Ref: relative merits of Long term listening tests...

After noting the long thread here on this issue, it is
apparent that is a general feeling that a long term
process is a more definitive method of making a
decision regarding a system and its "long time
wearing" qualities.

As I have noted in the past, we all have to contend
with the variables of our "ear-mind" process and its
input to some type of "decision" process...which is
somewhat fickled also (with its own variables based
on bias, education, etc.)

With all the variables that the above statements
have addressed...we all have these issues to contend
with..we arrive at these conclusions at a different
"time-rate"...therefore, each will be somewhat
different in deciding "yea" or "nay" on a given
audio issue.

As I have stated before, the following process will
probably get you a system that is, perhaps, better
for you at a given time:

Sit down in the comfort of your Audio space and listen
in that favored spot and decide if a given system is
right to your "audio psyche"...if so, go with it! Be happy,
enjoy it. If things change later, then so be it...change
to something better. Enjoy the whole process.

If it takes two weeks or a month..so be it! You are
satisfying your own variables...not someone that
presumes to know what you like...for those that have
an "agenda" or an "evangelistic fervor" you might well
accord them a "knowing smile" and go about your
business of selecting a system according to your
taste! Enjoy your decisions...I, and probably most
on this Newsgroup, will be happy for you! Tell us
what you were striving for and what you ended up
with...how it sounds. That is what this Newsgroup
can evolve into, as it should! Enjoy the music and
your system!

Leonard...

Almost everybody is misinterpreting the intent of the original post on
this subject. The question was (for example) if comparing two cables
should be done quickly or a day apart. We are only trying here to
determine IF there is a difference not make a purchasing decision. A
difference between two days would not be as meaningful as a difference a
few minutes apart.


-MIKE

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 02:52:42 +0000, ---MIKE--- wrote:

Almost everybody is misinterpreting the intent of the original post on
this subject. The question was (for example) if comparing two cables
should be done quickly or a day apart. We are only trying here to
determine IF there is a difference not make a purchasing decision. A
difference between two days would not be as meaningful as a difference a
few minutes apart.


-MIKE
__________________________________________________ _______

Mike...

Perhaps, it was not misinterpreted...if one follows the next logical
step, the question arises about several hours vs a week and on
it goes. The next logical progression is how this applies to a
purchase.

Mind you, there are "agendas" out here that dictate that
there be a very short time needed to arrive at a conclusion
on this matter. If one takes a week or a month...this is
just not within the framework of the "agenda". Therefore,
the picture must be painted that only "short-time" analysis
is needed. I merely pointed out that many people do take
longer times to make any decision on any audio characteristic.

Also, there is nothing unusual about this and is perfectly
acceptable within your own personal Audio domain. Note
also, that the usual purpose of sorting out differences is
related to purchasing decisions.

In the cable example, I have tended to switch cables
and stick with the newer cable and then within a few
hours or a day or two..switch back and see what my
general feeling was.

One can detect a difference with a short-term switch,
however, not much analysis can be made as to
whether it is an improvement or just "different".

So perhaps the post has expanded into something
a bit more meaningful.

Anyway, good listening..

Leonard....

"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
Almost everybody is misinterpreting the intent of the original post on
this subject. The question was (for example) if comparing two cables
should be done quickly or a day apart. We are only trying here to
determine IF there is a difference not make a purchasing decision. A
difference between two days would not be as meaningful as a difference a
few minutes apart.

surely both differences are as valid as each other.
The only problem between accurately perceiving and defining these
differences is that, human short term memory is very un-reliable in
remembering the subtle differences and the long term memory grows accustomed
to things easly and will only notice a difference in the short term.
To spot and define (subjectivly) a difference I agree with Chung, it has to
be very quick swops on the same tracks ie using AB switching.

lcw999 wrote:

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 02:52:42 +0000, ---MIKE--- wrote:

Almost everybody is misinterpreting the intent of the original post on
this subject. The question was (for example) if comparing two cables
should be done quickly or a day apart. We are only trying here to
determine IF there is a difference not make a purchasing decision. A
difference between two days would not be as meaningful as a difference a
few minutes apart.


-MIKE
_________________________________________________ ________

Mike...

Perhaps, it was not misinterpreted...if one follows the next logical
step, the question arises about several hours vs a week and on
it goes. The next logical progression is how this applies to a
purchase.

Mind you, there are "agendas" out here that dictate that
there be a very short time needed to arrive at a conclusion
on this matter. If one takes a week or a month...this is
just not within the framework of the "agenda". Therefore,
the picture must be painted that only "short-time" analysis
is needed. I merely pointed out that many people do take
longer times to make any decision on any audio characteristic.

I'm guessing that I am considered to have an 'agenda' here. However, the
characteristics of audio gear do not cnahge with time and performance errors
will be present from time 0 with suitable program material. Also with any
sensory input differences will be most apparent when the stimuli are presented
as closely together as possible.

