Nousaine wrote:
(Mkuller) wrote:


(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?


(Audio Guy) wrote:
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?


For DBTs, you may be correct that quick switching is best. Using a music
program as a source, which almost all audiophiles do, you have a dynamic,
ever-changing program. Here's my experience - I'm listening to A, for
example,
and as the program is changing, it switches to X. Now I have to compare my
memory of A with the different part of the program now that is playing with
X.
I can remember how A sounded for perhaps a second, but since the program is
different, I'm not sure if there are any audible differences or not.

Quick switching? It only allows me to compare the parts of the program that
are the same - say the continuing vocal or cymbals - on the two components A
and X as the switch is made. But as the seconds tick down, the program is
not
only different, but my memory has faded and I'm not sure I can remember what
A
sounded like any more. Since I'm so busy trying to decide whether X is A or
B,
I have difficulty remembering any overall gestalt or impressions, subtle
differences - anything but big differences that apparent at the moment of
switching - gross frequency response and loudness.
Regards,
Mike

This is why I prefer segments ranging from 20 to 200 seconds and Track Repeat.
Of course A/B Repeat can be used for any Track, Segment or even a whole piece.

In the ABX discs for mp3/Cd comparison I've been sending out, they are
necessarily 'whole track' comparisons, unless one is *very* adept with the
fast forward button. Switching always brings you to the start of the
chosen track. I made each track 1 minute long, but using it myself,
I already find that I only tend to 'trust' my memory
of the first few seconds... the part that can be compared most easily.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

"Harry Lavo" wrote:

The Myers-Briggs test, based on Jung's work, is the single most studied,
tested, validated, and applied personality test in use. It is extremely
predictive of many things, job placement/success and decision making
patterns among them. He is acknowledged as the father of modern psychology,
as you probably know. Some of his work went "out of fashion" years ago; his
personality theory has never gone out of fashion. Indeed the concepts of
thinking, feeling, intuitive, sensate, introverted, extroverted as parts of
personality laid the foundation for virtually all who have followed. It is
the Adlers and others who have fallen by the wayside; Jung's personality
theory continues to be used as a reference point every day.

That may all be true but in my experience M/B has never been used by any large
industrial personnel management as a 'predictor' of job success. And I'm
referring in specifc to perhaps the single largest corporation in the country
prior to 1984 and, in specific, another with employees counts ranging in size
from 70,000 to perhaps 40,000 by the late 90s.

Myers-Briggs was and I would guess still is frequently used in
personal/development work and I have found it to be quite useful individually
to help understand my own working style but personal scores were never
gathered, distributed, used for decisions or tracked. I'm INTP by the way
although the I/E is nearly 50/50.

Skinner's Positive Reinforcement was another very popular technique used in
business for managment training too. But like M/B it has nothing to do with
sonic perception. There's no specific personality decision-style needed to
score positive on an ABX test.

That said there can be protocol tactics that are useful for improving
efficiency. I've completed positive 20 trial tests in 5-6 minutes simply by
only comparing A and X and B and X on the first trial (with perhaps a second
for verification) and then finishing the others by comparing X alone between
successive trials.

For example if I decide that X is "B" then when moving to Trial 2 if X
"changes" then I know it's A.

But none of this "working/behavior" style has anything to do evaluating audio
evaluation. IOW the Myer-Briggs may be able to help understand why Subject
1138 doesn't get along with his peers but it simply cannot tell you if he can
"hear" amps. :-)

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

The Myers-Briggs test, based on Jung's work, is the single most studied,
tested, validated, and applied personality test in use. It is extremely
predictive of many things, job placement/success and decision making
patterns among them. He is acknowledged as the father of modern
psychology,
as you probably know. Some of his work went "out of fashion" years ago;
his
personality theory has never gone out of fashion. Indeed the concepts of
thinking, feeling, intuitive, sensate, introverted, extroverted as parts
of
personality laid the foundation for virtually all who have followed. It
is
the Adlers and others who have fallen by the wayside; Jung's personality
theory continues to be used as a reference point every day.

