Re: WHAT AUDIOPHILES AND CARDIOLOGISTS SHARE

[Mkuller]

(ludovic mirabel)
>Date: 8/13/03 1:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>wrote:>
> Let me tell you something about the real-life "listening tests".
>You're familiar no doubt with a very low-tech instrument called
>stethoscope. At an early stage in the medical school introductory
>lessons to clinical medicine- ie. introductory lessons to train those
>who will one day hold life-death issues in their hands- it becomes
>apparent that a few hear more and most hear less. All of them using
>the same technology and all of them with young,undamaged ears.. Those
>who hear more assume that there is even more to hear when an
>instructor says so. So they practice. A few of those become
>cardiologists who had better hear heart murmurs inaudible to the
>generality of physicians. It is their responsibility to decide whether
>to direct the patient for surgery or hold off for a time.
> Now the interesting thing to observe was that some of the med.
>students who couldn't hear were quite aggressive about it and accused
>their colleagues and their teachers of fantasising.
> Till the technology supplied new tools. Phonocardiogram demonstrated
>not just two or 3 or 4 but 6 different heart sounds. We trained and
>some of us began hearing more. But not all- or else there would be no
>specialisties and no specialists more equal than the other
>specialists.
>

This example is very similar to the "training" path most audiophiles go
through. At some point one with a passion for music is exposed to High End
equipment for the first time. It is a revelation and he can't believe what he
can hear/enjoy in the music reproduction and what he has been missing from his
pedestrian system. So he now embarks on a journey to explore and learn all he
can about better audio equipment. He goes to a High End dealer and compares a
couple of preamps (for example). He may hear some differences but he isn't
sure what he's hearing and can't verbalize what the differences are. At this
point it's all very confusing.

Over the next few years, he does much more equipment comparisons in audio
stores, on friends' systems and on his own system until his ears are trained to
hear the differences between the components and identify them reliably. He
discusses the differences with fellow audiophiles where there is much agreement
on what they all hear, but opinions differ on which each prefers or which is
more "accurate". These debates fuel late night listening sessions.

At some point, at the urging of a skeptical friend, the audiophile engages in a
"blind listening test" with a couple of familiar components. Where did the
audible differences he had easily identified earlier disappear to? He's back to
his original state of confusion. Did the blind test filter out the differences
(most likely) or had he imagined the differences he and his friends had
identified (not likely). So he leaves blind testing to the rabid minority on
RAHE, and proceeds to enjoy his audio/music appreciation hobby with his friends
and never thinks about blind testing again.

Like the cardiologists in the above example, he goes on to trust his ears
rather than some questionable application of a test that acts a filter to his
hearing, and finds much much enjoyment with his hobby and audiophile friends.
The blind testers on the other hand, become like the general practitioners
above or drop out of medicine (and audio) completely.

Sound familiar? How many of you fit this profile?
Regards,
Mike

[Audio Guy]

In article >,
(Mkuller) writes:
>
> At some point, at the urging of a skeptical friend, the audiophile engages in a
> "blind listening test" with a couple of familiar components. Where did the
> audible differences he had easily identified earlier disappear to? He's back to
> his original state of confusion. Did the blind test filter out the differences
> (most likely) or had he imagined the differences he and his friends had
> identified (not likely). So he leaves blind testing to the rabid minority on
> RAHE, and proceeds to enjoy his audio/music appreciation hobby with his friends
> and never thinks about blind testing again.

Fits my path exactly until after the blind test part. Having an
understanding of the reasons for blind tests and having direct
experience in thinking I heard a marked difference when none existed
(failed to flip the switch), I decided that the supposed differences
I had heard before were not real.

> Like the cardiologists in the above example, he goes on to trust his ears
> rather than some questionable application of a test that acts a filter to his
> hearing, and finds much much enjoyment with his hobby and audiophile friends.
> The blind testers on the other hand, become like the general practitioners
> above or drop out of medicine (and audio) completely.

You and others have yet to demonstrate that the use of a blind test
causes a "filtering" effect.

> Sound familiar? How many of you fit this profile?

Not me.

[Nousaine]

(Mkuller) wrote:

(ludovic mirabel)
>>Date: 8/13/03 1:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>wrote:>
>> Let me tell you something about the real-life "listening tests".
>>You're familiar no doubt with a very low-tech instrument called
>>stethoscope. At an early stage in the medical school introductory
>>lessons to clinical medicine- ie. introductory lessons to train those
>>who will one day hold life-death issues in their hands- it becomes
>>apparent that a few hear more and most hear less. All of them using
>>the same technology and all of them with young,undamaged ears.. Those
>>who hear more assume that there is even more to hear when an
>>instructor says so. So they practice. A few of those become
>>cardiologists who had better hear heart murmurs inaudible to the
>>generality of physicians. It is their responsibility to decide whether
>>to direct the patient for surgery or hold off for a time.

