Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!info-high-audio-request
From: jfw@neuro.duke.edu (John F. Whitehead)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: ADD vs DDD
Message-ID: <11718@uwm.edu>
Date: 3 May 91 13:12:46 GMT
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Lines: 21
Approved: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu


In article <11579@uwm.edu> chowkwan%priam.usc.edu@usc.edu 
    (Raymond Chowkwanyun) writes, in part:
>Jim Boyk has released a CD which allows us to compare ADD and DDD.
>Boyk recorded his own performance of Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition. 
>I was able to listen over a car radio as they played ADD and DDD tracks 
>from the CD.  The audience was not told which was which.  
>Oh yes, listeners called in to say which one they preferred. The final tally
>7.5 for Wristwatch, 5.5 for Fish.  i.e. most people liked the DDD version
>better.

I would take this "test" with a grain of salt, even if 7.5 were to be
considered statistically significant vs. 5.5.  How can you expect to
test something so subtle when you broadcast it?  A radio signal is 
compressed, and doesn't have any signal over 15KHz or much below 50Hz!

    John Whitehead                     Internet:  jfw@neuro.duke.edu
    Department of Neurobiology                    jfw@well.sf.ca.us
    Duke University Medical Center     Bitnet:    white002@dukemc           
    Durham, North Carolina