn't believe in this :p.
Ralf, be serious when talking about medical treatment against deathly disease like cancer is. You can't claim that every and all university PhDs are aiming at selling drugs instead of a cure.
You simply do not know what you are talking about.
The result is not know because of the blind test design (you didn't understand).