ontent-Length: 3324
Lines: 68

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
This does not sound to me like one of Harry's monodic listening
tests -- done at home, with long listening intervals, etc.


It is not. It is a preference test, only instead of being AB, it ABCD.
And it is not done under idea conditions even for a preference test. It
would have been better if the samples were longer and the length of
rotation was under the control of an individual user/rater. Obviously
practical time considerations entered in and Sean made a judgment at for
preference he could get by with the techniques used. He may have been right
since difference in speakers are less subtle than in most audio gear...but
he'll (and we'll) never know for sure what differences might have curred
with a more relaxed test constraint.

It is this test (I believe) that Sean told John was followed by true Monadic
descriptive testing, which correlated well. Or at least that is at I
believe I remember John saying or writing (I searched Usenet for it to no
avail, but it may have been at the Stereo show debate, or in writing in
Stereophile).. I have the 2003 paper on the way and hope to get copies of
the earlier tests as well. My suspicion is that the work that Olive was
doing in March 2005 has not been published yet.

Hi Harry,

You know, the objectivists seem to be arguing that "professionals"
don't use monadic listening tests. That seems to me just to prove the
point that you and I are making: that there are dimensions of listening
that have never been explored in an empirical way. Obviously
"professionals" base their choices on practicality and what they can
get paid to do.

Clearly, Olive made decisions about how to run this test which are
consistent with his vision of what matters about reproduction. But a
different sort of test could easily produce different results.

I read in "Scientific American Mind" about recent research that shows
people can make accurate snap judgments about other people's
personalities. The article said this was a new idea, contradicting the
messages that psychologists sent in the past few decades, "don't judge
people at first appearance."

So which is it? Can people make accurate snap judgments, or not?

Well, if you look at the personality "model" they are using for these
tests, it is five numbers. That is a vast simplification and rather
superficial representation of the whole of a person's personality. The
tests may prove merely that people can make snap judgments about
*superficial* aspects of personality. However, it did say that this
personality model is successful at gathering reliable and repeatable
data.

Sound familiar? The objectivist model of audio doesn't have any
unexplained "holes" and demands "reliable, repeatable" observations?

Well, the personality model is still superficial, and even though
scientists are learning repeatable facts about people, it doesn't mean
they are learning anything relevant at all to living wisely, to getting
along with your neighbors, etc.

Likewise, I think the objectivist audio model is good at explaining how
people hear in quick switching situations, which is a superficial way
of using the brain. It can explain some things--but that does