Was B the ipod or the cd player.
10 responses Add your response
I am not surprised that the uncompressed files through the Ipod played from the same setup got more postive response than the MP3 files. Whether the side by side test with the CD player was completely valid depends on a number of variables not discussed, principally the orientation of the listeners to the two sets of speakers and the orientation of each set of speakers to the room.
This again proves to me beyond doubt that the average person really doesn't give a rats behind about what we audiophiles look for. If most of the participants in this test thought the boom and sizzle from their car stereo with dual 15" subs is what great sound is all about then what conclusion can one draw from this test? When I talk about soundstaging, my friends think I am a freak with dolphin ears. My girlfriend admitted she was greatly impressed by a Bose surround system once. Why should we care about what people with tin-ears think is great sound?
I agree with Rotovirus above. If you take 30 chumps and place them in a room with 2 bottles of wine, one $15 and the other $500 how many will pick the $500 as being better, and then how many would pay that much more for that bottle? We are connoisseurs of our hobby much like wine geeks are of theirs. The average chump looks at both hobbys as a sick waste of money. Great, to each their own. I would bet a lot of these same "chumps" are the ones with a brand new Humvee parked outside their one room apartment. Hence, we spend money on those things that matter to us.
I remember going on a date in the very early 80s and the girl was 19. I asked her where she would like to go to dinner, she told me Taco Bell was her favorite restaurant - "They have the best sour cream!" (Taco Bell's sour cream at that time was processed crap I have no idea what they are now serving, haven't eaten there is over 25 years.)
However, that girl had one hell of a body!
Arbuckle, I think his name is "Rotarius" :) "Rotavirus" causes diarrhoea.
But yes I do agree - a negative result doesn't mean much in science, especially when it is conducted by someone with an obvious axe to grind like this guy. Experiments can always be set up to prove the null hypothesis. But a positive result on the other hand, is significant.
Tomryan, I am envious! She may have had no taste, but at least she would be cheap to feed!