na cia panasu i atveji, kai vienam "autoritetui" kazka suradus - visi 
kiti staiga netiketai suranda ta pati, vien tam kad kvailesni nepasirodytu.

P.S. trolint nebandau.

On 2014.02.28 21:29, eMJei wrote:
> Trumpai, radau įdomios medžaigos (pateikiu tekstą žemiau, anglų kalba),
> apie aklus testus iš grynai Pro srities - Švedijos radijo perėjimas prie
> kitų standartų/kodekų.
>
> Esminis dalykas - 20.000 aklų testų ir 60 PRO ekspertų nesugebėjo
> PASTEBĖTI techninio kodeko artefakto 1.5kHz dažnyje , kurį per 10 min
> pastebėjo VIENINTELIS audiofilas, PIRMOJE perklausoje.
>
> KODĖL?
>
> Istorija:
>
>      Most such tests, including this new CD vs. high-res comparison, are
> performed not by disinterested experimenters on a quest for the truth
> but by partisan hacks on a mission to discredit audiophiles. But blind
> listening tests lead to the wrong conclusions even when the
> experimenters’ motives are pure. A good example is the listening tests
> conducted by Swedish Radio (analogous to the BBC) to decide whether one
> of the low-bit-rate codecs under consideration by the European Broadcast
> Union was good enough to replace FM broadcasting in Europe.
>
> Swedish Radio developed an elaborate listening methodology called
> “double-blind, triple-stimulus, hidden-reference.” A “subject”
> (listener) would hear three “objects” (musical presentations);
> presentation A was always the unprocessed signal, with the listener
> required to identify if presentation B or C had been processed through
> the codec.
>
> The test involved 60 “expert” listeners spanning 20,000 evaluations over
> a period of two years. Swedish Radio announced in 1991 that it had
> narrowed the field to two codecs, and that “both codecs have now reached
> a level of performance where they fulfill the EBU requirements for a
> distribution codec.” In other words, Swedish Radio said the codec was
> good enough to replace analog FM broadcasts in Europe. This decision was
> based on data gathered during the 20,000 “double-blind, triple-stimulus,
> hidden-reference” listening trials. (The listening-test methodology and
> statistical analysis are documented in detail in “Subjective Assessments
> on Low Bit-Rate Audio Codecs,” by C. Grewin and T. Rydén, published in
> the proceedings of the 10th International Audio Engineering Society
> Conference, “Images of Audio.”)
>
> After announcing its decision, Swedish Radio sent a tape of music
> processed by the selected codec to the late Bart Locanthi, an
> acknowledged expert in digital audio and chairman of an ad hoc committee
> formed to independently evaluate low-bit rate codecs. Using the same
> non-blind observational-listening techniques that audiophiles routinely
> use to evaluate sound quality, Locanthi instantly identified an artifact
> of the codec. After Locanthi informed Swedish Radio of the artifact (an
> idle tone at 1.5kHz), listeners at Swedish Radio also instantly heard
> the distortion. (Locanthi’s account of the episode is documented in an
> audio recording played at workshop on low-bit-rate codecs at the 91st
> AES convention.)
>
> How is it possible that a single listener, using non-blind observational
> listening techniques, was able to discover—in less than ten minutes—a
> distortion that escaped the scrutiny of 60 expert listeners, 20,000
> trials conducted over a two-year period, and elaborate “double-blind,
> triple-stimulus, hidden-reference” methodology, and sophisticated
> statistical analysis?
>
> The answer is that blind listening tests fundamentally distort the
> listening process and are worthless in determining the audibility of a
> certain phenomenon.
>
> Šaltinis:
> http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listening-tests-are-flawed-editorial?page=1
>