Oh really' do you have some evidence that this phenomenon actually exists?

>> Now the interesting thing to observe was that some of the med.
>>students who couldn't hear were quite aggressive about it and accused
>>their colleagues and their teachers of fantasising.
>> Till the technology supplied new tools. Phonocardiogram demonstrated
>>not just two or 3 or 4 but 6 different heart sounds. We trained and
>>some of us began hearing more. But not all- or else there would be no
>>specialisties and no specialists more equal than the other
>>specialists.

And:.........????

>>
>
>This example is very similar to the "training" path most audiophiles go
>through. At some point one with a passion for music is exposed to High End
>equipment for the first time. It is a revelation and he can't believe what
>he
>can hear/enjoy in the music reproduction and what he has been missing from
>his
>pedestrian system. So he now embarks on a journey to explore and learn all
>he
>can about better audio equipment. He goes to a High End dealer and compares
>a
>couple of preamps (for example).

Sure; he goes to a high-end dealer and gets a maxi-load of bull****. Other then
a maxi-load of pre-suggestion what else would one expect?

He may hear some differences but he isn't
>sure what he's hearing and can't verbalize what the differences are. At this
>point it's all very confusing.

Not in the Salon with coaching; " well other discerning listeners
report........."

>
>Over the next few years, he does much more equipment comparisons in audio
>stores, on friends' systems and on his own system until his ears are trained
>to
>hear the differences between the components and identify them reliably.

Bull; how can his 'ears' be trained without programs that are selected to drive
speakers to the limit?

And how do you validate reliability? Numbers please.

He
>discusses the differences with fellow audiophiles where there is much
>agreement
>on what they all hear, but opinions differ on which each prefers or which is
>more "accurate". These debates fuel late night listening sessions.

Actually these sessions are excercizes in group dynamics and have zero bearing
on sonic accuracy.

>
>At some point, at the urging of a skeptical friend, the audiophile engages in
>a
>"blind listening test" with a couple of familiar components. Where did the
>audible differences he had easily identified earlier disappear to? He's back
>to
>his original state of confusion. Did the blind test filter out the
>differences
>(most likely) or had he imagined the differences he and his friends had
>identified (not likely).

So wy doesn't he examine the evidence before him? Are you telling us that
rational people who have 'seen' the results of bias controlled tests are so
STUPID they wouldignore their own ears?

So he leaves blind testing to the rabid minority on
>RAHE, and proceeds to enjoy his audio/music appreciation hobby with his
>friends
>and never thinks about blind testing again.

Oh really; otherwise than your personal case can you give me an example to the
contrary?

>
>Like the cardiologists in the above example, he goes on to trust his ears
>rather than some questionable application of a test that acts a filter to his
>hearing, and finds much much enjoyment with his hobby and audiophile friends.
>
>The blind testers on the other hand, become like the general practitioners
>above or drop out of medicine (and audio) completely.
>
>Sound familiar? How many of you fit this profile?
>Regards,
>Mike

Please; I'm a 30 year diabetic and have a number of complications that were
completely predictable. My brother is a MD Internist; so have an inside line.
To date; there has been NO internal data that has been withheld.

[Chris Malcolm]

(Mkuller) writes:

(ludovic mirabel)
>>Date: 8/13/03 1:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>wrote:>

>> Let me tell you something about the real-life "listening tests".
>>You're familiar no doubt with a very low-tech instrument called
>>stethoscope. At an early stage in the medical school introductory
>>lessons to clinical medicine- ie. introductory lessons to train those
>>who will one day hold life-death issues in their hands- it becomes
>>apparent that a few hear more and most hear less. All of them using
>>the same technology and all of them with young,undamaged ears.. Those
>>who hear more assume that there is even more to hear when an
>>instructor says so. So they practice. A few of those become
>>cardiologists who had better hear heart murmurs inaudible to the
>>generality of physicians. It is their responsibility to decide whether
>>to direct the patient for surgery or hold off for a time.
>> Now the interesting thing to observe was that some of the med.
>>students who couldn't hear were quite aggressive about it and accused
>>their colleagues and their teachers of fantasising.
>> Till the technology supplied new tools. Phonocardiogram demonstrated
>>not just two or 3 or 4 but 6 different heart sounds. We trained and
>>some of us began hearing more. But not all- or else there would be no
>>specialisties and no specialists more equal than the other
>>specialists.
>>

>This example is very similar to the "training" path most audiophiles go
>through. At some point one with a passion for music is exposed to High End
>equipment for the first time. It is a revelation and he can't believe what he
>can hear/enjoy in the music reproduction and what he has been missing from his
>pedestrian system. So he now embarks on a journey to explore and learn all he
>can about better audio equipment. He goes to a High End dealer and compares a
>couple of preamps (for example). He may hear some differences but he isn't
>sure what he's hearing and can't verbalize what the differences are. At this
>point it's all very confusing.

