IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Minimum number of required ABX trials, Split from from topic ID: 92851
sauvage78
post Jan 12 2012, 00:41
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 677
Joined: 4-May 08
Member No.: 53282



The minimal number of trials depends on how successfull you are.
How quickly you are sucessfull shows how confident in yourself you are.

The time & number of sucessfull trials are tied, you should never separate them when judging an ABX log.

With F2K ABX component, 8 sucessfull trials in a row (& if all successfull in a row, it usually means quick) trials is the minimum for me.

As soon as you begin to fail you can easyly increase to 10 or 12 to try to "erease" your failures.
In this case if you fail once or twice you can usually still get a signifiant result although it usually means the ABXing was hard, & by consequence longer as you begin to hesitate.

Usually if you begin to fail more than 3 times on 12 trials, it begins to be so hard & you have so much hesitation that it begins to take forever to ABX. At this stage I usually give up by myself & declare that I cannot ABX as in general it means I am not sure that the audio part I am focusing on actually contains any real artefact.

This post has been edited by sauvage78: Jan 12 2012, 00:42


--------------------
CDImage+CUE
Secure [Low/C2/AR(2)]
Flac -4
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
sauvage78
post Jan 12 2012, 04:01
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 677
Joined: 4-May 08
Member No.: 53282



Even if I think 5 trials is too low to convince others & agree with greynol & co, I fear IgorC is speaking to a wall due to lack of real life ABXing practice from his contradictors.

If the ABXer exactly knows what artefact he listens, 5 trials is more than enough to convince himself. The problem only start if he tries to convince others. 5 trials might not be enough, by itself alone (without knowing the ABXer) .

Because the necessary number of trial to convince others could be be arbitrary depending on who you try to convince, you have to rely on statistics. But statistics are not perfect.

Maths & statistics is the a commun langage for us to understand each other. Because ABXing tests are made by humans, despite maths & statistics you cannot draw an result absolute TRUTH from them.

ABXing is not pure maths, you wouldn't need human if it was.

Edit:
Blindly trusting in the fact that the statistics behind ABXing would provide an universal scientific truth, is a placebo effect by itself & it completly defeats the original purpose of ABXing. Instead of comparing it to flipping a coin, you should compare it to playing poker ... ABXing is here to provide you with a pair of Ace ... but even with a high probability to win, you can lose with a pair of Ace ...

The only moment you know that an ABX test is 100% correct, is when you have double tested it & your results agree. Any other claim about quality is a statistical approximation, no matters how close is the approximation.

This post has been edited by sauvage78: Jan 12 2012, 04:19


--------------------
CDImage+CUE
Secure [Low/C2/AR(2)]
Flac -4
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Jan 12 2012, 04:13
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 4963
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



QUOTE (sauvage78 @ Jan 11 2012, 22:01) *
Even if I think 5 trials is too low to convince others & agree with greynol & co, I fear IgorC is speaking to a wall due to lack of real life ABXing practice from his contradictors.


Are you claiming that I (or greynol) have not performed ABX tests?

ohmy.gif

QUOTE (sauvage78 @ Jan 11 2012, 22:01) *
If the ABXer exactly knows what artefact he listens, 5 trials is more than enough to convince himself. The problem only start if he tries to convince others. 5 trials might not be enough, by itself alone (without knowing the ABXer) .


5 trials is enough IMO for a single test, but I would not be convinced if I did 5 trials across multiple samples and compared the results.

QUOTE (sauvage78 @ Jan 11 2012, 22:01) *
Because the necessary number of trial to convince others could be be arbitrary depending on who you try to convince, you have to rely on statistics. But statistics are not perfect.

Maths & statistics is the a commun langage for us to understand each other. Because ABXing tests are made by humans, despite maths & statistics you cannot draw an result absolute TRUTH from them.


