Mkuller wrote:
Mkuller wrote:
Research - The program used is tested beforehand to determine the
artifact's
audibility within it.
Audio - Usually music is the program which is a very *insensitive*
source.
"Bob Marcus"
Why would a program be tested beforehand to determine an artifact's
audibility, when the point of the research itself is to determine the
artifact's reliability? What evidence do you have that music is any
less
insensitive under any other test that doesn't involve the imagination?
Come
on, real evidence.
Thank you for making my point.
How did I make your point? Oh, wait, I see--I did so by writing something
you could completely misconstrue...
If the differences between two amplifiers
happen to be a difference in frequency response at 12kHz and the program
chosen
is sensitive only up to 11kHz you will get...null results.
As you would in any comparison. The artifact is in the sound, Mike, not in
the equipment. If the artifact is at 12kHz and the program has no signal
above 11kHz (I have no idea how a program could be "sensitive"), then the
artifact doesn't exist in that program. The reason DBT subjects will "miss"
it is because it isn't there. That's the advantage of DBTs over sighted
listening--they miss the artifacts that aren't there. Sighted listeners hear
the artifacts that aren't there.
I beleive it was jj
who corrected me when I said that DBTs were insensitive - he said the
test
isn't but music as a program is. Part of the problem with music is that
it is
dynamic, ever-changing and audible memory is notoriuosly poor at hanging
on to
differences with a dynamic program.
Which is true whenever and however you compare audio components. That's what
JJ said to you.
If you're going to lecture us about the scientific method, you ought to
try
practicing a little of it. It's not enough to claim that a test had
some
element that you suspect would affect its reliability. You must also
offer
some evidence that this element actually can affect its reliability.
Until
you have such evidence, you are talking through your hat. In the
meantime,
the paradigm for testing audible differences stands.
From your questions it's pretty obvious that you don't have an real
experience
or knowledge in applying DBTs scientifically. I've explained where I
see some
important differences in their application between research and audio
and all
you can do is turn the question around and ask me for proof.
Please quote me correctly. I didn't ask for proof. I asked for evidence.
Evidence that these are indeed important differences, that they produce less
reliable results. If you want to challenge settled science, that's what you
have to do, Mike. And you can't.
I'm looking for
proof that DBTs actually work in comparing audio components with music
and
don't obscure the subtle audible differences. From my experience and
scientific
knowledge it appears to me that they don't.
Then your scientific knowledge is woefully inadequate. I can't help that.
I have told you that I believe they do this because of the way the brain
works
in storing and recalling audible memory. Relaxed listening uses a
different
part of the brain than the matching/decision-making required in ABX. So
far the
only differences DBTs seem to reveal in audio component testing are big
ones -
gross frequency response and loudness (i.e. as in speakers or bright CD
players). If you have proof or evidence that DBTs actually work for the
use you
are suggesting, please provide it to me. If not, you are welcome to
your
belief system and I'll stick to mine.
The difference between your belief system and mine is that my beliefs
conform to accepted scientific findings in the fields of physics,
electronics, and psychoacoustics. Yours do not.
bob
__________________________________________________ _______________
Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee.
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy...n.asp?cid=3963