That may all be true but in my experience M/B has never been used by any
large
industrial personnel management as a 'predictor' of job success.

It is used by huge numbers of firms, including the very largest, to help
match personality types to jobs to avoid as much as possible round pegs in
square holes. Once you have round pegs in round holes, other factors
determine success or failure. But a round peg in a square hole has a pretty
high chance of failure.

And I'm
referring in specifc to perhaps the single largest corporation in the
country
prior to 1984 and, in specific, another with employees counts ranging in
size
from 70,000 to perhaps 40,000 by the late 90s.


I once looked up how many books and thesis had been written validating MB
for specific job-related evaluative tasks; the result was in the thousands

Myers-Briggs was and I would guess still is frequently used in
personal/development work and I have found it to be quite useful
individually
to help understand my own working style but personal scores were never
gathered, distributed, used for decisions or tracked. I'm INTP by the
way
although the I/E is nearly 50/50.


I've also found it very useful as a personal development tool, as well as a
team-building tool to a certain extent.

Skinner's Positive Reinforcement was another very popular technique used
in
business for managment training too. But like M/B it has nothing to do
with
sonic perception. There's no specific personality decision-style needed to
score positive on an ABX test.


Absolutely, nor did *I* even remotely make a claim that there was.

That said there can be protocol tactics that are useful for improving
efficiency. I've completed positive 20 trial tests in 5-6 minutes simply
by
only comparing A and X and B and X on the first trial (with perhaps a
second
for verification) and then finishing the others by comparing X alone
between
successive trials.

For example if I decide that X is "B" then when moving to Trial 2 if X
"changes" then I know it's A.

But none of this "working/behavior" style has anything to do evaluating
audio
evaluation. IOW the Myer-Briggs may be able to help understand why Subject
1138 doesn't get along with his peers but it simply cannot tell you if he
can
"hear" amps. :-)

Agreed. But as I pointed out, "functions" and how they work within a
person a la Jung's insight, can help explain the complexity of how human's
process data. My tentative description of the "evaluative listening"
process describes my own approach (and I believe many others from the
audiophiles I know or have had discussions with) and I can relate it to the
Jungian functions. If I am at all right, this is no trivial matter when it
comes to test design and technique.

For example, MB's own failing is that it was designed by an Intuitive, so it
is biased toward intuition and fails to clearly separate intuition as Jung
defined it and raw IQ. I was shown a "sensate" test that I use that is
non-verbal and non-logical that better separates out "intuition" as Jung
defined it.
This is relative how? Because the kind of comparative tests you espouse I
do believe are oriented to the thinking and sensate functions, rather than
the the feeling or intuitive functions. Which means they will work well for
things that are concrete and linear and therefore subject to left-brain
scrutiny...simple one-dimensional volume and frequency deficiencies
certainly fall into these categories. The opposite functions...which I
believe are as important or more important for full multi-dimensional
absorbtion/perception of musical realism...being feeling and
intuition..require a different, more organic framework to emerge and
integrate. At least that's my theory and experience. An evaluative but
double-blind control test would resolve this issue once and for all.

Now Steven will tell me that I'm repeating myself, so I'll stop! :-)

"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Keith Hughes" wrote in message
...
Mkuller wrote:

snip

Steven Sullivan wrote:
The first step of ABX is listening to A and B. If no difference is
discerned
between
A and B, then it's pointless to continue with the 'match/choose/decide'

Right, so far.

Okay! Glad you agree with the above. IF no difference is
discerned, then no need to proceed. If a difference *IS*
discerned, then you *HAVE* made the decision which, according to
you, is the problematic part of the process (the exact same
process required either sighted or blinded).

Now, the X/A comparison is *exactly* the same process you just had
no problem in performing with A/B (or you wouldn't have proceeded
would you?). The process is absolutely identical. The X/B
comparison is merely another iteration of the identical process.

