> Didn't read the link, but could a mod please change this title, which is obviously false? The title is taken from the paper. Whether you agree with the paper

> Didn't read the link, but could a mod please change this title, which is obviously false? The title is taken from the paper. Whether you agree with the paper's title is not really relevant to the question of what the HN title should be. Because the guidelines expressly state to not editorialise titles. > I skimmed the paper. A better title (for HN) would be "No correlation between frequency response and price quartile in 283 headphones". I don't understand what your point is. Should the paper have tested literally every possible headphone in existence? Also, the paper is actually _not_ comparing price quartiles (though you could be excused for believing that if you only really read the first graph in the paper). The other graphs in the paper are comparing the price of each headphone separately, and show from PCA that the shape of the distribution does not show any correlation between price and deviation from the target frequency response. I actually don't like the way they display distribution data though (just dumping it into a single graph and calling it a day). A much better way of testing their hypothesis would be using GP or similar to try to model the distribution and see whether there was any correlation that way.