Who is trying to draw an absolute truth here? As I said before, there is better then a 1 in 4 chance of getting a result like this flipping a coin. You really find p < 0.30 all that convincing? smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- sauvage78   Minimum number of required ABX trials   Jan 12 2012, 00:41
- - greynol   It is expected that you choose the number of trial...   Jan 12 2012, 00:44
- - saratoga   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ Jan 11 2012, 18:41) Th...   Jan 12 2012, 00:45
- - sauvage78   Well there is the theory & there is real life ...   Jan 12 2012, 00:56
|- - saratoga   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ Jan 11 2012, 18:56) To...   Jan 12 2012, 01:05
- - greynol   He should be conducting sets of 16 trials at first...   Jan 12 2012, 01:10
- - sauvage78   I never said I judged this test valid, I only gave...   Jan 12 2012, 01:13
|- - saratoga   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ Jan 11 2012, 19:13) I ...   Jan 12 2012, 01:17
|- - greynol   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ Jan 11 2012, 16:13) I ...   Jan 12 2012, 01:20
- - sauvage78   saratoga: Yes, I had the feeling that you were thi...   Jan 12 2012, 01:27
|- - saratoga   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ Jan 11 2012, 19:27) Ye...   Jan 12 2012, 01:32
|- - greynol   QUOTE (saratoga @ Jan 11 2012, 16:32) del...   Jan 12 2012, 01:42
- - sauvage78   Well I know this topic isn't about me but my...   Jan 12 2012, 02:31
- - greynol   The difference between you and the OP is that you ...   Jan 12 2012, 02:54
- - sauvage78   I don't even need a log anymore to trust /mnt ...   Jan 12 2012, 03:30
- - IgorC   A lot of discussion here but it won't change t...   Jan 12 2012, 03:55
|- - saratoga   QUOTE (IgorC @ Jan 11 2012, 21:55) A lot ...   Jan 12 2012, 04:06
- - sauvage78   Even if I think 5 trials is too low to convince ot...   Jan 12 2012, 04:01
|- - greynol   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ Jan 11 2012, 19:01) Ig...   Jan 12 2012, 04:13
|- - saratoga   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ Jan 11 2012, 22:01) Ev...   Jan 12 2012, 04:13
- - IgorC   I think I understand what sauvage78 wants to say. ...   Jan 12 2012, 04:46
|- - saratoga   QUOTE (IgorC @ Jan 11 2012, 22:46) It...   Jan 12 2012, 04:50
|- - IgorC   QUOTE (saratoga @ Jan 12 2012, 00:50) QUO...   Jan 12 2012, 04:57
- - sauvage78   QUOTE Are you claiming that I (or greynol) have no...   Jan 12 2012, 04:54
|- - saratoga   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ Jan 11 2012, 22:54) QU...   Jan 12 2012, 05:02
|- - IgorC   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ Jan 12 2012, 00:54) It...   Jan 12 2012, 05:03
|- - greynol   QUOTE (IgorC @ Jan 11 2012, 20:03) So it...   Jan 12 2012, 05:19
- - sauvage78   IgorC: I was more trying to say that if TOS8 is ve...   Jan 12 2012, 05:02
|- - IgorC   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ Jan 12 2012, 01:02) Ig...   Jan 12 2012, 05:06
- - nesf   From a complete newbie perspective: It could have ...   Jan 12 2012, 11:08
|- - saratoga   QUOTE (nesf @ Jan 12 2012, 05:08) From a ...   Jan 12 2012, 23:15
- - apodtele   Please read Fallacy of p-value. I just want to po...   Jan 12 2012, 17:09
|- - Porcus   QUOTE (apodtele @ Jan 12 2012, 17:09) Ple...   Jan 12 2012, 22:07
- - krabapple   It looks like we're groping towards a discussi...   Jan 12 2012, 18:00
- - nesf   A Dummies guide for doing some basic two sample an...   Jan 13 2012, 01:59


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th September 2014 - 20:29