So, where's the problem?

snip

The difference is that in a DBT you are *forced* to chose A or B for X.

Again, there is no decision *forced* that you don't have to
perform in whatever incarnation of sighted testing you prefer. You
at some point, *MUST* decide same/different, else you have no
opinions of any kind. Whether it's A/B, A/X, or B/X, the process
is the same.

Keith Hughes

The difference is "how" that difference is arrived at. "Choice"
(comparative) vs. "Evaluative" (organically or experientially) arrived at.

According to Harry the 'difference' isn't whether you choose rightly but "How"
you made the "choice."

It doen't matter of there is a choice to be made. Your method of decision is
more important. If you don't pass the Harry-Test you aren't qualified to
decide. And if you make the "wrong" decision then you are no longer qualified
to decide.

Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

The Myers-Briggs test, based on Jung's work, is the single most studied,
tested, validated, and applied personality test in use. It is extremely
predictive of many things, job placement/success and decision making
patterns among them. He is acknowledged as the father of modern
psychology,
as you probably know. Some of his work went "out of fashion" years ago;
his
personality theory has never gone out of fashion. Indeed the concepts of
thinking, feeling, intuitive, sensate, introverted, extroverted as parts
of
personality laid the foundation for virtually all who have followed. It
is
the Adlers and others who have fallen by the wayside; Jung's personality
theory continues to be used as a reference point every day.

That may all be true but in my experience M/B has never been used by any
large
industrial personnel management as a 'predictor' of job success.

It is used by huge numbers of firms, including the very largest, to help
match personality types to jobs to avoid as much as possible round pegs in
square holes. Once you have round pegs in round holes, other factors
determine success or failure. But a round peg in a square hole has a pretty
high chance of failure.

So you don't have specifics about success.I didn't think so.


And I'm
referring in specifc to perhaps the single largest corporation in the
country
prior to 1984 and, in specific, another with employees counts ranging in
size
from 70,000 to perhaps 40,000 by the late 90s.


I once looked up how many books and thesis had been written validating MB
for specific job-related evaluative tasks; the result was in the thousands

And ......???

Myers-Briggs was and I would guess still is frequently used in
personal/development work and I have found it to be quite useful
individually
to help understand my own working style but personal scores were never
gathered, distributed, used for decisions or tracked. I'm INTP by the
way
although the I/E is nearly 50/50.


I've also found it very useful as a personal development tool, as well as a
team-building tool to a certain extent.

OK; but how does it relate to decision-making style to "hearing" sensitivity?

Skinner's Positive Reinforcement was another very popular technique used
in
business for managment training too. But like M/B it has nothing to do
with
sonic perception. There's no specific personality decision-style needed to
score positive on an ABX test.


Absolutely, nor did *I* even remotely make a claim that there was.

So why are we talking about it now?

That said there can be protocol tactics that are useful for improving
efficiency. I've completed positive 20 trial tests in 5-6 minutes simply
by
only comparing A and X and B and X on the first trial (with perhaps a
second
for verification) and then finishing the others by comparing X alone
between
successive trials.

For example if I decide that X is "B" then when moving to Trial 2 if X
"changes" then I know it's A.

But none of this "working/behavior" style has anything to do evaluating
audio
evaluation. IOW the Myer-Briggs may be able to help understand why Subject
1138 doesn't get along with his peers but it simply cannot tell you if he
can
"hear" amps. :-)

Agreed. But as I pointed out, "functions" and how they work within a
person a la Jung's insight, can help explain the complexity of how human's
process data. My tentative description of the "evaluative listening"
process describes my own approach (and I believe many others from the
audiophiles I know or have had discussions with) and I can relate it to the
Jungian functions. If I am at all right, this is no trivial matter when it
comes to test design and technique.

So a test has to be designed to compensate subjects? I agree; and the ABX
protocol and comparison presenation style were developed to maximize human
sensitivty to sonic differences.

