On Friday 16 July 2010 12:06:02 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 11:46 +0200, Arnold Krille wrote:
> > On Friday 16 July 2010 09:50:39 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 09:56 +0200, Arnold Krille wrote:
> > > > You really should do that test first before speculating about the
> > > > outcome and your audience.
> > >
> > > Btw. I tested my own music.
> > > First I played inside songs from other people a Ralf-mastering of my
> > > own music.
> > > Most people didn't like my song.
> > > Some weeks later I played the same song inside other songs from other
> > > people by a loudness-war-mastering.
> > > Most people liked the song.
> > > Playing the same song two times can't be called heavy rotation, hence
> > > they were not accustomed to my song, but they need a bad mastering to
> > > be fine with this song.
> > > A blind study is useless regarding to musical issues.
> > Apples and oranges.
> > You are working on midi-latency-jitter. Which is measurable. And the test
> > is when the jitter becomes unbearable.
> >
> > Taste on the other thing is not measurable and while you could quantify
> > it, common sense says that taste-minorities are valuable too...
>
> Your bad!
>
> On my computer the measurements are ok, but the audible results are bad.
Does it sound bad because of taste or because of something quantifiable?
If the later, your tests are insufficient and you have to extend it. Simple as
that. (Thats why scientists always want more money for devices:)
If the first, you have to a) define good taste and b) if you want to measure it,
you have to do blind-tests or even double blind-tests. And use a test-group as
large as possible.
Arnold
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jul 16 2010 - 20:15:40 EEST