I understand, but my point still stand, the graph shows that we do have individual preference.

Even the order of the preference on the graphic is not absolute. If you look at the graph, it shows that for Acad10, loudspeaker I & loudspeaker P is reversed compared to everyone else. (".......So everyone has the same ordered preference for the same qualities......"<--- incorrect)

Which proves my point that we do have individual preference.

Actually the relative scoring of each speaker is different. (does not remain exactly the same) I measured the relative difference using a ruler.

Hi Dragon,

@Blumlein 88 and

@amirm may have been a little careless with some word choices, but the thrust of what they are saying is that "relative" choices are generally preserved between groups. "Relative" means the rank is preserved, but not the absolute value or absolute difference. The P - I distinction deserves special consideration.

One can see from the graph the significant result:

P,I >* B >** M

* for 15/16 individual groups, and the combined group (p<0.0001)

** for all individual groups, and the combined group (p<0.0001)

Even though individual scores and differences between scores vary, the rank is well preserved.

The difference between P and I is less clear. Since the tabular data equivalent to the graph is not in the paper, one has to eyeball it. But it is clear that for 9/16 groups there

**is not** a statistically significant difference. For 4/16 groups there

**is** clearly a statistically significant difference, with 3 preferring P and 1 I. For 3/16 the significance is unclear from the graph (since I don't trust pixel measurements). When all the groups are combined the mean difference between P and I is 0.336 (from the paper), with a significance of p=0.0214.

Some will argue that is significant, but from my experience with this type of data, since the p=0.05 cutoff is arbitrary, other ways of viewing the data are relevant, and I would prefer further tests to draw a conclusion about P vs. I.

Cheers, SAM