Last edited by jkeny; 07-13-2015 at 02:18 AM.
Manufacturer digital products Ciunas.biz
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance – it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin.
"measure 'accuracy' where it counts by understanding the psychoacoustic mechanisms of the auditory illusion of HiFi" - me
If you perform only one test and simply exclude people due to poor performance, that is cherry-picking, and you can't produce a meaningful result that way. Likewise if you do many second tests, and only report the good ones.
There might be some way to only do one test with some kind of post-hoc rejection. Generally such things are only permitted for a small number of "outliers" who are 3 or more standard deviations away from the mean. I think that would not be possible for these kinds of tests (we are looking for the elite pre-trained listeners, not "The Average Listener"), but even if it could it would raise the possibility that you chose the post-selection method post-hoc also. I think many would not be happy with this kind of determination. I would not be happy with it. But if you were to do things this way anyway, it would help if your "unqualified listener" determination method was strictly determined in advance also as that would mitigate a major argument against it.
Good news everyone.
Our new resident expert (I think that is how he seems himself) has made a grand statement showing that we can ignore everything that happened, its value and its meaning...
Oh wait, its AJ Soundfield.