Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Audio Guy" wrote in message
news:GdxTb.163713$sv6.894310@attbi_s52...
In article ,
(Mkuller) writes:
I'm only claiming that memories of subtle audible differences fade
more
quickly
than memories of large, gross differences, whatever they may be. You
have any
evidence to the contrary?
OK, if subtle audible differences fade quickly, doesn't that validate
the findings of DBT'ers that quick switching is the best way to
determine differences?
No, because those subtle differences often take time to be recognized
and
enter consciousness.
er...how on earth does thsi work, Harry? You listen to A for as long as
you
like. You listen to B for a long as you like. You switch between them
as often as you like, until the subtle differences are recognized and
enter your consciousness.
'Quick switching' merely means that when you *do* want
to switch between A and B (or X and A/B), the actual switching occurs
'instantanously', rather than with a long lag of no sound. You can
*insert*
such a lag into the process if you like, if that's what you think it
takes for the differences to be recognized and enter consciousness.
Mkuller seems to agree that inserting such a lag would promote the loss of
accurate memory of subtle audible difference.
Why do 'objectivists' have to keep explaining this stuff to you guys over
and over and over?
You don't. It's a function of not really understanding or acknowledging on
*your* part what we are saying.
OK, I'm game.
For open ended evaluation, you don't know initially what you are looking
for. It make days for things to gel that "a" sounds somewhat thisway, and
"b" sounds somewhat more thatway. From extended, evaluative listening and
non-quick switching. Then a tentative conclusion is drawn. Now you know
what you are listening "for". It may be something subtle and perceptual,
such as "imaging". Once you have it firmly grasped in mind what the
signature is of "a" and how it might vary from "b", quick switching can help
precisely because it "interupts" the perception you have grasped and altered
it slightly (or not) over the flow of music.
Fine, you are agreeing that when it comes time to *test* your 'tentative
conclusion', then quick switching is a good way to go. So why did you say
'no' above?
We are talking about open-ended component evaluation. If I simply give you
two components, say "different" or "same", or "is it a" or "is it b" and
force a choice quick switching works against you because you haven't yet
really been able to determine what it is you are listening for in audio
terms. "Same" or "different" are not audio terms. They are "sound
artifact" terms on simple one or two dimensions.
Whether the 'evaluative' part -- the part the *perception*
of A/B difference is established -- must be 'open ended' is moot.
*Whatever works*, Harry. The idea is to get to the point where you believe
A and B sound different. Period .
*Then* use the best methods to test the belief that.
The vast majority of controlled tests seem to have been performed on people
who *belelive they hear a difference between A and B* -- regardless of *when and how*.
They may have perceived it during the A/B part of the ABX test itself;
or they may have perceived it prior to the test, using something like
'open ended evaluation'.
(the preceding has all been explained before)
Under quick switching under these circumstances, the brain seems to "panic"
in that it can't sort audio patterns quickly and has no frame of reference;
this by itself creates anxiety, which in turn creates even more confusion
and panic. I believe this is why audiophiles cite stress and fatigue in
trying to do this kind of testing when dealing with very subtle, perceptual
factors and why the test favors a "null conclusion" unless we are dealing
with straightforward factors that the sensate function can handle without
much need for the intuitive or emotional functions (volume, frequency
response).
OSAF. The 'stress' might just as well arise from confrontation with reality
as their beliefs crash up against it.
(the preceding has all eben explained before)
Do I know this for sure? No. But it is reasonable and verifiable. That is
why I proposed a control test that is double-blind, relaxed, evaluative, and
leisurely. Along with testing of the same respondents using sighted,
evaluative listening and at another time relatively short, terse,
comparative ("same","different") double- blind testing as is traditionally
recommended here.
Havent' soem of Tom's tests been performed over periods of weeks?
Is that not 'leisurely' enough? Did nto Steve Zipser *already claim
to have heard differences* in the components used?
Harry, *everything* you've fretted about here, is utterly moot,
once a difference has already been *perceived*. At that point,
it's merely a matter of testing that perception.
(the preceding has all been explained before)
If the control test gave results similar to traditional dbt/abx, it would
verify that that traditional dbt/abx testing was a valid "shortcut" to
evaluative testing. If the control test gave results similar to sighted
open-ended evaluative testing, then it would suggest that evaluative testing
even though sighted was a more encompassing and valid approach for component
evaluation.
So if you really want to stop the "jaw flapping" and try to resolve the
differences of the two camps, first you have to acknowledge the possibility
that we might have a point, and that it is worth trying to resolve somehow.
Just as we acknowledge that traditional dbt/abx testing works fine for
simple volume and frequency response differences, and artifact detection,
which allow simple one or two dimensional evaluations.
*NOTHING* you have written indicates that DBT/ABX is inadequate for testing
claims of audible difference...no matter how they've been arrived at. Once the
claim is *testifed to* -- one the person says, *I hear a difference* --
what's required a good test. Which you agree is: double blind comparison
protocol.
So please STOP repeating the same stuff over and over, OK?
(the preceding has been explained and requested before)
--
-S.
"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director