For example, MB's own failing is that it was designed by an Intuitive, so it
is biased toward intuition and fails to clearly separate intuition as Jung
defined it and raw IQ. I was shown a "sensate" test that I use that is
non-verbal and non-logical that better separates out "intuition" as Jung
defined it.
This is relative how? Because the kind of comparative tests you espouse I
do believe are oriented to the thinking and sensate functions, rather than
the the feeling or intuitive functions. Which means they will work well for
things that are concrete and linear and therefore subject to left-brain
scrutiny...

.....such as acoustical and ONLY acoustical difference...OK so far....

simple one-dimensional volume and frequency deficiencies
certainly fall into these categories. The opposite functions...which I
believe are as important or more important for full multi-dimensional
absorbtion/perception of musical realism...being feeling and
intuition..require a different, more organic framework to emerge and
integrate. At least that's my theory and experience. An evaluative but
double-blind control test would resolve this issue once and for all.

And you say this hasn't been already implemented...????

Now Steven will tell me that I'm repeating myself, so I'll stop! :-)

Stop :-)

"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:tebUb.175174$sv6.929547@attbi_s52...
Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

The Myers-Briggs test, based on Jung's work, is the single most
studied,
tested, validated, and applied personality test in use. It is
extremely
predictive of many things, job placement/success and decision making
patterns among them. He is acknowledged as the father of modern
psychology,
as you probably know. Some of his work went "out of fashion" years
ago;
his
personality theory has never gone out of fashion. Indeed the concepts
of
thinking, feeling, intuitive, sensate, introverted, extroverted as
parts
of
personality laid the foundation for virtually all who have followed.
It
is
the Adlers and others who have fallen by the wayside; Jung's
personality
theory continues to be used as a reference point every day.

That may all be true but in my experience M/B has never been used by
any
large
industrial personnel management as a 'predictor' of job success.

It is used by huge numbers of firms, including the very largest, to help
match personality types to jobs to avoid as much as possible round pegs
in
square holes. Once you have round pegs in round holes, other factors
determine success or failure. But a round peg in a square hole has a
pretty
high chance of failure.

So you don't have specifics about success.I didn't think so.


And I'm
referring in specifc to perhaps the single largest corporation in the
country
prior to 1984 and, in specific, another with employees counts ranging
in
size
from 70,000 to perhaps 40,000 by the late 90s.


I once looked up how many books and thesis had been written validating MB
for specific job-related evaluative tasks; the result was in the
thousands

And ......???

Myers-Briggs was and I would guess still is frequently used in
personal/development work and I have found it to be quite useful
individually
to help understand my own working style but personal scores were never
gathered, distributed, used for decisions or tracked. I'm INTP by the
way
although the I/E is nearly 50/50.


I've also found it very useful as a personal development tool, as well as
a
team-building tool to a certain extent.

OK; but how does it relate to decision-making style to "hearing"
sensitivity?

Skinner's Positive Reinforcement was another very popular technique
used
in
business for managment training too. But like M/B it has nothing to do
with
sonic perception. There's no specific personality decision-style needed
to
score positive on an ABX test.


Absolutely, nor did *I* even remotely make a claim that there was.

So why are we talking about it now?

That said there can be protocol tactics that are useful for improving
efficiency. I've completed positive 20 trial tests in 5-6 minutes
simply
by
only comparing A and X and B and X on the first trial (with perhaps a
second
for verification) and then finishing the others by comparing X alone
between
successive trials.

For example if I decide that X is "B" then when moving to Trial 2 if X
"changes" then I know it's A.

But none of this "working/behavior" style has anything to do evaluating
audio
evaluation. IOW the Myer-Briggs may be able to help understand why
Subject
1138 doesn't get along with his peers but it simply cannot tell you if
he
can
"hear" amps. :-)

Agreed. But as I pointed out, "functions" and how they work within a
person a la Jung's insight, can help explain the complexity of how
human's
process data. My tentative description of the "evaluative listening"
process describes my own approach (and I believe many others from the
audiophiles I know or have had discussions with) and I can relate it to
the
Jungian functions. If I am at all right, this is no trivial matter when
it
comes to test design and technique.