I'm guessing that the real agenda on this item rests with reviewing and
merchandising techniques which are expressly designed to allow factors other
than sound to influence purchase behavior.

The latter is needed because there are so many audio product categories
(amplifiers, media players. cabling) where performance has become a commodity
and merchandising has to rely on factors other than true sonic performance.
It's like laundry soap; a new color and a little perfume are coupled with "new,
improved, cleans you clothes better."

Also, there is nothing unusual about this and is perfectly
acceptable within your own personal Audio domain. Note
also, that the usual purpose of sorting out differences is
related to purchasing decisions.

In the cable example, I have tended to switch cables
and stick with the newer cable and then within a few
hours or a day or two..switch back and see what my
general feeling was.

One can detect a difference with a short-term switch,
however, not much analysis can be made as to
whether it is an improvement or just "different".

Notice how the underlying assumption here is that there is always a sonic
"difference" when in fact the cables, unless grossly deficient, in all
likelihood are sonically identical.


So perhaps the post has expanded into something
a bit more meaningful.

Anyway, good listening..

Leonard....

We should all remember that as humans, unless there is hearing damage, all have
audibility thresholds that fall within a narrow range.

While training is useful for establishing sound quality variables that may
include experience outside normal hearing experience (phantom images; hearing
'sound' from a place where no sound is being made) for example where normal
hearing is circumvented and for categorizing and describing sound quality
variables. And, gathering program materials that tax audio systems is very
useful.

But sound quality differences, like other sensory stimuli, will be MOST
apparent when the 2 stimuli are presented side by side. Widening the time
interval can only reduce true acoustical sensititivity, although it often
increases sensitivity to non-sonic factors.

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:47:26 +0000, Nousaine wrote:

lcw999 wrote:

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 02:52:42 +0000, ---MIKE--- wrote:

Almost everybody is misinterpreting the intent of the original post on
this subject. The question was (for example) if comparing two cables
should be done quickly or a day apart. We are only trying here to
determine IF there is a difference not make a purchasing decision. A
difference between two days would not be as meaningful as a difference
a few minutes apart.


-MIKE
________________________________________________ _________

Mike...

Perhaps, it was not misinterpreted...if one follows the next logical
step, the question arises about several hours vs a week and on it
goes. The next logical progression is how this applies to a purchase.

Mind you, there are "agendas" out here that dictate that there be a
very short time needed to arrive at a conclusion on this matter. If
one takes a week or a month...this is just not within the framework of
the "agenda". Therefore, the picture must be painted that only
"short-time" analysis is needed. I merely pointed out that many people
do take longer times to make any decision on any audio characteristic.

I'm guessing that I am considered to have an 'agenda' here. However, the
characteristics of audio gear do not cnahge with time and performance
errors will be present from time 0 with suitable program material. Also
with any sensory input differences will be most apparent when the
stimuli are presented as closely together as possible.

We differ here..with the quick switching only the most obvious
differences will be noted...the more subtle elements will generally
pass you by...thus, the long wait and trial scenario will bring this
to the surface.

I'm guessing that the real agenda on this item rests with reviewing and
merchandising techniques which are expressly designed to allow factors
other than sound to influence purchase behavior.

Again, bad ole vendors..presenting factors that the High-ender cannot
distinguish from fiction. I don't buy this...this horse has been
ridden to death. How does a selected few seem to see this, while the
mass of "unwashed" audiophiles cannot. This won't
float anymore. Another tact is required now..this was being floated
back in the middle 90's...mean ole vendors have been fooling us
all...enough already!!

The latter is needed because there are so many audio product categories
(amplifiers, media players. cabling) where performance has become a
commodity and merchandising has to rely on factors other than true sonic
performance. It's like laundry soap; a new color and a little perfume
are coupled with "new, improved, cleans you clothes better."

More of the same...as stated before, we all have been brought up
in this Capitalistic Society, with all its foibles and greed and we
are all familiar with the "new and improved" syndrome. Improvements do
come along in the Electronics world...we all see and hear them and
take the "hawking of the Ad world" for what it is...oversell and
excess..but, this should not cover up slow but sure improvement. If
one does not acknowledge that, then so be it...stay with the ole dated
but tried and true stuff! But, to come on this forum and consistently
imply that the majority here are insensitive to all this "hawking" and
are somewhat "dim" is a bit much!

Also, there is nothing unusual about this and is perfectly acceptable
within your own personal Audio domain. Note also, that the usual
purpose of sorting out differences is related to purchasing decisions.

In the cable example, I have tended to switch cables and stick with
the newer cable and then within a few hours or a day or two..switch
back and see what my general feeling was.

One can detect a difference with a short-term switch, however, not
much analysis can be made as to whether it is an improvement or just
"different".

