"Steven Sullivan" wrote:
Why do 'objectivists' have to keep explaining this stuff to you guys over
and over and over?
"Harry Lavo" wrote:
You don't. It's a function of not really understanding or acknowledging on
*your* part what we are saying.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
I believe Harry's post above is the most concise and insightful description of
the differences between *blind* and *sighted* audio component comparisons using
music and is pretty much the conclusion of the debate unless there is new
information to be provided. One dimensional (loudness or gross frequency
response differences) versus multi-dimensional (what most audiophiles and
equipment reviewers describe). Take your pick.
In the past few weeks we have seen "'watchking99's" numerous posts on the
difficulties involved with conducting a valid blind test. We have seen
"ernstr's" questions about the thresholds of hearing and perception. Even
Marcus and "josko" have suggested mechanisms in the brain where performing
different functions can interfere with perception.
The DBT debate is becoming very repetitve. The subjectivists have raised a
number of important issues and concerns. The objectivists seem to be in denial
and are unwilling to consider their DBT method may be flawed in its application
for audio. Until they admit there may be some problems with their method and
provide some *verifying evidence* that their method works in an open-ended
multi-dimensional audio component evaluation using music, everything else is
just positioning, debating and speculation.
Sighted listening is prone to expectation bias and may result in *false
positives*. We agree on that. DBTs may provide controls for expectation bias
but they seem to always result in *false negatives* when the differences are
small and multi-dimensional. Which is preferable?
I for one will continue to use my own sighted methods for audio component
evaluation, suffer a few false positives (if indeed that is the case) until
there is *verification* that a bias control method actually works and does not
obscure or mask information.
Regards,
Mike