So a test has to be designed to compensate subjects? I agree; and the ABX
protocol and comparison presenation style were developed to maximize human
sensitivty to sonic differences.

For example, MB's own failing is that it was designed by an Intuitive, so
it
is biased toward intuition and fails to clearly separate intuition as
Jung
defined it and raw IQ. I was shown a "sensate" test that I use that is
non-verbal and non-logical that better separates out "intuition" as Jung
defined it.
This is relative how? Because the kind of comparative tests you espouse
I
do believe are oriented to the thinking and sensate functions, rather
than
the the feeling or intuitive functions. Which means they will work well
for
things that are concrete and linear and therefore subject to left-brain
scrutiny...

....such as acoustical and ONLY acoustical difference...OK so far....

simple one-dimensional volume and frequency deficiencies
certainly fall into these categories. The opposite functions...which I
believe are as important or more important for full multi-dimensional
absorbtion/perception of musical realism...being feeling and
intuition..require a different, more organic framework to emerge and
integrate. At least that's my theory and experience. An evaluative but
double-blind control test would resolve this issue once and for all.

And you say this hasn't been already implemented...????

Now Steven will tell me that I'm repeating myself, so I'll stop! :-)

Stop :-)


I think you must have missed my post or at least the section where I
described how the Jungian modem probably effects the listening process, and
where conventional dbt testing may short circuit that process.

As for the control test, no it hasn't been implemented. Haven't you been
reading? Hint: if you read my post today about how I would do a blind
"experiential" and rigorous test; that is a description of the control test.
I have proposed it here before. And it is very close to the procedure used
by Oohashi to obtain subjective ratings in order to correlated with the
neurological testing he did.

Used as a control test, the same group of people would also be asked (at a
slightly different time, to prevent fatigue, and using the same music) to do
an open-ended evaluative test and record their ratings identically to the
blind test. They would also be asked to take (again at a slightly different
time but using the same music) your conventional dbt a-b test. Each test
would then be statistically analyzed. if the control test correlated most
strongly with your conventional test, it would validate it and DBT arguments
on RAHE would largely cease. Mine most certainly would. If however
unlikely (in your mind) the test correlated most closely with the sighted
evaluative test, results rigorously analyzed, it would suggest that the more
open-ended gestalt of such testing more than outweighed any sighted bias in
the test.

"Harry Lavo" wrote:

....snips.....

Nousaone Wrote:

But none of this "working/behavior" style has anything to do evaluating
audio
evaluation. IOW the Myer-Briggs may be able to help understand why
Subject
1138 doesn't get along with his peers but it simply cannot tell you if
he
can
"hear" amps. :-)

Agreed. But as I pointed out, "functions" and how they work within a
person a la Jung's insight, can help explain the complexity of how
human's
process data. My tentative description of the "evaluative listening"
process describes my own approach (and I believe many others from the
audiophiles I know or have had discussions with) and I can relate it to
the
Jungian functions. If I am at all right, this is no trivial matter when
it
comes to test design and technique.

But there's nothjng to suggest that your ideas are anything more than
conjecture in regard to listening decisions. But how have you verfified the
reliability of your decision-making proces? For open-testing of sound systems
(when used for autosound) the system I use (Listening Technology; numeric
rating of orthogonal performance attributes) has been challenges by clients on
more than one occasion when they send a car with the same system through more
than once without telling anyone.

One such case involved a car initially tested in Test-Mule form. When this
system came to production we tested it again and it performed substantially
worse than the prototype. The client then rescued the original Test-Mule and
describing it as different prototype for another as yet not introduced platform
had us evaluate it again.

