[/QUOTE]The source is here http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BS.1116-1-199710-I/e The MUSHRA methodology is recommended for assessing "intermediate audio quality". For very small audio impairments, Recommendation ITU-R BS.1116-1 (ABC/HR) is recommended instead.
Partly, the anchor is randomly distributed through the listening tests & a statistical evaluation done on it's results which can then be used to evaluate the sensitivity & validity of the whole test including listeners, material & procedures.
No, you haven't & the test is invalidIs it the only difference? I didn't design the test so why ask me? Doesn't stop me asking questions about it's validity though. Test are either valid or not - if it's not possible to use appropriate controls then the test is not valid, is it?
Tim
Because you're the guy insisting that the test is worthless if it can't follow this particular set of recommendations. Are you saying there are no other recommendations, no other testing methodologies? Are you saying that no test for small audio differences can ever be valid if it can't or doesn't use these particular recommendations, this particular control, that we can test nothing and gather no evidence worth considering if this particular control cannot be used?
If your answer to the questions above is yes, then I guess I'll wonder how you came to such a sweeping and unlikely conclusion, what incredible depth of testing and successful repetition this methodology has gone through since the 90s to become universally considered the only valid test for audibility by the entirety of the research, audiology and EE communities. And of course I'm going to wonder how it got so broadly used and accepted, given that is something actually is inaudible, this control is irrelevant.
I'm sure you have a link for that as well?
And yes, I know you didn't say all of that; you just said that Meyer and Moran, in spite of all of it's depth and care was rendered completely invalid for its failure to use that control. Which is close enough.
Tim