"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:tlHQa.62400$Ph3.6659@sccrnsc04...
Harry Lavo wrote:

snip, no longer relevant to discussion below

Studies indicate that trauma is not a particularly high-fidelity
'burner' of memories.


Interesting. Do you have references i could pursue?

No, lets keep the focus on what this means; if the brain is trying hard
to
make sense out of something other than intepresting the musical
reproduction
"as music" then it is likely to botch the job of evaluating/identifying
the
musical significance of what it is hearing. Like perhaps focusing on
"difference" and using relatively short excerpts, rather than more
relaxed
monadic evaluation.

Not at all. Subjectivists have all along stressed that fact that "test
anxiety" alone may interfere, and have argued that the best test is the
serial monadic approach, ie relaxing and listening to set pieces on
equipment in a familiar system, in familiar surrounds.

Unless they add bias controls to that protocol, they're quite demosntrably
wrong about it being the 'best test', if best is defined as 'most likely
to lead to accurate perception of audible difference'.

No, they simply feel that the biases that intrude are more than offset by
the biases excluded by eliminating a "comparative" setting, especially if we
are talking abx and looking for "differences" rather than listening to
music. And by repeatedly listening, then listening again and taking notes,
over a variety of moods, times, and musical pieces they are able to offset
many of the transitory influences.


Then doing the same
with an alternative piece of gear. Taking notes on both. Going back and
repeating, but in a relaxed fashion which still enjoying the music.
Taking
careful note on the emotional responses (or lack thereof) and rythmic
responses (or lack thereof) elicited by the DUTs. And finally have a
clear
preference emerge and 'reasons why" in musical terms. Very, very close
to
what Ooashi et al did but they did it even better in that it was a blind
test and the subjects didn't know much of anything. And yet what
emerged
was statistical significant results in favor of one variable.

And that 'blind test' proviso makes *ALL THE DIFFERENCE*, Harry.
Your 'subjectivist approved' protocol has *no* provisions for
determining error.


If I could I would do it blind exactly as Ooahi did. But given that I can't
replicate that setting blind, I would for myself choose it sighted over
attempting to use abx to choose. I believe I'd get a better reading to make
a judgement on. You may be different.

You are absolutely right...but that is my point. Most of the objections
raised in this forum have been to the heavily promoted use of abx
testing
and the supporting claim that it is the most sensitive test for
evaluation
and shows no differences in most cases in audio gear (speakers and
cartridges excepted). Subjectivists feel there are much better ways of
testing that focus more naturally and fully on musical evaluation and
believe that if differences in preference occur, the fact that there has
to
be a difference in some factor of reproduction is a given. Not all
subjectivists here are anti-dbt. Most are anti-abx, it seems to me.

This assumes that ABX is inherently a short-interval *listening* protocol.
It's not. It's a quick-*switching* protocol. If subjectivists believe
that
sighted perception of audible difference is more accurate when the
listener
leaves a long interval between the end of A and the start of B or X, then
subjectivists need to prove *that*. Oohashi's paper doesn't.


They don't believe you need a long interval between. It is not
quick-switching per se that is the problem. It is not letting the
evaluation be of a whole piece of music, paying attention to what the musice
"does to us" and rating it on that basis, rather than trying to determin if
x matches a, or x matches b...that matters. they believe that you have to
listen to the music and allow the music time to create the emotional
response in order to get a true evaluation. that is why "snippets" do not
work for music, even if they work in detecting articfacts.

Subjectivist belief that preferences difference has to reflect some
difference
in some factor of reproduction, is falsified when 'reproduction' refers
only
the the actual sounds. Because it's *quite* trivially easy to set up
a test where 'subjectivists' will form preferences for different
presentations
of the SAME sounds.

It is demonstrably the case that 'preference' and 'perception of
difference'
*can* have NO basis or relation to audible fact.


Yes, but that doesn't mean when they do hear a difference that it is *not*
real. You are making an error of logic.

Second, there are a few huge gaps in the theory here, as Oohashi & co.
concede. In particular, there's the little matter of how this section
of the brain gets its information, since the normal hearing mechanism
cannot supply it. Also, there's the little matter of the data. Where
is it?


The summary tables are there, but not the individual results. However,
the
statistics are so overwhelmingly significant that it is probably less
critical than if the results were marginal. I would guess that Oahashi
et
al would provide the raw data to critics and other researchers if asked;
my
impression is that most journal articles do not provide the raw data
from
such research but instead provide relevant summary statistics as they
have
done.

Then, as I also noted, the relevance of this to the experience of
subjectivists, listening sighted, is open to serious question. If
anything, this study confirms the necessity of DBTs, potentially
challenging only their methodologies.


It certainly was an excellent approach, IMO. I don't think you would
find
many subjectivists objecting to this type of dbt'ng. It is, as noted, a
more rigorous approach to what many already do.

I think you would. I have seen many objectivists object to the idea of
controlled comparison, *period*, as somehow interfering with the 'truth'.


Well, I've been a member of this group (and others) for a long time and I
have not heard many object to blind testing per se....but they do object to
tests that "get in the way" vs admittedly less than perfect sighted tests
that "get out of the way". The Ooashi et al tests are so "out of the way"
that they subjects hardly know there are tests going on. And if
"Objectivists United" wishes to fund a permanent testing facility as
sophisticated as what Ooashi et al set up, then I for one would be happy to
use it for all my auditioning choices. And I am sure I would not be alone.