Our score was the same as the first time (we quote tolerance of +/- 0.1 point
on a 5 point scale) and later with the production and prototype side by side
had to admit that 'something' had changed between beta and production but it
was NOT a function of scoring reliability.

Have you had anyone test you this way? How do you know that next year that
you'd give an identical evaluation of that system if it had been withheld from
your possession?

So a test has to be designed to compensate subjects? I agree; and the ABX
protocol and comparison presenation style were developed to maximize human
sensitivty to sonic differences.

Which is why I'd gladly do al my listening under blind conditions. I just
haven't found a way to do this with loudspeakers (it can be done and Harman
Intl does it at a cost of several hundred thousands, maybe even millions, of
dollars capital cost) in my home or autosound systems.

At one juncture I did participate in a nearly blind autosound comparison. Ford
has prepared 2 white Mustangs with competing supplier prototype speaker systems
in them but with no system identification on them. They then flew Ken Pohlmann
in from Florida and we each performed a sound evaluation on each car
separately.

For example, MB's own failing is that it was designed by an Intuitive, so
it
is biased toward intuition and fails to clearly separate intuition as
Jung
defined it and raw IQ. I was shown a "sensate" test that I use that is
non-verbal and non-logical that better separates out "intuition" as Jung
defined it.
This is relative how? Because the kind of comparative tests you espouse
I
do believe are oriented to the thinking and sensate functions, rather
than
the the feeling or intuitive functions. Which means they will work well
for
things that are concrete and linear and therefore subject to left-brain
scrutiny...

....such as acoustical and ONLY acoustical difference...OK so far....

simple one-dimensional volume and frequency deficiencies
certainly fall into these categories.

Loudness and frequency (as jj would say "partial loudness") may be intertwined
and each one definitely contributes to the acceptability/goodness of other
sound quality attributes. For example a convincing sense of envelopment is
partially dependent on ambience having a natural timbre. Imaging depends on
linear frequency delivery or instruments or voices may not have the proper size
even if placed appropriately.

Remeber the only thing we "hear" is loudness (or partial loudness differences)
and "when" the signal reaches the eardrum or the body (bone conduction.)
Physically our antennae are quite simple, just like the Directv dish on the
roof.

Interpretation is quite sophisticated, of course, but it ALL lies in the
interpretation of air molecules being displaced and reaching the body. And the
receiving device is ALL just 2 vibrating membranes and the surface of your
skin.

It's all quite simple. But as audio-interested humans we are tempted to
interpret our wonderful hearing mechanism with lots of myth. Some of it's just
reduction to the mean of logic, some of it's wishful thinking some of it is the
need to maintain mystery but lots of it is the need to ascribe human qualities
to things we love.

How often have you thought, said or heard someone say "my cat/dog thinks he/she
is a person" when the basic truth of the matter is that your cat is a cat and
never "thinks" about anything at all.They jusdt behave as pets do and we
lovingly apply human characteristics to their behavior because it makes US feel
better.

Sometimes we do the same thing with our inanimate stuff too. In the early days,
before I began controlled listening tests I "loved" my Heathkit AA-1640 (built
it myself, don-cha' know) because it always seemed to "know" when I was going
to do something stupid and the protective circuits would "save" me.

I still own that piece but I no longer think of it as having "intelligence." I
still "love" it but in a far more sophisticated and intellectual way. And even
subjectively I still "love" it because experiments I've conducted with it (and
other evidence) tells me that it's sound quality was such that NOBODY ever had
a better 'sounding' amplifier and I've never missed a single note of excellence
because my amplifier wasn't up to snuff.

But nostalgia doesn't prevent me from using a Crown Macro-Tech 5000 tor those
times when I need 5000 watts. And it doesn't prevent me from using a Bryston
4B-NRB to drive my custom subwoofer system in daily use because it happens to
have the operating characteristics needed for the application.

I realize that all of my equipment is appliance. That doesn't stop me from
having personal "resonance" with certain pieces but as a true professional
listener I must know the limiations of every piece and deploy same with the
idea of maximizing sonic excellence even WHEN a "loved" device is unsuitable.

