Harry Lavo wrote:
"Buster Mudd" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote:
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.
Would you suppose that after having spent the requisite
days/weeks/months of extended, evaluative listening and non-quick
switching, after having drawn tentative conclusions, & after having
firmly grasped in mind what the signature is of "a" and how it might
vary from "b" ...that *THEN* you could pass a conventional ABX double
blind test between "a" & "b" ?
No need, I'd already have the answer without ever having to make a conscious
choice...it would have grown organically out of the listening.
You have 'an' answer....but you also have an inescapable question mark, from the POV
of established perceptual research practice, unless you verify under blind
conditions. Since you've already agreed that sighted evaluation is inherently
flawed in a way that a blind comparison can resolve,
and you appear to be a dedicated audiophile,
I can't see why the 'answer' from extended evaluative *sighted*
listening would satisfy you.
However, if I did want to do a blind confirmation, I would do it in an
evaluative fashion using the same music I had been listening to, and
identifying/rating the components on a scale designed to get at the factors
I had grown to identify as distinguishing. I would do a one-two hour 'warm
up" sighted before going blind for each trial. And I would do fifteen or
twenty of those trials over a pretty long period of time. And then apply
statistical analysis. It would never be a conventional a-b or a-b-x
comparative test.
But it *would* be a blind A-B or ABX test.
However, if i did want to do a comparative blind test, I would want it to be
an a-b, not an abx. And I would want it to follow hard on the heels of
several hours of warm-up listening, where I had firmly reestablished those
signatures in mind before "going blind". And I would want to use the same
music I had just been listening to and control the switching. And I would
want to do it alone with no chance of cheating built into the test.
Whatever, Harry. The key question is: would you believe the results
if they contradicted your sighted percptions?
--
-S.
"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director