Talk:ABX test

Why merge this? ABX tests can be done on entities other than codecs. 166.34.148.192 16:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I added mention of Amarok's ABX script next to Foobar's functionality. Should this instead be generalized with something like "ABX functionality can be found in several audio players, [such as...]"? --Dhraakellian 17:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

ABX history
The ABX test is far more general than this article implies. Please see this:. Alfred Centauri 14:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mostly fixed, IMHO. Some more info would be much welcome.. :) --Kjoonlee 18:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wording
Hi, I think the current wording is slightly misleading, because ABX tests don't prove transparency; ABX tests prove (or fail to prove) a perceivable difference. This is very different from a difference not existing, since you can fail to prove an existing difference.... --Kjoonlee 18:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Confidence
The section on confidence needs to be re-written. It is easy to give examples where a 95% confidence interval is not statistically significant. The confidence interval used in a testing framework needs to be taken in the context of the hypothesis.

Objectivity
In my opinion, this is not an objective discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of ABX testing. I've gotten into Long and Horrible arguments with its proponents (well, one of them) because, though useful, ABX testing of audio technology does not duplicate "ordinary" listening conditions. Nor is there proof that it reveals what it claims to reveal, or that it doesn't introduce biases of its own. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You use a strawman argument (falsely assuming the purpose of an ABX test is to duplicate "ordinary" listening condition and assuming ABX tests make any claims what it reveals or does not reveal), and any test can be biased depending on how exactly it is executed, but any such bias would not be inherent in the test method in this case as you assume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.199.89.62 (talk • contribs) 00:57, December 18, 2012‎


 * If you find WP:Reliable sources which support your opinion, the opinion can be introduced into the article. Otherwise, it remains your opinion, but privately. Binksternet (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've also heard that argument. Here are a couple apparently reliable refs on it: http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue56/abx.htm, http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listening-tests-are-flawed-editorial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvng (talk • contribs) 14:28, June 12, 2012


 * No, those are blatantly biased, (reputably) unsourced editorials with many logical fallacies used to make their points. And no, taking quotes from reputable people and distorting their context and meaning (as done with Harley's quotes from Gerzon and Stuart) is not reputable sourcing.  But as bad as those refs are, there aren't any other refs that attempt to discredit ABX that have any more or less validity.  Produce a test result rigorously adhering to the principles of the scientific method that is published in a peer-reviewed journal and then you will have a reputable source, and it will be reliable upon several independently-performed tests that repeat those results and are also published in peer-reviewed journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.199.89.62 (talk • contribs) 00:57, December 18, 2012‎


 * We're not going to be able to resolve this long-running argument in the article. The article should make readers aware that there is a long-running argument. I'm just pointing out that the criticisms user:WilliamSommerwerck mentions are not his alone. I'm not saying they're scientifically valid, just that they are made frequently. A reliable source is not required to speak the Truth. The sources I link to are basically editorials and could be used to cite a Controversy section in the article. -—Kvng 04:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "A reliable source is not required to speak the Truth.". That's a religious argument, not a controversy.  It does not have any relevance to this or any other science or fact-based discussion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.23.77 (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)