IME you CAN have it both ways as long as you are willing to let evidence (and
not feelings) guide decisions about sound quality.


The opposite functions...which I
believe are as important or more important for full multi-dimensional
absorbtion/perception of musical realism...being feeling and
intuition..require a different, more organic framework to emerge and
integrate. At least that's my theory and experience.


I'd see that as your opinion; not experience or considered theory. Please
excuse me if I'm being to blunt here.

An evaluative but
double-blind control test would resolve this issue once and for all.

OK let's do this. I'm not sure where you live but I'd be willing to share a
reasonable amount of cost.

And you say this hasn't been already implemented...????

Now Steven will tell me that I'm repeating myself, so I'll stop! :-)

Stop :-)


I think you must have missed my post or at least the section where I
described how the Jungian modem probably effects the listening process, and
where conventional dbt testing may short circuit that process.

I've read all of it Harry. You simply have only argument on your side because
all the existing evidence points elsewhere.But, I'm willing to entertain an
experiment that would augment ot completely support your point AND to share
costs. Tell me when we should start.

As for the control test, no it hasn't been implemented. Haven't you been
reading? Hint: if you read my post today about how I would do a blind
"experiential" and rigorous test; that is a description of the control test.

OK when, how do we (you and I) start?

I have proposed it here before. And it is very close to the procedure used
by Oohashi to obtain subjective ratings in order to correlated with the
neurological testing he did.

I've proposed experiments any number of times but, perhaps not surprisingly,
few have had the fortiutude to participate.

Used as a control test, the same group of people would also be asked (at a
slightly different time, to prevent fatigue, and using the same music) to do
an open-ended evaluative test and record their ratings identically to the
blind test.

So this part would not be blind? Why not?

They would also be asked to take (again at a slightly different
time but using the same music) your conventional dbt a-b test. Each test
would then be statistically analyzed. if the control test correlated most
strongly with your conventional test, it would validate it and DBT arguments
on RAHE would largely cease.

Sohow would they be "correlated?" Would the 1st test be numerically or
otherwise 'scored' in some analyzable way?

Mine most certainly would.

How would you know this ahead of time? :-)

If however
unlikely (in your mind) the test correlated most closely with the sighted
evaluative test, results rigorously analyzed, it would suggest that the more
open-ended gestalt of such testing more than outweighed any sighted bias in
the test.

Again how are we going to 'score' each set for analysis? Is the ONLY difference
that the first set was "open" and the second "blind?" If that's true it's
certain that the "open" test would align perfectly with subject's intent.

BUT if subjects' had bias' that would be masked in the "blind" part what have
we shown? That people are subject to bias?

IMO both of the tests would have to be "blinded" in some way to prevent
pre-extant bias to be precluded.

It seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that you're describing a situation
where if a blind test didn't "correlate" to a "open" test (where it's entirely
possible for internal and normal human bias mechanisms to dominate) you'd say
that the bias-controls are not validted.

IOW IF the results don't support my pre-held bias then the test must be wrong.
Please help me if I'm missing something here.

I'm perfectly willing to conduct an experiment comparing the different
listening "styles" But I'm not sure what information would be gained if one
part was "open" and the other was not.

I have no difficulty with a hidden (next room or something) system for both.
But an "open" with no bias controls and a blind test will nearly always produce
"different" results simply because common human bias mechanisms are always
operating.

IF on the other hand you are proposing a twin-experiment where bias-controls
are employed in both cases .... let's GO. I'm thinking that one where all of
the electronics are obscured from sight would be fine. And a training session
where everything is visually or switchably available is needed as well.