But this isn't like the cardiology example above. What is missing is
the reference to phonocardiograms, i.e., using instrumentation to
verify what is being heard. Before phonocardiograms the trainees had
to verify what they heard by comparison with qualified experts. There
are mechanisms in cardiology to weed out illusions.

>Over the next few years, he does much more equipment comparisons in audio
>stores, on friends' systems and on his own system until his ears are trained to
>hear the differences between the components and identify them reliably. He
>discusses the differences with fellow audiophiles where there is much agreement
>on what they all hear, but opinions differ on which each prefers or which is
>more "accurate". These debates fuel late night listening sessions.

Quite unlike the case with cardiology.

>At some point, at the urging of a skeptical friend, the audiophile engages in a
>"blind listening test" with a couple of familiar components. Where did the
>audible differences he had easily identified earlier disappear to? He's back to
>his original state of confusion. Did the blind test filter out the differences
>(most likely) or had he imagined the differences he and his friends had
>identified (not likely). So he leaves blind testing to the rabid minority on
>RAHE, and proceeds to enjoy his audio/music appreciation hobby with his friends
>and never thinks about blind testing again.

>Like the cardiologists in the above example, he goes on to trust his ears
>rather than some questionable application of a test that acts a filter to his
>hearing,

Where is this like the cardiologists? Seems to me to be distinctly
unlike it.

>and finds much much enjoyment with his hobby and audiophile friends.
>The blind testers on the other hand, become like the general practitioners
>above or drop out of medicine (and audio) completely.

>Sound familiar?

I think you had difficulty hearing the original message :-)
--
Chris Malcolm +44 (0)131 650 3085 DoD #205
School of Informatics, Edinburgh University, 5 Forrest Hill,
Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK. [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/ ]

[ludovic mirabel]

(Nousaine) wrote in message >...
> (Mkuller) wrote:
>
> (ludovic mirabel)
> >>Date: 8/13/03 1:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >>Message-id: >
> >>wrote:>
> >> Let me tell you something about the real-life "listening tests".
> >>You're familiar no doubt with a very low-tech instrument called
> >>stethoscope. At an early stage in the medical school introductory
> >>lessons to clinical medicine- ie. introductory lessons to train those
> >>who will one day hold life-death issues in their hands- it becomes
> >>apparent that a few hear more and most hear less. All of them using
> >>the same technology and all of them with young,undamaged ears.. Those
> >>who hear more assume that there is even more to hear when an
> >>instructor says so. So they practice. A few of those become
> >>cardiologists who had better hear heart murmurs inaudible to the
> >>generality of physicians. It is their responsibility to decide whether
> >>to direct the patient for surgery or hold off for a time.
>
> Oh really' do you have some evidence that this phenomenon actually exists?
>
What "phenomenon" are you referring to? The fact that what is heard
depends on who is listening? Surely it does not need endless
repetition to get throughto you.
Or could it be the fact that the competence in
int.medicine/cardiology is certified (Lord knows not faultlessly!) in
the U.S., U.K. and Canada by a competitive exam with high failure
rate after 5 to 6 years of postgraduate clinical experience? Ask your
brother for details.
Or the fact that in the U.K. and Canada the path to cardiac surgery
leads through a cardologist's referral to a surgeon with decision
reached at a joint cardiology conference? (Were this path followed
everywhere and in all the divisions of elective surgery the operation
rates would drop dramatically with no detriment to the patient.)
It is true that in this citadel of adventurous free enterprise, the
U.S., some ambitious small hospitals undertake cardiac surgery as
well. I know where I'd want to end up if I needeed a little carving.