Notice how the underlying assumption here is that there is always a
sonic "difference" when in fact the cables, unless grossly deficient, in
all likelihood are sonically identical.

Again, you are being directed your myriad of other statements made on
this issue. No such underlying assumption was drawn.. The issue came
down to certain cables having different characteristics,
but finding it difficult to determine just what the difference was
and accessing some type of value judgement to that factor.

It is obvious you do not think there are notable differences in
cables...it has been "redundantly" expressed in these Newsgroups for
years...over and over and over. We differ, case closed.

There is almost a humorous element to this absolute
necessity to "vent" ones anti-cable rage in every
post...it does get boring.


So perhaps the post has expanded into something a bit more meaningful.

Anyway, good listening..

Leonard....

We should all remember that as humans, unless there is hearing damage,
all have audibility thresholds that fall within a narrow range.

We differ..that range is not narrow..nor is the variations in frequency
deviations caused by the ear cavity, ear wax and a number of factors
having to do with the inability to detect the deviations. Chemical
variations in an individuals body has repercussions in the humans audio
interpretations. The implications that somehow we have this all figured
out is not parallel with the "real world". Deviations at large Plants
where these ear tests are given indicate a varied frequency range..
some based on Generations that had their ears pounded in their youth.
This is a bit more of a factor than you are aware of.

While training is useful for establishing sound quality variables that
may include experience outside normal hearing experience (phantom
images; hearing 'sound' from a place where no sound is being made) for
example where normal hearing is circumvented and for categorizing and
describing sound quality variables. And, gathering program materials
that tax audio systems is very useful.

But sound quality differences, like other sensory stimuli, will be MOST
apparent when the 2 stimuli are presented side by side. Widening the
time interval can only reduce true acoustical sensititivity, although it
often increases sensitivity to non-sonic factors.

A repeat of the above scenario...we differ...a quick switch scenario
only brings out the radical differences..none of those elements that
require extended listening are addressed here,i.e., ear fatigue
after an extended period of time.

What "non-sonic" factors are increased by exended listening?... and
if so...is that not exactly what occurs as you listen to your system
over a period of time?? Perhaps you are working on an "agenda"...some
structured listening method that cannot stand if extended listening
is introduced into the mix! Interesting!

On 25 Oct 2003 02:52:42 GMT, (---MIKE---)
wrote:

Almost everybody is misinterpreting the intent of the original post on
this subject. The question was (for example) if comparing two cables
should be done quickly or a day apart. We are only trying here to
determine IF there is a difference not make a purchasing decision. A
difference between two days would not be as meaningful as a difference a
few minutes apart.

Agreed. I did not see the task defined as such.

Kal

(Nousaine) wrote in message news:7Fymb.25715$Tr4.52592@attbi_s03...
lcw999 wrote:

But sound quality differences, like other sensory stimuli, will be MOST
apparent when the 2 stimuli are presented side by side. Widening the time
interval can only reduce true acoustical sensititivity, although it often
increases sensitivity to non-sonic factors.

This is exactly my experience. When I want to compare I
have the components *side by side*, whenever possible. One in the left
channel , one in the right. They are crosschanged randomly without my
knowledge from one side to the other but there is no time lag between
hearing one and then the other. The comparison is instantaneous
without any reduction in "true acoustical sensitivity".
Was that what you had in mind Mr. Nousaine?
Ludovic Mirabel

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 02:52:42 +0000, ---MIKE--- wrote:

Almost everybody is misinterpreting the intent of the original post on
this subject. The question was (for example) if comparing two cables
should be done quickly or a day apart. We are only trying here to
determine IF there is a difference not make a purchasing decision. A
difference between two days would not be as meaningful as a difference a
few minutes apart.


-MIKE
_________________________________________________ ________

Mike...

Perhaps, it was not misinterpreted...if one follows the next logical
step, the question arises about several hours vs a week and on
it goes. The next logical progression is how this applies to a
purchase.

Mind you, there are "agendas" out here that dictate that
there be a very short time needed to arrive at a conclusion
on this matter. If one takes a week or a month...this is
just not within the framework of the "agenda". Therefore,
the picture must be painted that only "short-time" analysis
is needed. I merely pointed out that many people do take
longer times to make any decision on any audio characteristic.

I'm guessing that I am considered to have an 'agenda' here. However, the
characteristics of audio gear do not cnahge with time and performance errors
will be present from time 0 with suitable program material. Also with any
sensory input differences will be most apparent when the stimuli are presented
as closely together as possible.

I'm guessing that the real agenda on this item rests with reviewing and
merchandising techniques which are expressly designed to allow factors other
than sound to influence purchase behavior.

The latter is needed because there are so many audio product categories
(amplifiers, media players. cabling) where performance has become a commodity
and merchandising has to rely on factors other than true sonic performance.
It's like laundry soap; a new color and a little perfume are coupled with "new,
improved, cleans you clothes better."