|
|
|
|
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something)
(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message ...
PINK NOISE signal: 10 out of 11 participants got the maximum possible
correct answers: 15 out of 15 ie. 100%. ONE was 1 guess short. He got
only 14 out of 15.
When MUSIC was used as a signal 1 (ONE) listener got 15 corrects,
1 got 14 and one 12. The others had results ranging from 7 and 8
through 10 to (1) 11.
My question is: was there are ANY significant difference between
those two sets of results? Is there a *possibility* that music
disagrees with ABX or ABX with music?
I suspect a major reason it's more difficult to hear level differences
in music is that the actual level is constantly changing. But of
course this effect wouldn't be limited to listening in ABX tests. It
would be harder to discern level differences in *any* comparison
involving music.
snip?
The problem is that there are NO
ABX COMPONENT tests being published- neither better nor worse, NONE.
Possible explanations for this:
1) People did further tests, but didn't get them published because
they arrived at the same result, and no one publishes "old news."
2) People stopped trying because they had no reason to believe they
*would* get different results.
snip
I can easily hear 1db difference between channels, and a change
of 1 db.
What I can't do is to have 80 db changed to 81 db, then be asked if
the third unknown is 80 or 81 dbs. and be consistently correct.
Two questions:
1) What do you mean by "consistent"? 100% of the time, or just with
statistical reliability?
2) Were you able to switch instantaneously between them? Audiophiles
pooh-pooh this, but it's certainly easier to hear level differences
when you can switch instantaneously.
Perhaps I could if I trained as much as you have done. Perhaps not
Some others could, some couldn't. We're all different. Produce a test
which will be valid for all ages, genders, extent of training, innate
musical and ABxing abilities, all kinds of musical experience and
preference.
You're assuming that if you can't hear a difference that some other
people can hear, then the test isn't right for you. But maybe you just
can't hear that difference. As you say, we are all different.
Then prove BY EXPERIMENT that it works for COMPARING
COMPONENTS.
How would you prove such a thing?
So that anyone can do it and if he gets a null result BE CERTAIN that
with more training or different musical experience he would not hear
what he did not hear before.
The only way to be certain of this would be to train himself, and then
take the test again. OTOH, if there is no documented case of anyone
ever hearing such a difference, it might be a waste of time to try to
find out if you are the exception.
And perhaps just get on widening his
musical experience
I'm not aware of any evidence that musical experience is particularly
helpful in these kinds of tests. That's not what "training" is about
in this context.
and then rcompare (with his eyes covered if he is
marketing susceptible)
If??? Everyone is susceptible to sighted bias (which has nothing
necessarily to do with "marketing").
Let's keep it simple. We're audiophiles here. We're talking about
MUSICAL REPRODUCTION DIFFERENCES between AUDIO COMPONENTS. I looked
at your internet graphs. They mean zero to me. I know M. Levinsohn,
Quad, Apogee, Acoustat not the names of your codecs. You assure me
that they are relevant. Perhaps. Let's see BY EXPERIMENT if they do.
So far as I can tell, the only experiment that would satisfy you would
be one that confirmed your own beliefs about what is and is not
audible. I'm afraid we can't do that.
bob
|