> >> Now the interesting thing to observe was that some of the med.
> >>students who couldn't hear were quite aggressive about it and accused
> >>their colleagues and their teachers of fantasising.
> >> Till the technology supplied new tools. Phonocardiogram demonstrated
> >>not just two or 3 or 4 but 6 different heart sounds. We trained and
> >>some of us began hearing more. But not all- or else there would be no
> >>specialisties and no specialists more equal than the other
> >>specialists.
>
> And:.........????
>
Just that Mr. Nousaine. It does not matter if you had 3 or 30 or
300 testees, including yourself. You're not testing component
differences. You're testing some individuals' responses to the way
some components reproduce some types of music. What we need to know is
details: Are you looking for the differences in reproduction of train
whistles, amplified pop, violins, cellos, clarinets or voice. Voice
amplified or not? How did you select your sample? comparable age,
gender, hearing, related musical experience and exposure?
How big was the sample you ended up with? Detailed results. Your
statistical methods? What have you done about the minority who
"heard"? Did you bury it in the majority who did not hear, like your
"listening tests' predecessors had done?
And so on ad infinitum.
I asked all this before. Could you answer this time rather than
keep silent and return to the charge da capo al fine as though nothing
happened in between.

> >> Let me tell you something about the real-life "listening tests".
> >>You're familiar no doubt with a very low-tech instrument called
> >>stethoscope. At an early stage in the medical school introductory
> >>lessons to clinical medicine- ie. introductory lessons to train those
> >>who will one day hold life-death issues in their hands- it becomes
> >>apparent that a few hear more and most hear less. All of them using
> >>the same technology and all of them with young,undamaged ears.. Those
> >>who hear more assume that there is even more to hear when an
> >>instructor says so. So they practice. A few of those become
> >>cardiologists who had better hear heart murmurs inaudible to the
> >>generality of physicians. It is their responsibility to decide whether
> >>to direct the patient for surgery or hold off for a time.
>
> >> Now the interesting thing to observe was that some of the med.
> >>students who couldn't hear were quite aggressive about it and accused
> >>their colleagues and their teachers of fantasising.
> >> Till the technology supplied new tools. Phonocardiogram demonstrated
> >>not just two or 3 or 4 but 6 different heart sounds. We trained and
> >>some of us began hearing more. But not all- or else there would be no
> >>specialisties and no specialists more equal than the other
> >>specialists.
> >
> >This example is very similar to the "training" path most audiophiles go
> >through. At some point one with a passion for music is exposed to High End
> >equipment for the first time. It is a revelation and he can't believe what
> >he
> >can hear/enjoy in the music reproduction and what he has been missing from
> >his
> >pedestrian system. So he now embarks on a journey to explore and learn all
> >he
> >can about better audio equipment. He goes to a High End dealer and compares
> >a
> >couple of preamps (for example).
>
> Sure; he goes to a high-end dealer and gets a maxi-load of bull****. Other then
> a maxi-load of pre-suggestion what else would one expect?
>
> He may hear some differences but he isn't
> >sure what he's hearing and can't verbalize what the differences are. At this
> >point it's all very confusing.
>
> Not in the Salon with coaching; " well other discerning listeners
> report........."
>
> >
> >Over the next few years, he does much more equipment comparisons in audio
> >stores, on friends' systems and on his own system until his ears are trained
> >to
> >hear the differences between the components and identify them reliably.
>
> Bull; how can his 'ears' be trained without programs that are selected to drive
> speakers to the limit?
>
> And how do you validate reliability? Numbers please.
>
> He
> >discusses the differences with fellow audiophiles where there is much
> >agreement
> >on what they all hear, but opinions differ on which each prefers or which is
> >more "accurate". These debates fuel late night listening sessions.
>
> Actually these sessions are excercizes in group dynamics and have zero bearing
> on sonic accuracy.
>
> >
> >At some point, at the urging of a skeptical friend, the audiophile engages in
> >a
> >"blind listening test" with a couple of familiar components. Where did the
> >audible differences he had easily identified earlier disappear to? He's back
> >to
> >his original state of confusion. Did the blind test filter out the
> >differences
> >(most likely) or had he imagined the differences he and his friends had
> >identified (not likely).
>
> So wy doesn't he examine the evidence before him? Are you telling us that
> rational people who have 'seen' the results of bias controlled tests are so
> STUPID they wouldignore their own ears?
>
> So he leaves blind testing to the rabid minority on
> >RAHE, and proceeds to enjoy his audio/music appreciation hobby with his
> >friends
> >and never thinks about blind testing again.
>
> Oh really; otherwise than your personal case can you give me an example to the
> contrary?
>
> >
> >Like the cardiologists in the above example, he goes on to trust his ears
> >rather than some questionable application of a test that acts a filter to his
> >hearing, and finds much much enjoyment with his hobby and audiophile friends.
> >
> >The blind testers on the other hand, become like the general practitioners
> >above or drop out of medicine (and audio) completely.
> >
> >Sound familiar? How many of you fit this profile?
> >Regards,
> >Mike
>
> Please; I'm a 30 year diabetic and have a number of complications that were
> completely predictable. My brother is a MD Internist; so have an inside line.
> To date; there has been NO internal data that has been withheld.