Harry Lavo wrote:
Bob Marcus wrote:

I donÂ't think this test, as you envision it, is really possible to
perform
in the real world. You would need to run the same Â"evaluativeÂ" test
multiple
times on the same subject (at least twice--once sighted and once
blind--even
if you used multiple subjects). The problem is that his answers on the
first
trial would influence him in any subsequent trials. (i.e., heÂ'll be
looking
for the same set of characteristics he has already Â"heardÂ" once.)
And if
his
answers arenÂ't independent, any comparison of those answers would be
meaningless. So while I understand what youÂ're trying to get at, and
what
you hope to prove, you canÂ't get there from here.

No problem if the sighted, open-end test is done first...let's say with 16
trials if we are talking one person. I'd actually prefer 100 people doing
it once. Then three months later the test is done blind, again with 16
trials or preferably 100 people. Nobody would know or remember the exact
scores they gave on the evaluative criteria, and in the second blind test
they wouldn't know which was which so it would hardly be relevant if they
did.

This from a guy who complains that ABX is too complicated to do at home. :-)

You'd have to do a panel, and you'd have to separate sighted and blind
comparisons enough to erase any memory of the original scoring. (Though I'd
do the blind test first.)

You will also have a huge problem interpreting the results. What constitutes
a correct answer, if there are 10 questions times 100 subjects? Sure, if
everybody agrees that Component A sounds warmer, brighter, etc. than
Component B in both tests, then I'd agree that they all heard a difference.
But what if there aren't any statistically significant results, or very few?
I'd predict that a test like this would usually produce a null result even
if you were comparing speakers. (Remember: one of Oohashi's criteria was
preference. People can hear a difference and disagree about
preference--and/or any other criteria you choose to ask them about.)

There are a host of interpretation questions. (Are all of the test criteria
independent, and if not, how does that affect our interpretation of the
results?) In short, this is a very, very bad test for difference. It will
produce many false negatives.

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.

Well, no, I donÂ't have to acknowledge any such thing. There is no
possibility that you have a point, because there is absolutely no
support
for any of your conjectures anywhere in the voluminous research on human
hearing perception. If you can find such support, I will then be
prepared
to
concede that you may have a point. Also, if you can provide any direct
evidence for any of your conjectures, I will concede that you may have a
point. But IÂ'm not holding my breath, on either score.

Somebody always has to be first! :-)

A fair amount of science was first postulated by "crazies". May be crazy,
may be. Or may however remotely possibly be right.

Yes, but the burden of proof is always on the crazies.

But you don't have to think I am right. Enough people have raised similar
issues on this forum over the years...enough that anybody really seeking
the
truth should a least design a control test to knock down the objections.

Enough people have raised arguments in favor of Creationism on all sorts of
forums that...see the problem? Just because a lot of people think something,
doesn't mean it's worthy of scientific exploration.

Science, of necessity, builds on itself, which is why I insist, before I
afford you the respect you think you deserve, that you provide *some*
evidence, or at least some empirical basis for considering your hypothesis
plausible. (IOW, do your own friggin' test.)

Why do you suppose Oohashi choose that particular form of testing,

Maybe out of desperation. The standard approach failed him, so he flailed
around until he found one that gave him the results he wanted, even if it
was just a statistical fluke.

and why
do you suppose he found statistical correlation where conventional theory
suggested it shouldn't exist?

Who knows? And given how nearly impossible he has made it to confirm his
results, who cares? His results are utterly irrelevant to high-end audio,
anyway.

Does not a better listening test technique
suggest itself as a possibility?

Not really. Oohashi admits that his subjects are not *hearing* whatever is
in that HF noise he's playing. I don't think he'd even classify what he did
as a listening test.

Oohashi himself makes reference to earlier
tests that showed no difference using conventional techniques; that is why
his group set the listening test up the way they did, because they
suspected
that might be one of the factors getting in the way. And the results don't
dispute the possibility that he was right.

Actually, we haven't seen his *results.* We've only seen his statistical
interpretation of his results. And his statistical interpretation has a few
big holes, as I noted above.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
There are now three new levels of MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! Learn more.
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&...tmail/es2&ST=1