New Public Multiformat Listening Test (Jan 2014) Reply #125 – 2013-12-11 17:57:17 Quote from: Garf on 2013-12-11 17:27:03Quote from: Kamedo2 on 2013-12-11 16:30:25It's noticeably better than one person would take the test, and I'm not that pessimistic to call it 'loosing all power'.I'm not sure what you are talking about here, but I think you completely misunderstood what I pointed out. If you squash all results per sample *before doing the analysis*, you have *20* results, not *280* as your graph shows. This is exactly the same input as if one person had taken the test. All the information about variability that you get from multiple listeners is forever gone. You might get lucky in that there is now less variability than with an actual test with one person, but how can you even tell?Yes, it's *20* results, but the average result is far more accurate than the result of one person, which comes from the fact it was tested many times. Humans are whimsical, but less so if the test was conducted multiple times. Even less whimsical if the another test was conducted by another person.In case really one person had taken the test, the accuracy is gone, the result is dirty.After squashing all (average:14) results per sample *before doing the analysis*, indeed, the accuracy is improved by the squashing.